Is The Industry Overreacting to AT&T’s Carnival Commercial?

Recently, an AT&T commercial has caused quite a stir in the amusement industry.  The commercial, which I’ve embedded below, depicts a carnival operator loading guests into a scrambler-type ride.  The guest’s ask the operator whether the ride is safe and what will happen if something “bad” happens during the ride.  The operator’s answers –  “I assembled it myself last night … think I did an OK job,” and “We just move to the next town,” indicate an obviously apathetic attitude toward guest safety.  The tag line for this commercial – “just OK is not OK” – is given as the guest’s let themselves out of the ride.  This commercial is the latest in a string of ads for AT&T that poke fun at a number of industries and professions – doctors, car mechanics, tattoo artists – all to drive home the point that consumers should expect better than just “OK” and, of course, AT&T provides just that “better than OK” experience for its customers.  Check it out for yourself:

This ad has really rankled a large segment of the amusement industry.  Both the Outdoor Amusement Business Association and the International Association of Amusement Parks and Attractions have issued formal letters to AT&T protesting the ad's depiction of amusement ride safety and demanding the discontinuance of this commercial.  At least one carnival owner has posted a video protesting the commercial.  The tenor of these, and other, objections essentially boils down to the fact that the commercial portrays a carnival ride operator in ways that do not accurately represent safety in our industry.

On the other hand, there are those in the industry who argue that expressed outrage is misplaced. These folks argue that the commercial is obviously satirical, just like the similar ads targeting other professions, and that we, as an industry, should be able to take the joke.  Matt Heller and Josh Liebman even devoted an entire episode of their AttractionPros podcast to a detailed discussion of this issue after which, SPOILER ALERT, they both concluded that the commercial should not be pulled from the airwaves.  

So who is right?  Is the industry’s outrage over this commercial justified or are we being too sensitive about an obvious attempt at advertising humor?   I’ve really been thinking this over and, while I don’t think we should necessarily demand that the ad be withdrawn entirely, I do think that this ad is qualitatively different than the ads that came before it in a way that AT&T should consider as it rolls out additional spots in this ad campaign.

At the outset, I think it is worth noting what is actually GOOD about this ad.  The overall message, that “just OK is not OK" when it comes to ride safety should be viewed as a positive.  In fact, by total coincidence, a few weeks before this ad debuted, I actually used the AT&T car mechanic “just OK is not OK” commercial to kick off a class I was teaching at the iROC Ride Camp.  The point of the class was that ride operators certified under the International Ride Operator Certification program cannot be “just OK.”  And, to that extent, I think the message of the AT&T carnival commercial – and its predecessors – is spot on.

But there is a difference between this ad and the others that came before it.  Prior ads focused on professions about which the stereotype, to the extent there is one, is generally positive or, at least, neutral. Doctors are well trained and instill confidence.  A car mechanic actually knows how to fix brakes well.  Tattoo artists are just that – artists – who take pride in their creative expression.  The portrayal of a doctor proclaiming his uncertainty about performing surgery right after being reinstated, or a car mechanic who espouses the saying “If the brakes don’t stop you, something will,” or the tattoo artist who openly recognizes his mediocre skill, thus works against the public stereotype of these professions.  The humor comes from the fact that the person featured in the ad is the polar opposite of what anyone generally expects to encounter in those scenarios.  The contrast between the positive stereotype and the obviously substandard individual portrayed in the commercial drives home the point that, as consumers, we cannot accept “just OK.”  

But the AT&T carnival commercial is different because rather than contrasting a substandard example against a positive societal stereotype, the commercial feeds into a negative stereotype and furthers it. I’ve written, years ago, about the stereotype that our industry is full of “carnies” that are “toothless, uneducated, and frequently intoxicated ‘rednecks’ who have no concern for the safety of our guests.”  This stereotype is particularly strong when it comes to mobile operators.  Notwithstanding the fact that the mobile operators I know are uniformly dedicated to guest safety just as much as their fixed-site counterparts, the public stereotype is that these rides are not as safe and their operators are not as attentive. This commercial thus establishes its message not by contrasting reality with a ridiculous example of the opposite, but by capitalizing on an existing negative stereotype that our industry has worked hard, for decades, to overcome.  The message is not, “most doctors are of a very high caliber and thus you would never accept this example of a substandard doctor.”  Instead, it is, “this is what carnival ride operators are and you should demand better.”  That is what distinguishes the AT&T carnival commercial from its predecessors and that is why, to an extent, the industry has a legitimate gripe about the message this commercial sends.  

Even still, I have to agree with Matt and Josh (and others) that I don’t think the ad should be discontinued.  There are a couple of reasons for this.  First, I tend to think that the distinction I’m making here, while true, is one that is missed by the vast majority of the viewing public.  Most people will see this commercial as just another “Just OK is not OK” commercial without any positive or negative consideration of stereotype being reinforced.  Some may even see the positive message discussed above – that ride safety is serious business and no one would ever accept this kind of apathy toward it.  Second, I think that too much public protestation over this ad risks the industry appearing defensive about ride safety when we have no basis for such defensiveness.  As we all know, the industry is extraordinarily safe largely because of, not in spite of, the operators we employ.  The vast majority of our operators are responsible, well-trained, attentive, and truly care about our guest’s experience.  The numbers prove it.  The more we vociferously demand the removal of this ad, the more we risk unintentionally sending a message that it might have hit too close to home.  This is not to say that IAAPA or OABA should not have protested – they absolutely should have come to the defense of their members.  That is precisely why trade associations exist.  I just think continued protestations, beyond what is already out there, might actually undermine our message - a message we have every right to be extremely proud of.   

A Safer Ride? (Pt. 3) - Is State Amusement Regulation The Problem?

            The amusement season is quickly winding down as daily operation (for seasonal parks) comes to a close and schools go back into session.  Like schools, legislatures around the country will also be heading into session shortly and, given the tragic and unfortunate incidents in the amusement industry recently, it is likely that at least some of these – maybe even at the federal level – will consider new regulation of the industry.  As I’ve detailed before in my last two pieces, the siren song of federal regulation is almost impossible to ignore in the wake of an amusement ride-related death or serious injury.  But the only real reason to look seriously at replacing the current system with a new federal oversight program is if the states' regulatory programs are not working.  So, for my final piece in this series I thought it would make sense to look at the evidence, or lack thereof, that state regulation is failing. 

A Safer Ride? (Pt. 2) - What Would Federal Amusement Ride Regulation Cost & Do Regulators Even Want It?

            The question of federal oversight of amusement ride safety is one that comes up every summer in the wake of an unfortunate, sometimes tragic, incident in the industry.  But while many in politics and the media are quick to speak out in favor of federal ride safety oversight, this rhetoric is typically devoid of any detail.  What would a federal ride safety program look like?  What would it cost?  And does the agency that would be charged with administering it share the view that it would be a good idea?  In my last post, I made my case for why I just do not see the federal government being any better (and perhaps it would be worse) than the states when it comes to ride safety oversight.  But even setting that aside, it is important to think about the details here and consider whether this program might be not enough bang and too much buck. 

A Safer Ride? (Pt. 1): Is The Federal Government A Better Regulator Than The States?

To state the obvious (and to understate the matter significantly), this has been an extremely bad week in the amusement industry. The week began with news of the death of 10-year old Caleb Schwab at Schlitterbahn waterpark in Kansas City, Kansas.  Just days later, news broke of an accident at a carnival in Tennessee involving a Ferris wheel and resulting in injury and hospitalization to three guests.  And the week ended with news that a three-year old was thrown from a roller coaster at Idlewild amusement park in Pennsylvania.  As the public has learned more about these incidents, and especially the reportedly gruesome nature of Caleb’s death, the outcry for answers has been immediate and unmistakable.  The media, in particular, has repeatedly focused on the so-called “patchwork” of state regulations in the amusement industry and, more specifically, the fact that there is no federal regulatory body overseeing ride safety in the United States.  

None of these criticisms are particularly new – indeed they arise whenever a tragedy strikes our industry.  But this time, faced with the unbearably tragic death of a young boy at a family-friendly waterpark, these criticisms seem to have gained more traction in the public consciousness.  It is simply impossible to look at a picture of Caleb Schwab and to not feel the greatest empathy for his family and to not want to make changes to ensure that no other family has to ever go through this again.  It is easy to argue, as Jake Tapper recently did on CNN, that the system failed Caleb, and that the answer is federal oversight. 

But, even after this week, one of the worst I can remember in the nearly 25 years I’ve been involved in the industry, I still maintain that federal ride safety regulation is not the answer.  And I think it’s time, after all these years writing this blog, that I explain exactly why I feel that way.  As I’ve done with other important issues in the industry, I’m going to look at this in three parts:  In this piece, I’m going to look at the question of whether the federal government is somehow inherently “better” than the states at regulating.  The next piece will look at what a potential federal ride safety program might actually look like and, critically, how much it might cost U.S. taxpayers.  The third will look at the question of whether there is any actual evidence that state regulation is not working.  The media has made their case.  It’s time for me to make mine.

Interaction Reaction: The Impact of Interactivity On An Amusement Operator's Liability Exposure

A few days ago, I read an interesting article on LinkedIn about the

rise of interactivity in the attractions industry and something it said got my lawyer-brain thinking.  Here’s what it was:

Interactivity doesn’t stop with great-looking, immersive technology.  There is a still a need for pure physical interaction. 

“Pure physical interaction.”  As a fan of amusements, that phrase puts a grin on my face and starts the adrenaline pumping.  As a former operator, that phrase equals “repeat business” and additional revenue - something that the article emphasized.  But as a lawyer, that phrase made me pause for a minute and think about whether the rising popularity of interactivity could change the liability calculus for owners and operators of these attractions.  I thought that question deserved a closer look.

IAAPA Is Over, So What's Next? How Does A Couple Of Days In New Orleans In February Sound?

IAAPA 2014 in Orlando was a huge success!   From talking to my clients and peers that were there, I think all agree that the quality of the educational sessions and networking opportunities was, as usual, consistently fantastic.  But what now?  Well I have a suggestion.  How about a trip to New Orleans in the dead of winter?  Sound good?
 
Recently, the American Conference Institute reached out to me about being a media partner for an upcoming, and first of its kind, conference on Recreation, Leisure, and Amusement Park Compliance and Litigation.  Now, over the years, I've had a few whispers from various people about setting something like this up, but nothing that has either been backed by someone like ACI, who has A LOT of experience with quality business conferences on a variety of topics, or that I thought would be of interest to a broad swath of the industry.  Well, that's all about to change.

Massachusetts Bill Would Criminalize Enforcement of Amusement Ride Safety Requirements (Really ... It's True).

In Massachusetts, this sign could soon be illegal.

On May 16, 1999, a 37 year old man was ejected and injured while riding the Superman Ride of Steel roller coaster at Darien Lake.  "Park officials say that the passenger restraint system was working properly, and that the weight of the rider, which was in excess of 300 pounds, could have been a factor." 

On September 21, 2002, a 40 year old woman fell to her death at Knotts Berry Farm while riding the Perilous Plunge.  According to the coroner's report, "the woman weighed 292 pounds, had a 58-inch abdomen, and ... her hips were about 50 inches around." The seat belts on the ride only extended 50 inches.



On May 1, 2004, a man was ejected from Six Flag's New England's Superman roller coaster and killed.  Investigators found that a contributing factor to his death was that the "girth of the victim's lower torso was incompatible with the "T" bar restraint" on the ride."

And just a few weeks ago, on July 19, 2013, Rosy Esparza, a 52 year old woman, was ejected from the Texas Giant and fell to her death.  Her weight may have been a factor in her death.  While Six Flags has not released the findings of its investigation due to pending litigation, a statement issued by Six Flags on September 10 states that the ride was being reopened with modified restraints and a test seat at the entrance because "as with other rides in the park, guests with unique body shapes or sizes may not fit into the restraint system." 

Meet the man trying hard to make your next amusement ride more dangerous.

Weight clearly can be a problem on some amusement rides.  The fact is that rides are simply not designed to safely accommodate everyone of every size.  That's the reason manufacturers establish height requirements and, less frequently, weight requirements for amusement rides.  And while every operator has faced, on numerous occasions, the wrath of a parent who vociferously insists that his child be allowed to ride notwithstanding the height requirement or the guest that only JUUUUUUUST fits into the restraint but steadfastly insists on riding, whenever anyone is injured or killed a central theme in the inevitable ensuing lawsuit is that the operator should not have allowed the rider to board if the ride could not safely accommodate him.  But what if it was actually against the law for an operator to enforce height requirements?  What if it was actually a crime to turn someone away from a ride due to their weight?  Well, if State Representative Byron Rushing (D., Boston) has his way, that might soon be the case in the fine Commonwealth of Massachusetts. (Thanks to my colleague Paul Cavanaugh, of Daly Cavanaugh LLP for bringing this one to my attention!).   

Click "read more" for the rest of the story....

Special Report - Tragedy On The Texas Giant: A Call For Focus Amid Distraction

Its been a bad weekend for the amusement industry.  First, an incident on Friday evening at Cedar Point's Shoot the Rapids ride resulted in several minor injuries, with one guest treated and later released from a local hospital.  Luckily, all indications at this point in time are that this incident looked worse than it actually was.  Unfortunately, the same can not be said for the incident at Six Flags Over Texas, occurring just a couple of hours later, that tragically ended the life of Rosy Esparza after a fall from The Texas Giant roller coaster.  Understandably, these incidents, particularly the death of Ms. Esparza, have garnered a huge amount of attention from the local and national media, not to mention social media, over the last 36 hours.  That's to be expected when an event like this occurs.  Over the next few days, there will be a plethora of media reports, tweets, Facebook posts, and editorials opining about what happened in Texas, how it could have been prevented, and what is "wrong" with the amusement industry that such an event could occur.  In the midst of this maelstrom, I think it's important to keep some perspective and to keep a few things in mind so that the important work ahead of us can get done and get done right:

Planes, Trains, & Waterslides? Missouri Imposes Heightened Liability Standard On Amusement And Water Parks

The Missouri Court of Appeals this week issued a stunning decision in Chavez v. Cedar Fair L.P. holding that a water slide operator (or, in that case, a family raft ride operator) owes the same duty of care as a so-called “common carrier,” i.e. operators of mass transportation – airplanes, trains, ships, etc., to safeguard guest safety.  In so holding, Missouri has become the first state in the country to impose this heightened standard of liability on water park operators.  The Court’s analysis is fundamentally flawed both in its application to the allegations in this case and in providing guidance to future courts in future cases.  Even accepting the Court’s suspect legal analysis, the result ignores the plaintiff’s own allegations of liability – allegations which should have resulted in a lower standard of care than that which the Court imposed.  Moreover, and more importantly, the Court failed to undertake the case-by-case analysis the court claims is required to reach the result it did, thus sending the wrong message to future courts.  If permitted to stand, this decision will increase liability exposure to Missouri amusement operators (both water park and otherwise) and sets a dangerous precedent for amusement industry cases filed in other jurisdictions.  More on all of this after the jump.**

New Study Confirms That Children Are Safe On Amusement Rides (You Didn't Hear?)

So, did you hear about the new amusement ride safety report published today in the journal Clinical Pediatrics that actually demonstrates scientifically that amusement ride injuries to children under the age of 17 are exceptionally rare?  How about the scientific study that shows that amusement ride related injuries to this population dropped by an estimated 50% between 1991 and 2003?  Well, surely you must have seen the study, which received institutional review board approval at The Research Institute at Nationwide Children's Hospital, showing that, of those extremely few guests under the age of 17 that are injured on amusement rides, 97.8% are either treated and released or examined and released without treatment?  No?  You didn't see that either?  Yeah ... me neither.  But here's what I did see today:

A Response To Consumers Digest's Waterslide Safety Report (a belated Part 2): Federal Oversight Is No Answer

My last post was a response to a recent article in Consumers Digest magazine that suggested that waterpark injuries were on a sharp rise and that the best solution to solving that problem was implementing new federal regulation that would require reporting of waterpark injuries to federal authorities.  My initial response took on the factual underpinnings of this article, showing that even the very injury-data Consumers Digest relied upon failed to support the central thesis that waterparks were dangerous and becoming more so.  Now it’s time for the second issue raised both in the Consumers Digest piece and, more generally, in the media every time an unfortunate incident occurs:  Is federal regulation the answer?

A Response To Consumers Digest's Waterslide Safety Report (Part 1): The Numbers Don't Lie

A story was published today in Consumers Digest entitled “Waterparks:  Is Public Safety Going Down the Tubes” that paints an extremely unflattering and misleading picture of the safety of the waterpark industry as a whole.  Authored by Sara Bongiorni, the piece makes a number of disturbing assertions to suggest that injuries at waterparks in the United States are increasing at an alarming rate and that the best solution to countering this trend is federal regulation of the fixed site amusement industry.  The piece takes great issue with the so-called “patchwork” of state regulations governing the amusement industry and even goes so far as to portray the industry as expending hundreds of thousands of dollars per year specifically to avoid federal regulation.  I’ve seen other pieces like this – usually in the wake of a tragic accident at a park or carnival.  Rarely, though, have I seen a piece that goes to the extent that this piece does in mis-characterizing the facts and ignoring gaping holes in the logic and reasoning underlying its conclusions.  I thus feel compelled to address some of the more troubling aspects of Ms. Bongiorni’s piece.  The article though is rather lengthy, so I thought the best way to address it was in two parts.  Today, I’ll discuss the problems with Ms. Bongiorni’s injury statistics, and how they were manipulated to paint a far direr picture than exists in reality.  In Part 2, I’ll address her contention that federal regulation is the answer to all the industry’s problems.

He Said / She Said: A Conversation About The ADA’s Applicability To The Amusement Industry

A week or so ago, news broke of another ride-related ADA lawsuit alleging that a park’s disabled guest access policy is unlawfully discriminatory.  As those of you who read the blog or who know me can attest, I think these kinds of lawsuits are going to be more frequent and more important to our industry for a host of reasons, most of which are discussed below.  After hearing about this latest filing, I took the opportunity to run some thoughts through a fellow lawyer, Julie Mills, of Columbus, Ohio.  Julie has a mobility disability after a vehicle accident, and more than a decade of experience “living and lawyering” the barriers and accessibility portions of the ADA.  She authors a blog, The ADA:Titles II and III.  

Given her background and experience, I was very interested to get her take on the recent lawsuits and the ADA’s application to the amusement industry.  Our conversation raised some interesting issues that I thought would be worthwhile to share. 

Happy New Year From The California Supreme Court! A Home Run Ruling In Nalwa v. Cedar Fair

In the law, there aren’t many things that can rightfully be called a home run.  The vast majority of “big” decisions out there are not total wins for one side, but are judged to be “big” because, in the main, their result effects a shift in the law or undoes a prior bad result even while, in some modest measure, containing a small victory for the “loser.”  The recent Supreme Court Obama-care decision is a perfect illustration: the Court upheld the individual mandate (the big win for liberals all over the country) while making clear that the individual mandate is, in reality, a tax (a small victory for conservatives).  On New Year’s Eve, though, the California Supreme Court issued a rare home run opinion in Nalwa v. Cedar Fair – an opinion that eviscerates the prior poorly-reasoned decision of the California Court of Appeals and unambiguously establishes the right of amusement and recreation facilities to assert the primary assumption of the risk defense to avoid costly and uncertain trial practice.  Even more remarkable, although the decision was a 6-1 majority (a strong victory to be sure), the Court of Appeals reasoning – that California’s public policy precludes the applicability of the assumption of the risk doctrine to the recreation industry entirely – was unanimously rejected.  There is simply no way to view this decision as anything but a complete home run for both Cedar Fair and the amusement industry in general.

The Most Important Amusement Industry Lawsuit In Years May Have Just Been Filed In California

Do disabled guests have an absolute right to ride amusement rides under the Americans with Disabilities Act?  That's the question posed in what could be one of the most significant amusement-related lawsuits to be filed in years.  Assuming this suit does not settle, and this is the kind of suit that might not, the result of this lawsuit could have significant ramifications on our industry from both a liability perspective and a guest-service perspective.  It could affect the way rides are designed and manufactured.  It could affect operational protocols and procedures.  In short, I do not believe it is an understatement to say that this is a lawsuit that every member of our industry needs to watch.  It is one of the rare legal decisions that could equally impact the day-to-day operations of a small FEC and a huge multi-park resort.  It is potentially that big.

A Photo Is Worth A Thousand Words, But Then What?

A really cool video produced by Coke has been flying around the internet recently.  It's a good-natured spin on hidden camera stories that is supposed to demonstrate that bad things are not the only thing captured on hidden cameras. Hidden cameras are just as likely to catch all of us at our best as at our worst.  Its a pretty entertaining little video that admittedly makes you feel all warm and fuzzy.  If you haven't seen it yet, here it is.

 

My reaction to this video was two-fold.  First, I was pretty darned impressed and a little moved.  Assuming its genuine (and heck, even if its not), the video did a nice job at making me feel good about humanity - and  strangely I am suddenly thirsty for a Coke too.  But then the lawyer in me kicked in and I wondered:  What happened just before and after each of those little snippets?  How do we know that all of these heartwarming moments really were heartwarming moments?  While it's true that, today more than ever, someone is always watching.  And taping.  And posting.  Are they really getting the whole story?  I don't think so.