About Me

My photo
I am a consultant and general counsel to International Ride Training LLC as well as a practicing attorney in Avon, Connecticut. A particular focus of mine is the legal needs of the amusement and tourism industry. My focus on the amusement industry derives from my pre-law career as an operations manager with Cedar Fair Entertainment Company and Universal Orlando. Having started my career as a ride operator at Cedar Point in 1992, I progressed through the seasonal ranks and ultimately became the Manager of Ride Operations and Park Services at Worlds of Fun in Kansas City. I also worked in Universal's operations department during the construction and development of Islands of Adventure. Today, I am an active member of the New England Association of Amusement Parks & Attractions and the International Association of Amusement Parks & Attractions. I have been invited to speak at amusement industry meetings and seminars and have worked on a variety of matters relating to this industry.

Legal Disclaimer (because, you know, I'm a lawyer)

This Blog/Web Site is made available for educational purposes only as well as to give you general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice (or any legal advice). By using this blog site you understand that there is no attorney client relationship between you and the Blog/Web Site publisher and / or author nor can such a relationship be created by use of his Blog / Web Site. By using thisBlog / Web Site you understand that any statement on the blog site are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of Wiggin and Dana LLP or International Ride Training LLC. By using this blog site you understand that the Blog/Web Site is not affiliated with or approved by Wiggin and Dana LLP or International Ride Training LLC. The Blog/Web Site should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state or jurisdiction. This blog is not published for advertising or solicitation purposes. Regardless, the hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely upon advertisements.

Showing posts with label carnival. Show all posts
Showing posts with label carnival. Show all posts

Monday, April 22, 2019

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.   

Friday, September 6, 2013

In Favor Of Federal Amusement Oversight? Why Pennsylvania Proves It Won't Work

In the weeks following the tragic death of Rosy Esparza on the Texas Giant at Six Flags Over Texas, there has been a great deal of debate and scrutiny of amusement regulation, or lack thereof, at the state and federal level in United States.  One state, though, has emerged as the poster-child for "what's wrong with amusement regulation" in this country - Pennsylvania.  Research conducted by Pittsburgh-based PublicSource has revealed holes and systemic weaknesses in Pennsylvania's amusement industry oversight - holes and systemic weaknesses that should be fixed.  But beyond the obvious issues raised by the PublicSource investigation, I think the experience in Pennsylvania must be viewed as a microcosm for the problems that would certainly be encountered if federal oversight of the amusement industry were to become a reality.

Tuesday, April 17, 2012

Don't Forget: What We Do Matters ... A Lot.

Greeting everyone!  As you can see by my last post, its been a while since I've updated The Legal Roller Coaster.  My apologies to those who have noticed.  My last piece was posted February 8, and was written while I was on a plane to Portland, Oregon to try a very large case in Oregon State Court.  I returned to my home, my job, and my life about two and a half weeks ago.  Over the last two months or so, I have worked harder than I ever have before on a long and exhausting trial, didn't see my wife or kids for almost seven  weeks, flew to Phoenix to say my final farewell to my grandmother who had been sick for years and finally just couldn't go on any longer, and, just a few weeks later, went to DC to bury one of my best friends from law school who passed away incredibly suddenly at the age of only 35, leaving behind her husband and three children.  I also took some time to attend the New England Association of Amusement Parks and Attractions Annual Meeting and present a short seminar to those fine folks.  That's a lot to take on in the span of two months - particularly in the middle of a multi-million dollar trial.  And all of that, particularly the death of my friend, got me thinking hard about what I do, what I like to do, and why I am doing it.  So, for my first post back after a couple of months, I've decided to go in a somewhat uncharacteristic non-legal direction (and don't worry - this is probably a one-shot thing since I've got a lot of other things to talk about soon), and talk a little bit about why our industry is so important and why the work that we do really does matter to people.

Thursday, August 18, 2011

Curing The Crisis Of Credibility And Kicking The "Carnie" Connotation

 A few days ago, my friend and former colleague, Matt Heller, posted some interesting and spot-on thoughts on professionalism on his excellent leadership blog.  Matt makes the point that “the perception of safety is largely determined by what we see and experience,” and to support this point he attached this photo capture from a travel channel program on amusement parks, asking the question, “is this really how you want your facility portrayed on TV, or at all?”  

Matt’s point is very well taken.  Appearance and professionalism matter when it comes to the perception of safety. However, it doesn’t just stop at the perception of safety.  Rather, these same issues – appearance, cleanliness, and professionalism - also have a real impact on the perception of credibility – and this is a crucial issue to getting the best result possible in every form of legal proceeding.

Friday, July 1, 2011

Carnival prize as deadly weapon? The Missouri Court of Appeals Says Yes.

An interesting case from the Missouri Court of Appeals released earlier this week found that a carnival prize qualified as a "deadly weapon," specifically a "dagger," for purposes of Missouri's First-Degree Burglary law.  The case is State of Missouri v. Harrel, the opinion can be found here.  While most of us tend to think of carnival prizes as innocuous children's toys, in this case, the Court found it to be much more.  The Defendant, Lee Harrell, apparently took from his friend's home a replica "Sword of Narnia" that his friend's sons had won while visiting a local carnival.  Mr. Harrell then broke into a local church armed with the replica sword.