Be sure to read our Ultimate Consumerist Guide to Fighting Back, a go-to handbook for the dissatisfied consumer. Once you've decided to go the executive customer service right, be sure you read this first so you know what to say when you call the corporate avatar of your choice.

The Consumerist Executive Customer Service Index

ACS
Adelphia
Air Tran
Alamo
Alaska Airlines
Allegiant
Aloha
Amazon
America West
American Airlines
American Express
Amtrak
Apple
ATA
AT&T
AT&T Wireless
Bank of America
Barnes and Noble
Bell Canada
Best Buy
Blizzard
Blockbuster
Blogger
Bloomingdales
Blue Cross/Blue Shield
British Airways
Borders
Busey Bank
Buy.com
Cablevision
Charter Communications
Chase
Circuit City
Citibank
Comcast
Continental
cox
Delta
Direc-TV
Discover Card
Dish
Disney
Ebay
Enterprise
Equifax
Experian
Fedex
Frontier Airlines
Fry's
Gamefly
Geek Squad
Georgia Power
Helio
Home Depot
Humana
HSBC
IKEA
ING Direct
Insight
Keybank
Lenovo
Loew's
Macy's
Microsoft (and Xbox)
Midwest Airlines
Motorola
National City
Nicors
Northwest Airlines
Norton
Office Depot
Office Max
Orbitz
Paypal
Pitney Bowes
Qwest
RCN
Regions Bank
Register.com
Ryan Air
Samsung
Seagate
Sears
Sirius
Skybus
Sony Ericcson
Spirit Airlines
Sprint
Sports Authority
Staples
Symantec
T-mobile
Target
Time Warner Cable
TransUnion
Uhaul
United Airlines
United Health Care
UNUM Life Insurance
UPS
US Airways
US Cellular
Verizon landline/DSL/Fios
Verizon Wireless
Vonage
Wachovia
Walmart
Washington Mutual
Wells Fargo

In the event you can't find the info you are looking for here, you can scan our backlog of contact info, or use Google to uncover the addresses yourself. In the event you find something we don't have, feel free to share at tips@consumerist.com.

Researched by Alex Jarvis
Last updated: 11/07/2008

Here's the letter he sent to Disney describing what happened on his visit last month:

My name is Adam Roca, and I recently visited Blizzard Beach Water Park on August 14, 2008. On one of the rides, I became ejected from my tube and stuck on the ride. In addition, one of my legs became awkwardly stuck underneath me. In attempts to free my leg and move down the slide, I applied pressure on my other leg to free myself. My ankle turned sideways and I fell down the remainder of the ride.

At the bottom of the slide, I called to my girlfriend for help. She told the lifeguard we needed help, and was ignored. Being a trained lifeguard herself, my girlfriend got into the pool to help me away from the slide. She pulled me to the stairs, where she again demanded help. The lifeguard said she was phoning someone. After several minutes, she said that someone would be coming with a wheelchair to assist us.

In the meantime, people kept coming down the slide and haphazardly running into my leg. More time passed, and the lifeguard said the wheelchair had been moved, so we had to wait longer for someone to come and help.

In total, I waited more than 15 minutes, writhing in pain at the bottom of this water slide. Once the person came with the wheelchair, I was assured that the nurse at the on-site medical center would be able to assist me.

At the center, the nurse simply asked if I was able to bear weight on my ankle. When I replied that I was not able to, she handed me a brochure and said I could go there to get X-rays. I told her that I didn't have health insurance and this wasn't an ideal solution. She said it was up to me, and that they couldn't do anything else for me. I told her I was at least hoping for some ice and maybe some ibuprofen, and she complied.

We then drove straight to Sarasota Memorial Hospital, a place where we knew I would be treated regardless of insurance status. They took X-rays and informed me my ankle was broken. I was then referred to a orthopedic doctor and set up an appointment. Within the next business day or two (either 8/15 or 8/18 around 2 pm), I called Blizzard Beach and filed an injury report and issued a complaint against the staff at the park.

At the doctor's appointment, Dr. Klein confirmed I had broken my fibula, and in addition, I tore my ligament on the other side of my ankle. He said that I would need to get surgery to heal properly so that I could walk again. I had surgery on 8/22/08 at Sarasota Memorial Hospital, and I had a metal plate permanently screwed into my leg.

I have spoken to several lawyers since the accident. They seem fairly confident that at least a claim can be made to recuperate some of the money lost due to my ever-increasing medical expenses (at the moment, they total more than $13,000). Without medical insurance and living below the poverty level, I know this serious debt will mire my possibilities in the future.

I know Disney prides itself in providing entertainment for working families that's safe and memorable. I would very much like Disney's help in this time of need. I would particularly hope Disney would take responsibility for its loyal customers while they are on its very property.

Adam, we're actually surprised Disney didn't contact you to resolve this. If your letter doesn't get a response, check out our post on how to write an Executive Email Carpet Bomb, and look here for Disney email addresses.

Dear Disney,

My name is Jane [redacted]. On September 28th, 2007, my husband, Daniel, and I went to California Adventure on the 2nd day of our two-day Disney pass. Around 11 a.m. we rode the Maliboomer. After our ride was over, I got off the attraction, but Daniel stayed to ride again. While I waited on a bench, Daniel went to get back on and in the process fell and hit his head on the ground, knocking him unconscious and cutting his forehead open. Almost instantly, numerous park officials were at the ride helping him. The care he was given at the park was comprehensive and prompt, and for that we are appreciative. While waiting for the ambulance, he and I had a conversation with a very kind Disney nurse. We discussed the process of how Disney would handle this incident, and she said not to worry, that we should give the hospital Daniel’s health insurance information and Disney would reimburse the insurance company (United Health Care). In addition, she said Disney would send us two passes to the parks to make up for the day we missed due to the incident. I don’t remember her name, and I apologize for that, but I’m sure you can understand I was distraught. We went to Western Medical Center where Daniel was treated and released several hours later.

Several months later, we started receiving bills from the hospital and ambulance service for the co-pays and deductibles that Daniel’s insurance did not satisfy. Thinking what we were told about the billing to be the truth, we called the companies and advised them that they would receive payment from Disney. We kept receiving bills, so finally in February we were able to get in touch with Disney Guest Claims, and they advised us that the claim had been assigned to Mr. Garth Steever.

From February to August, we tried over and over to get in touch with Mr. Steever to have a complete conversation about Disney’s position on the incident. Mr. Steever would occasionally return a call or email and ask when a good time was to call us back to discuss. We would give him a date and time, but he would not call back. This finally came to a head last Friday (August 15th) when we were contacted by a collection agency. Daniel and I are both hard workers and have spent our entire lives building good credit, so to have our credit harmed by something that should have been settled almost a year ago is absolutely unacceptable. I left an urgent voicemail for Mr. Steever, and when I still had not heard back from him after several hours, I got in touch with his manager, Mr. Bob Weise. Mr. Weise apologized for Mr. Steever’s continuous lack of response and scheduled a teleconference for Mr. Steever, my husband, and myself for 1:00 p.m. EST on Tuesday, August 19th.

By the time Mr. Steever did call on the 19th it was almost 2 p.m. EST. He advised us that Disney investigated and decided that it was not liable for the incident, so they would not pay the lien the insurance company served them (which occurred on Feburary 20th, but coincidentally we heard nothing about until this phone conversation), and therefore could not make a good faith payment to us. He also explained that if the insurance company had not served a lien against Disney, then Disney would have more “flexibility” to pay the claim. We asked him if that meant that if Daniel didn’t have insurance that Disney would pay the claim, and he said “yes.”

Does this make sense to you? It doesn’t to us. Essentially, Disney is punishing us for being hard-working, conscientious people who have the foresight to protect ourselves by purchasing health insurance.

We asked how Disney determined that it was not liable, and Mr. Steever advised that he researched a state inspection of the ride (that was conducted a few days after the incident occurred) and also interviews with Disney employees. This was the first we heard about any of this, and when I told him that we would need copies of the state inspection and the employee interviews, he told me that we are not allowed to receive copies of the interviews because they are confidential Disney property. Once again, this does not make sense. We are not allowed access to documents concerning my husband and his injury?

When I asked Mr. Steever when they determined that Disney was not liable and therefore not willing to pay the claim, he advised it was “sometime in April.” Again, this conversation took place on August 19th, so that is a full four months that we were left in the dark about this. When I asked him why it took him so long to let us know, he said he was sorry, but he “dropped the ball.” I’m sure you will agree that any “dropped ball” that damages someone else’s credit is a pretty serious ball to drop. Is it standard Disney practice to wait four months to let an injured party know that their claim has been denied? Clearly we are infuriated. If we had not been told in the first place that Disney would pay the costs arising out of the incident, this never would have happened. But more importantly, if Mr. Steever had done his job and notified us promptly about Disney’s decision, our credit would not have been harmed.

Daniel and I are not out to gain financially from this. We want the bills paid and this situation to be rectified immediately as we were told it would be from the beginning. So we expect Disney to reimburse Daniel’s insurance company for what they have paid and to pay the deductible amounts that have been billed to us. A summary of the totals is below.

Billing Company | Amount Paid by Insurance | Amount Billed to Us

Pacific Shores Radiology Medical Group | $120.00 | $80.00
CARE Ambulance Service, Inc. | $379.20 | $344.80
JJ&R Emergency Medical Group of California, Inc. | $214.81 | $53.70
Western Medical Center Anaheim | $897.26 | $299.31
TOTAL | $1,611.27 | $777.81

In addition, we expect Disney to cooperate and provide any documentation we may need in order to repair our credit. Coincidentally, we never received those park passes we were promised, either.

I am copying this email to several companies that make customer service a priority. I can be reached any weekday after 4:30 p.m. EST and any time during the weekend at [redacted]. Thank you for your time, and I look forward to a quick and satisfactory resolution to this issue.

Sincerely,

Jane [redacted]

This email did just the trick and we got a call the next day. Disney advised they will pay all the bills AND give us the passes to Disney.

We got the idea from your website. Thanks so much!

It's easy to send an EECB like Jane and so many other Consumerist readers have to done, solving the seemingly irresolvable. Here's how to get started.

(Photo: sanctumsolitude)

andy.bird@disney.com, andrew.bird@disney.com, garth.steever@disney.com, bob.weise@disney.com, robert.weise@disney.com, alan.braverman@disney.com, ronald.iden@disney.com, ron.iden@disney.com, kevin.mayer@disney.com, christine.mccarthy@disney.com, zenia.mucha@disney.com, preston.padden@disney.com, dennis.shuler@disney.com, brent.woodford@disney.com, george.bodenheimer@disney.com, richard.cook@disney.com, dick.cook@disney.com, walter.liss@disney.com, andrew.mooney@disney.com, andy.mooney@disney.com, jay.rasulo@disney.com, james.rasulo@disney.com, anne.sweeney@disney.com, steve.wadsworth@disney.com, steven.wadsworth@disney.com, john.pepper@disney.com, robert.iger@disney.com, bob.iger@disney.com, thomas.staggs@disney.com, tom.staggs@disney.com, meg.crofton@disney.com, megan.crofton@disney.com, al.weiss@disney.com, roy.disney@disney.com, john.lasseter@disney.com, susan.arnold@disney.com, susan.arneld@disney.com, john.bryson@disney.com, john.chen@disney.com, judith.estrin@disney.com, steve.jobs@disney.com, steven.jobs@disney.com, fred.langhammer@disney.com, aylwin.lewis@disney.com, monica.lozano@disney.com

(Photo: highdef)

From the Daily Mail:

Mrs Ralph, 57, a civil servant, said: 'I bought the packet of five multi-coloured knickers. Because they are in a packet, you can't see the writing "Dive In" on them.

'I was extremely shocked when I saw what was on them and I don't believe Disney or anyone else is so stupid not to realise the implications of the wording they chose.

'You let your children watch all these programmes, which are innocent and nice.

'But the merchandising that runs alongside them is the complete opposite. It's sexually suggestive, inappropriate and wholeheartedly wrong in some cases.

Disney has issued the following statement:

"Unfortunately, an oversight was made and the text on the underwear was used out context,” Disney said in a statement. “This product will not be part of any forthcoming collections and the remaining product has been removed from shelves.”

That's probably for the best.

Outrage at High School Musical knickers for young girls emblazoned with the words 'Dive In' [Daily Mail]

Disney says no to ‘Musical’ panties [Reuters via Fark]

• Kohl's: 80-90% Clearance Sale
• Disney Outlet: Kid's costumes up to 80% off, plus extra 20% off code
• Amazon: Dr. Martens Men's 1914 Cherry Red Size 14 Boots $38

• Tiger Direct: UTStarcom GSM708 Unlocked GSM Phone $20
• Butterfly Photo: Canon Rebel XSi 12MP DSLR & Lens $790 Shipped
• Expedia: Save 30% off Hotels, Cars, Cruises & Other Travel

WARNING: This product contains a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer, or birth defects or other reproductive harm.

Perhaps this is why the lamp is on clearance?

Why does this seem like the beginning of a not-so-good horror movie? Oh my gosh, it's just like when the Brady Bunch went to Hawaii and they found that tiki thing and it gave them bad luck...

What do you think of warning labels like this? Would you risk purchasing the cancer lamp?

Mikey Tiki [Disney Outlet]

From Slate:

Reading McTeague's comment over coffee yesterday morning, I couldn't help but think of an advertisement I'd seen a few months ago while on a reporting trip to China. I was walking from my Beijing bed-and-breakfast to a nearby subway station when I was stopped in my tracks by a billboard that made the controversial 1990s Calvin Klein underwear ads look artistic by comparison. Staring down at the throngs of shoppers on Beijing's Xinjiekou Nandajie Avenue, a busy commercial thoroughfare about a mile west of the Forbidden City, was a white girl who looked all of 12, reclining in a matching bra-and-panties set adorned with Disney's signature mouse-ear design. In a particularly creepy detail, the pigtailed child was playing with a pair of Minnie Mouse hand puppets. In the upper left-hand corner was the familiar script of the Disney logo.

Not believing my eyes, and on an assignment that touched on images of Westerners in the Chinese consumer's imagination, I snapped a photo:

After reading of the Cyrus flap, I e-mailed my photo to Disney's McTeague. I was curious: How did the company square its position on the Liebowitz photo with its risqué billboard in China?

McTeague passed on commenting and forwarded the image to Gary Foster, a spokesman for Disney's consumer-products division. He called me from a business trip (to China) to disavow the ad. "It has caught us totally by surprise," Foster told me by phone from Guangzhou. He explained that Disney contracts with a host of licensees, who produce and market products for the Disney brand. Foster said that licensees are contractually bound to clear all advertising with Disney's corporate offices. "We have literally hundreds of licensees making our products. They are supposed to submit any kind of imagery to us before it is used, but it's hard to enforce that sometimes," he said.

Mickey Mouse Operation [Slate]
(Photo: Daniel Brook )

Summer Blu-ray Offer (postmarked by 10/31/07)
P.O. BOX 410338
El Paso, TX 88541-0338

Holiday Blu-ray Offer (postmarked by 2/28/08)
P.O. BOX 410260
El Paso, TX 88541-0260

One reader reports that he submitted his rebate paperwork during the holidays and still hasn't heard anything. Another says he postmarked his February 29, and received it a few days later with a note that the P.O. Box had been closed. Another recently wrote in to say he still hasn't heard anything from the summer promotion (the postmark deadline for that was October 31).
Here's what we know. The number for the rebate's support line (which most readers say hasn't been very helpful) is 800-598-9671. A WHOIS search for the rebate site shows that Disney is the owner of the site, and one reader spoke to a CSR who suggested mailing a copy of everything to Buena Vista Home Entertainment, PO Box 72699, Rockford, MN 55572. Maybe it's time to EECB of call the CEO of Disney.
UPDATEReader Isaac writes in to let us know that although "Buena Vista Home Entertainment is a stain" and sent him The Corpse Bride because they ran out of The Italian Job, he complained to Costco, where he bought his Blu-Ray Disc Player (in this case, a PS3), and Costco sent him a copy of the movie he wanted, despite having really nothing to do with the rebate. Kudos to Costco, boo to Buena Vista Home Entertainment.

(Photo: highdef)

Back at the Wilderness Lodge resort, executive housekeeper Drew Weaver realized that trash from the Campanales' villa hadn't reached the industrial-size compactor yet. He and seven other volunteers donned protective clothing, emptied a parking lot bin and waded through bag after bag of rubbish to find the rings. And they did.
 
"That's not the first time we've gone through trash — oh, no," Weaver said. "We don't always find things. Many times we come up empty. But we didn't this time."

In 2007, 17,181,210 items were recalled for lead contamination alone.

Here's a full list of all the lead related recalls for 2007. Be sure none of this junk is in your home. You have a few spare hours to go through all of this, right?

Enjoy.

AAFES Recalls "Soldier Bear" Toys (December 19, 2007)

Discount School Supply Measuring Chart (December 19, 2007)

Children's Toys Recalled by Dollar Tree Stores  (December 13, 2007)

Codee International Corp. Children's Jewelry (December 13, 2007)

Fishing Games Sold at Grocery Stores (December 12, 2007)

United Scientific Horseshoe Magnets  (December 12, 2007)

Children's Sunglasses by FGX International (December 7, 2007)

The Home Depot Holiday Figurines (December 6, 2007)

RC2 Potty Training Seats (December 6, 2007)

Bell Racing Collectible Mini Racing Helmets (December 5, 2007)

American Greetings Corp.Confetti Bursts (November 29, 2007)

Reeves International Inc. Holiday Ornaments (November 28, 2007)

Slipcovers Used With Boppy Pillows (November 21, 2007)

Children's Pencil Pouches by Raymond Geddes & Co.(November 21, 2007)

Children's Metal Jewelry by Buy-Rite (November 21, 2007)

Cherrydale Fundraising  Bracelets  (November 21, 2007)

Children's Metal Jewelry by Colossal Jewelry & Accessories (November 21, 2007)

La Femme NY Inc. Children's Necklace and Earring Sets (November 21, 2007)

Pure Allure Metal Jewelry Sold at Michaels Stores to Children (November 21, 2007)

Discount School Supply Paint Brushes (November 21, 2007)

Metal Jewelry Sold by Family Dollar Stores (November 21, 2007)

Hobby Lobby Stores Halloween-Themed Baskets (November 16, 2007)

Children's Sunglasses by Dollar General (November 8, 2007)

Curious George Plush Dolls By Marvel Toys (November 8, 2007)

Schylling Associates Collectable Toy Robot (November 7, 2007)

Schylling Associates Dizzy Ducks Music Box (November 7, 2007)

Spinning Top by Schylling Associates (November 7, 2007)

Schylling Associates Duck Family Collectable Toy (November 7, 2007)

Toy Cars by Dollar General  (November 7, 2007)

International Sourcing Ltd. Toy Dragster and Funny Car  (November 7, 2007)

Northern Tool & Equipment "Big Red" Wagons  (November 7, 2007)

Toy Figures  by Henry Gordy International (October 31, 2007)

Halloween "Ugly Teeth"  By Amscan Inc.  (October 31, 2007)

Pearl-like Bead Attachment Sold with Girl's Gift Sets; Sold exclusively at Limited Too Stores (November 1, 2007)

Toys "R" Us  Elite Operations Toys (October 31, 2007)

SimplyFun  Ribbit Board Games  (October 31, 2007)

Family Dollar Stores  Halloween Pails  (October 25, 2007)

DecoPac Inc. Football Bobble Head Cake Decorations  (October 25, 2007)

Jo-Ann Stores Children's Toy Garden Tools (October 25, 2007)

Fisher Price Go Diego Go Boat Toys  (October 25, 2007)

Dollar Tree Stores Inc. Children's Jewelry (October 25, 2007)

Children's Metal Jewelry By WeGlow International (October 25, 2007)

Albert's Halloween Skull Pails (October 17, 2007)

Antioch Publishing Bookmarks  (October 17, 2007)

Guidecraft Inc. Children's Puppet Theaters (October 17, 2007)

J.C. Penney Breyer Stirrup Ornaments (October 11, 2007)

Flaghouse Inc. Kidnastics Balance Beams (October 11, 2007)

J.C. Penney Deluxe Art Sets (October 11, 2007)

J.C. Penney  Disney™ Winnie-the-Pooh Play Sets (October 11, 2007)

Cracker Barrel Old Country Store®  Travel Art Sets  (October 11, 2007)

Bendable Dinosaur Toys by Kipp Brothers (October 11, 2007)

Riddell Collectible Mini Racing Helmets (October 11, 2007)

Kahoot Products Inc.  Cub Scouts Totem Badges  (October 9, 2007)

Sports Authority Aluminum Water Bottles (October 4, 2007)

Antioch Publishing Bookmarks and Journals (October 4, 2007)

Key Chains by Dollar General  (October 4, 2007)

CKI Children's Decorating Sets; Sold Exclusively at Toys "R" Us (October 4, 2007)

Dollar General Tumblers (October 4, 2007)

Eveready Battery Co. Toy Flashlights (October 4, 2007)

Baby Einstein Color Blocks  (October 4, 2007)

KB Toys Wooden Toys (October 4, 2007)

TOBY N.Y.C. Children's Metal Jewelry (September 26, 2007)

Children's Spinning Wheel-Metal Necklaces By Rhode Island Novelty (September 26, 2007)

Guidecraft Inc. Children�s Puppet Theaters (September 26, 2007)

Children's Toy Rakes Sold Exclusively at Jo-Ann Fabric and Craft Stores  (September 26, 2007)

RC2 Knights of the Sword Toys (September 26, 2007)

Target Children's Toy Gardening Tools and Chairs (September 26, 2007)

RC2 Corp. Thomas & Friends™ Wooden Railway Toys (September 26, 2007)

Fisher-Price Bongo Band Toys (September 4, 2007)

Fisher-Price Geo Trax Locomotive Toys (September 4, 2007)

Mattel Various Barbie® Accessory Toys (September 4, 2007)

Toys "R" Us Wooden Coloring Cases (August 30, 2007)

Children's Watering Cans Sold Exclusively at Jo-Ann Fabric and Craft Stores (August 28, 2007)

Martin Designs Inc. SpongeBob SquarePants™ Character Address Books and Journals (August 22, 2007)

Thomas and Friends, Curious George and Other Spinning Tops and Tin Pails By Schylling Associates (August 22, 2007)

Children's Charm Bracelets Sold by Buy-Rite  (August 22, 2007)

Children's Metal Jewelry by TOBY N.Y.C. (August 22, 2007)

Hampton Direct Magnetic Toy Train Sets (August 21, 2007)

Mattel  "Sarge" Die Cast Toy Cars  (August 14, 2007)

Fisher-Price  Licensed Character Toys  (August 2, 2007)

Children's Earrings Sold at Wal-Mart Stores in Florida  (July 17, 2007)

AAFES "Soldier Bear" Toy Sets  (July 18, 2007)

Children's Metal Jewelry by Future Industries  (July 5, 2007)

Children's Necklaces by GeoCentral  (June 19, 2007)

RC2 Corp. homas & Friends™ Wooden Railway Toys  (June 13, 2007)

Silver Stud Earrings Sold Exclusively at Kmart by Crimzon Rose Accessories  (June 12, 2007)

Children's Metal Jewelry Sold at Limited Too and Justice Stores by Tween Brands  (May 31, 2007)

Toy Drums by The Boyds Collection Ltd.  (May 30, 2007)

AAFES "Soldier Bear" Toy Sets  (May 23, 2007)

Troy-Bilt Children's Gardening Gloves (May 16, 2007)

Children's Rings By Cardinal Distributing (May 15, 2007)

Children's Metal Jewelry By Spandrel Sales and Marketing  (May 15, 2007)

Cardinal Distributing Children's Rings (May 2, 2007)

Target Anima Bamboo Collection Games  (May 2, 2007)

Oriental Trading Company Inc.Children's Necklaces (May 2, 2007)

900,000 Children's Necklaces and Charm Bracelets by Cardinal Distributing Co.(April 17, 2007)

Various Metal Key Chains by Dollar General  (April 3, 2007)

A&A Global Industries Children's Bracelets (April 3, 2007)

Regent Products Corp.Stuffed Ball Toys  (March 28, 2007)

Children's Mood Necklaces by Rhode Island Novelty (March 15, 2007)

Children's Necklaces Sold Exclusively at Claire's Stores (March 15, 2007)

Toys "R" Us "Elite Operations" Toy Sets (March 13, 2007)

Children's Necklaces Sold Exclusively at Accessories Palace (March 13, 2007)

Discount School Supply Children's Two-Sided Easels (March 7, 2007)

Children's Rings Sold at Big Lots! Stores (February 23, 2007)

Children's Jewelry Sold Exclusively at Kmart (February 23, 2007)

Samara Brothers Boys' Jackets (February 13, 2007)

Children's Bracelets by DM Merchandising  (February 7, 2007)

Children's Rings by Shalom International (February 7, 2007)

U.S. Toy Co.Children's Butterfly Necklaces (January 18, 2007)

Samara Brothers Children's Two-Piece Overall Sets (January 5, 2007)

Consumer Product Safety Commission

Not anymore. Nowadays the boats frequently bottom out, overloaded with extra flesh, says CalorieLab:

The Small World ride now must accommodate adults who frequently weigh north of 200 pounds, which it often cannot do. Increasingly, overweighted boats get to certain points in the ride and bottom out, becoming stuck in the flume.

The ride monitors attempt to leave empty seats on many boats to compensate for the hefty, but this routinely antagonizes the hundreds of paying customers waiting in line. When a boat does bottom out, a long line of other boats backs up behind it, their passengers slowly going mad from listening to the ride's theme song.

The ride monitors must then track down the stuck boat and attempt tactfully to help a rider or two to exit at one of the emergency platforms, which the riders in question do not always deal with graciously.

Small World ride revamped for bigger passengers [CalorieLab]
(Photo:cokeisit7)

The 49,000 playsets were imported and sold by J.C. Penney through their catalog and website. Consumers who purchased the lead tainted item can return it to any J.C. Penney store for a full refund.

Could this be the work of a heffalump?

J.C. Penney also recalled some art sets and ornaments also tainted with lead.

J.C. Penney Recalls Disney™ Winnie-the-Pooh Play Sets Due to Violation of Lead Paint Standard[CPSC]

The study concluded that the videos, when watched alone, were potentially harmful to the development of a child's vocabulary. (The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends no TV for children under 2.)

Disney's CEO, Robert A. Iger, then issued his own press release, demanding a retraction from the University of Washington, calling the University's press release "grossly unfair, extremely damaging, and, to be blunt, just plain wrong in every conceivable sense."

The President of the University of Washington, Mark A. Emmert, politely refused to retract the press release, responding (in still another press release), that the researchers did not feel that the press release was inconsistent with their findings.

Today, Kids II Inc., a company that licenses the name "Baby Einstein," (the brand Disney was so worried about protecting from the "grossly unfair" academics at the University of Washington), recalled some "Baby Einstein" blocks because the paint contained "excessive levels of lead."

We truly, and without one hint of sarcasm, can't wait to hear what Robert A. Iger has to say about this.

Kids II Recalls Baby Einstein Color Blocks Due to Violation of Lead Paint Standard [CPSC]

PREVIOUSLY: Walt Disney Demands Retraction From University of Washington Over Baby Einstein Video Press Release
University Of Washington Stands Up To Disney, Will Not Retract "Baby Einstein" Press Release
Disney, Toys 'R Us To Begin Random Testing Of Toys

Disney's service allowed parents to monitor their children's cellphone use as well as use GPS to locate said children.

Refunds will be available according to the Disney Mobile website:

In recognition of any inconvenience this may cause you, Disney Mobile will be providing a reimbursement program covering handsets as well as accessories and content purchased directly through Disney Mobile (please note: reimbursements will be processed upon final receipt of full payment and termination of your account). Complete details surrounding this reimbursement program will be communicated via this web site by October 8, 2007.

You will continue to be billed for service through December 31, 2007, unless you call Guest Services to terminate prior to that date. Disney Mobile will waive early termination fees provided your account is paid in full.

DisneyMobile

United Airlines, for example, has hired the senior customer service executive for the Disney Company to overhaul United's customer service experience.

Sadly, unless you're one of the 8% of frequent business travelers that make up 36% of United's profit, you might not see a big difference.

"The skills I used at Disney are transferable and similar," Higgins, an upbeat woman, said at San Francisco International Airport, which United is using as a test bed.

"We're moving huge volumes of guests, we're providing individualized service, we're providing individualized meet-and-greet in the airport," she said. "We can do that especially well with frequent fliers and provide a more intimate experience."

Putting passengers first [San Francisco Chronicle]
(Photo:abbynormy)

"The authors found a large and statistically significant reduction in vocabulary among infants age 8 to 16 months who viewed baby DVDs or videos, compared to those who did not view them. They also concluded that more research is needed to determine the reasons for this statistical association."

Here's the full letter:

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

Mark A. Emmert, President
August 16, 2007

Mr. Robert Iger
President and Chief Executive Officer
The Walt Disney Company
500 South Buena Vista Street
Burbank, CA 91521

Dear Mr. Iger:

Thank you for your letter of August 13. I have reviewed the news release about the paper published by three of our faculty in the Journal of Pediatrics entitled, "Associations between Media Viewing and Language Development in Children Under Age 2 Years." In addition, I have conferred with one of the paper's co-authors.

The Journal of Pediatrics is a prestigious, peer-reviewed journal. Papers submitted to this journal undergo a rigorous review by experts in the field before they are accepted for publication. This process ensures that the work represented in the paper meets the high standards of scientific inquiry required by the editors of the journal and its editorial panel of distinguished scientists. The University of Washington stands behind the work of Professors Frederick Zimmerman, Dimitri Christakis, and Andrew Meltzoff.

The paper set out to "test the association [italics added] of media exposure with language development in children under age 2 years." It did not purport to establish a causal relationship, as the authors explicitly state in the article. The authors found a large and statistically significant reduction in vocabulary among infants age 8 to 16 months who viewed baby DVDs or videos, compared to those who did not view them. They also concluded that more research is needed to determine the reasons for this statistical association.

The authors of the study and I believe the news release reflects the essential points made in the research publication. The news release clearly is not intended to substitute for a reading of the research paper, which was made available to all the reporters who contacted our news office. The news release briefly summarizes the methodology of the study and includes the researchers' interpretations of the findings, something in which most news media are interested and one of the reasons for issuing the release. The researchers find no inconsistencies between the content of the news release and their paper. They believe the release accurately reflects the paper's conclusions and their commentary. For these reasons, the University of Washington will not retract its news release.

We do not view this study as the last word on the subject of the influence baby DVDs have on child development. The findings were considered significant enough to be reported in a major journal, and as a public institution we feel duty-bound to make the public aware of these findings. As we say in the release, "more research is required, particularly to examine the long-term effects of baby DVDs and videos on children's cognitive development." We believe that our researchers at the University of Washington will continue to be in the forefront of this important research aimed at helping parents and society enhance the lives of children.

Sincerely yours,

Mark A. Emmert

UW President rejects Disney complaints [University of Washington]

PREVIOUSLY: Walt Disney Demands Retraction From University of Washington Over Baby Einstein Video Press Release
"Baby Einstein" Videos Probably Don't Work, Might Even Hurt

Disney writes:

August 13, 2007

Mark A. Emmert, Ph.D.
President
University of Washington
301 Gerberding Hall
Box 351230
Seattle, Washington 98195

Re: University of Washington Press Release Concerning Study on Children's Language Development and Media Viewing

Dear Dr. Emmert:

On behalf of The Walt Disney Company, and our subsidiary The Baby Einstein Company LLC, I write to demand the immediate retraction and clarification of a misleading, irresponsible and derogatory press statement issued by the University of Washington on Monday, August 6, and thereafter posted on the University's website, regarding the publication of a study by three University researchers entitled "Associations Between Media Viewing and Language Development in Children Under Age 2 Years."

At the outset, let me make clear that we have no quarrel with the notion of conducting research into how infants respond to media products in general or "Baby Einstein" videos in particular. We welcome well conceived and well executed research of all kinds, particularly involving media products and children. We are always seeking to improve our products as we continue The Walt Disney Company's proud tradition of providing wholesome and enriching experiences to children and families.

Nevertheless, one may well question whether the study by Professor Zimmerman, Dr. Christakis, and Professor Meltzoff was indeed well conceived and well executed. Our assessment, based on what we have been able to learn thus far, is that its methodology is doubtful, its data seem anomalous and the inferences it posits unreliable. To state just a few points:

The study combines very different content into a single category of "Baby Video", even though the types of videos lumped into this category vary widely. In effect, the study assumes that neither the specific content nor the manner in which it is consumed can influence the nature of the experience. The study does nothing to prove this proposition which is contradicted by other published studies of infant viewing (not even mentioned in the report) which find that the specific nature of content and the way it is consumed are vitally important.

Applying the same misleading standards that the press release used, the study could be said to advise parents to be sure that infants watch television — for the study finds that not watching television is associated with reduced vocabulary[1] — but to avoid having infants watch baby videos. That is to say, watching American Idol is better for infants than no television at all. Of course, such advice is absurd.

The study fails to account for, let alone assess, the interactive nature of products such as Baby Einstein, seemingly dismisses the importance of interactivity as a factor by assuming without proof that interaction is equally important regardless of content design, and then undermines even that unproven assumption by conceding that the study "cannot capture the quality of [parent-child] interactions, which surely vary."

While it is indisputable that children develop at different rates and differ in their innate abilities, there is no attempt to control for these differences which are particularly important in the sample of younger babies.

While the press release highlights that the study is based on a survey of 1008 parents of children aged 2 to 24 months, a closer examination shows that the study based its critical conclusions about the impact of baby videos on infants 8 to 16 months on a disturbingly smaller sample of just 384 children. Of this group, 44% watched no television of any kind, leaving a total of 215 infants with some television viewing — and with no indication whatsoever as to how many of this smaller number watch any baby videos at all.

Whether your University is comfortable associating its name with analysis of this quality is, of course, your decision. And I would not be reaching out to you if all that was at stake was a poorly done academic study. But the actions of the University have caused much more to be at stake. Wholly apart from the merits of the study, the press release issued by your University blatantly misrepresented what the study was about, distorted the actual findings and conclusions that the study purported to make, and ignored the study's own explicit acknowledgment of its limitations and shortcomings. And even worse, the University issued the release and triggered the fully foreseeable press cycle before the study itself could be analyzed. In short, the University's press release was grossly unfair, extremely damaging, and, to be blunt, just plain wrong in every conceivable sense.

The press release begins as follows:

"Despite marketing claims, parents who want to give their infants a boost in learning language probably should limit the amount of time they expose their children to DVD's and videos such as 'Baby Einstein' and 'Brainy Baby'. Rather than helping babies, the over-use of such productions actually may slow down infants eight to 16 months of age when it comes to acquiring vocabulary, according to a new study by researchers at the University of Washington and Seattle Children's Hospital Research Institute."

There are at least three fundamental problems with these statements.

1. Contrary to the clear and deliberate impression created by the press release, the researchers did not attempt or purport to study the effect of watching "Baby Einstein" videos. So far as we can tell from the published study itself, the researchers asked parents in telephone interviews only to identify their children's television viewing in broad categories — one of which was "Baby DVD's/videos" — without specifically identifying the particular videos or video brands they had viewed. Thus, there is no way to know how much — if any — of the viewing reported in this general category was in fact of "Baby Einstein" videos. The study made no pretense of studying the particular impact of "Baby Einstein" video watching, the unique attributes of "Baby Einstein" videos, or the ways in which children and parents use and interact with "Baby Einstein" videos. By lumping "Baby Einstein" videos with all other "Baby DVD's/videos" — including many, such as "Teletubbies," which offer a vastly different viewing experience — the study provides absolutely no basis for making any findings or conclusions about the particular impact that viewing "Baby Einstein" videos may have on children.[2] Yet, in the very first sentence of the release, "Baby Einstein" videos are called out by name.

2. Contrary to the clear implication in the first sentence of the press release, the study did not evaluate the truthfulness or, indeed, address at all any "marketing claims" made by or on behalf of "Baby Einstein" videos. The study does not even seek to identify such "claims" or to consider at all whether such unidentified "claims" might conflict with the study's findings in any fashion. There simply is no basis in the study for the press release's gratuitous slap at Baby Einstein's "marketing claims."

3. The press release bluntly states that "parents who want to give their infants a boost in learning language probably should limit the amount of time they expose their children to DVD's and videos such as "Baby Einstein." This is a very serious statement, one which has now been widely picked up in the press. It is also a statement that grossly misstates the study's extremely limited findings and conclusions. While the study hypothesizes that "it is possible that heavy viewing of baby DVDs/videos has a deleterious effect on early language development," the authors present this as only one of several possible alternative ways of evaluating the results; other alternatives do not involve this causal relationship. The authors go on to acknowledge, forthrightly, that "our study has several major limitations." These include, in the authors' own words:

"the study's co relational nature precludes drawing causal inferences."

"we used only 1 developmental measure — language development, as defined by vocabulary."

"the sample is not representative of the general population."

Indeed, in conclusion, the authors further acknowledge that,

"The analysis presented here is not a direct test of the developmental impact of viewing baby DVDs/videos. We did not test through experimental manipulation whether viewing baby DVDs/videos has a positive or negative impact on vocabulary acquisition."

For the University to issue a press release making reckless charges warning parents to avoid using Baby Einstein products, and post them on its website, in the face of these clear and explicit disclaimers is totally irresponsible.

There is no question that the press release is having a broad and entirely foreseeable impact. Assuming that a press release from a well respected University would fairly reflect the substance and conclusions of the underlying study, media outlets are widely citing the study as demonstrating that use of "Baby Einstein" videos harms infants. This disparaging assessment — directly provoked by your University's press release — is not supported by any credible study of which we are aware, let alone the flawed study on which the release was purportedly based.

The cloud cast by the University's actions is truly regrettable. We strongly believe that our "Baby Einstein" videos provide a positive experience for children and families, one which encourages parent-child interaction and provides children with enriching and stimulating images and sounds drawn from real life. Millions of parents who have shared and enjoyed "Baby Einstein" videos with their children agree.

The press release unfairly disparaged that product by grossly misrepresenting the focus and extremely limited findings and conclusions of the study your University has issued in its name and endorsed. I hope you agree that as a respected academic institution you cannot allow that situation to continue. We therefore demand that the University immediately issue a retraction of the press release, and delete the release from its website, while emphasizing at least the following points, all of which are clear from the study itself:

1. The study collected no specific data concerning — and conducted no specific evaluation of — the viewing of "Baby Einstein" videos or their specific impact on children, and therefore no valid conclusions can be drawn from the study about the impact of the "Baby Einstein" videos on language acquisition or any other developmental measure;

2. The very limited nature of the study precluded the drawing of any causal inferences.

We further ask that the retraction and clarification be disseminated as widely as the original press release.

I look forward to discussing this matter further with you on our scheduled call.

Sincerely,

Robert A. Iger

We dug up the study if you'd like to read it (PDF). The official conclusion of the study is as follows:

Parents should be urged to make educated choices about their children's media exposure. Parental hopes for the educational potential of television can be supported by encouraging those parents who are already allowing screen time to watch with their children.

For what it's worth: American Academy of Pediatrics recommends no television for children under 24 months.

Television and DVD/Video Viewing in Children Younger Than 2 Years (PDF) [University Of Washington]

PREVIOUSLY: "Baby Einstein" Videos Probably Don't Work, Might Even Hurt

From the LATimes:

For every hour a day that babies 8 to 16 months old were shown such popular series as "Brainy Baby" or "Baby Einstein," they knew six to eight fewer words than other children, the study found.

Parents aiming to put their babies on the fast track, even if they are still working on walking, each year buy hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of the videos.

Unfortunately it's all money down the tubes, according to Dr. Dimitri Christakis, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington in Seattle.

Christakis and his colleagues surveyed 1,000 parents in Washington and Minnesota and determined their babies' vocabularies using a set of 90 common baby words, including mommy, nose and choo-choo.

The researchers found that 32% of the babies were shown the videos, and 17% of those were shown them for more than an hour a day, according to the study in the Journal of Pediatrics.

The videos, which are designed to engage a baby's attention, hop from scene to scene with minimal dialogue and include mesmerizing images, like a lava lamp.

'Baby Einstein': a bright idea? [LA Times] (Thanks, James!)

The wine was to be sold exclusively at Costco. Where did the pressure to halt the wine's release come from? California winemakers, oddly enough. They were upset that Disney would be promoting a foreign product—a French wine.

Ratatouille is, of course, set in France. From the LA Times:

"The California Wine Institute has been relentless in trying to make this an issue" that it's a French wine, Foster said. "But the entire movie is based on a French restaurant and French food and wine."

The Institute, of course, denies that the problem was that the wine was French.

"We would have been just as upset if it were a California wine," said Nancy Light, an institute spokeswoman.

She said her group complained to Disney because the Ratatouille label, with Remy holding a rat-sized glass of wine, appeared to violate the spirit of the code of advertising standards that all institute members must follow. The code bans the use of any advertising that might appeal to people below the legal drinking age by using photos of very young models or cartoon characters, Light said.

"We were in touch with [Disney]. We basically shared the code with them," she said.

The wine seems designed to appeal to adults who like Disney movies rather than kids who like getting drunk, but what do we know?

In unrelated news, when we were writing this story our spell-checker inexplicably wanted to change the word "ratatouille" to Bouillabaisse. True story.

Disney backs out of wine promotion [LA Times]

We interpret this to mean that parents are wasting hard-earned money on awful DVDs. The last of the crappy sequels will be "The Little Mermaid III," and then, parents, your pocketbook is free of Ariel forever.

On the other hand, this could be bad news for the parents of children who like to play the same movie over and over again... Sorry!

Steve Jobs directs Disney [MacWorld]

Disney: "May I ask why you're canceling?"
Mike: "We don't use it any more"
Disney: "Ok, now I see that you're already 10 days into a month you've paid for."
Mike: "OK" I expect to pay for the month, even if I don't use it.
Disney: "I'll go ahead and credit back that month's payment to your cc"
Mike: "ok......"
Disney: "Thanks for calling"

Mike's full email, inside.

My kids are huge fans of Toontown, the online Disney MMOG. You know that on the Internet nobody knows you're a dog? Well, my 5 year old is a beta-tester on their test server, which kinda freaks when he's filling out bug reports on his own, but that's totally a different story.

We've got 4 different accounts with them, and inspired by the New Year, I decided to cancel the ones that I've been paying for, but the kids haven't been using. Kinda like AOL accounts.

I call them, and as a true Consumerist, I'm girding my loins preparing for an epic drama with me against the Mighty Mouse.

Retentionist vs Consumerist

Disclosure: I am an Operations Manager for a major Non-US Call Centre, both inbound and outbound, sales and customer service, so I know and expect every trick in the book. I even know the magic word "escalations", whoops, forget I said that.

On hold for 4 minutes, just time enough for KD Lang's song from "Home on the Range"

CSR comes on, Kim I think. Cheerful, and polite.
Takes my data.
Disney: "May I ask why you're canceling?"
Mike: "We don't use it any more"
Disney: "Ok, now I see that you're already 10 days into a month you've paid for."
Mike: "OK" I expect to pay for the month, even if I don't use it.
Disney: "I'll go ahead and credit back that month's payment to your cc"
Mike: "ok......"
Disney: "Thanks for calling"

WTF?

A refund without asking or begging. And one I didn't expect.

I love to go off on bad service more than most because of my job, but here's to your frozen head in jar Walt, that rocked.

Tigger says it was "self-defense," and has been suspended from his job. Mr. Monoco lodged an official complaint, but all he's looking for is an apology from Tigger.

"The general manager apologized to me," Monaco Sr. said. "Everybody will come up and apologize to me but Tigger. He won't be a man about it and get out of the costume and come out and apologize to my son. I didn't want VIP treatment. I didn't want an extra day at Disney. I didn't want any of that. I wanted him to apologize and that is the one thing that they won't do." —MEGHANN MARCO

Home Video Shows 'Tigger' Character Apparently Punching Boy's Face (with video!) [Local 6]

There are about 3,000 such toy chests out there. They were sold exclusively by Toys "R" Us. Naturally, if you have one of these suckers and you'd like junior to attend Harvard, you might want to take it away from him and bring it to any Toys "R" Us for your refund. — MEGHANN MARCO

"Cars" Toy Chests Sold at Toys "R" Us Recalled by Delta Enterprise Due to Lead Poisoning Hazard[CPSC.gov]

An age-old question finally gets answered: do the costume-wearing Mickeys, Minnies and Goofies at Disney theme parks let off some steam after work by humping each other in a sexy, furry orgy?

Well, at Disneyland Paris, they do, and Disney is none too thrilled about seeing Mickey on his knees, simulating fellatio on a scrotum-less snowman.

"The behavior shown on the video is unacceptable and inexcusable... The video was taken in the backstage area not accessible to guests. Appropriate action has been taken to deal with the cast members involved."

Thank god that Disney has disciplined the pedestrian dry humping of some of their employees behind closed doors. After all, think of the children.

Disney says "non" to Mouse orgy [Reuters]

Well, good news: Disney's now allowing the family to use the image. So that's that.

We know: a company overzealously protecting its own interests with a frank disregard for human compassion? Who cares? We really wouldn't report this story normally, but what makes it all so deliciously so morbid is the tombstone itself. Not only is it meant to feature Winnie the Pooh, but it's also to sport the epitaph "A bear of very little brain."

We can't even begin to parse that. How is that appropriate to the grave of a newborn infant? Was the still-born baby anacephalic or something?

Disnet lifts ban on Pooh gravestone [UPI]

That Disney brand portable DVD player you use to pacify a hyperventilating toddler on your next cross-country flight is the equivalent of handing him a frag grenade to play with.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission has ordered a recall of the product on the grounds that the battery can overheat, causing it to explode and the Toy Story DVD inside to transform into a shrapnel storm of molten metal shards, impaling eyeballs, slicing through sinew and decapitating noggins.

The recall was issued when the commission received 17 reports of batteries overheating with three reports of minor skin irritations and three reports of minor property damage.

The time bombs in question are the Princess, Mickey Mouse, Mickey Classic, Fairy Flowers and Power Rangers models. The perfect birthday gift for that obnoxious little twerp in your neighborhood!

Disney brand DVD players recalled [Yahoo News]