Paralyzed marine denied free entrance to Michigan's Adventure

Lord Gonchar said:
Sure, they made a bad assumption

Seems to me they felt entitled without actually thinking it through. And that's fine, I suppose. The problem started when they took their case to the newspaper.

It's kind of irritating to see another newspaper story where someone complains something didn't go their way. Newspapers and television news feed off this stuff. It's as if they're saying, OK, there are facts involved, but the emotions supersede them. Not that injustice stories are always like that, but I wonder how many phone calls reporters get a day from people who complain, "life's not fair," or, "I'm entitled." If you have a disagreement with a company, that's between you and the company. Taking it to the media is pretty shady (though, Sarah Palin would be proud :) ).

Yes, this was a one-time example. But I don't think it's hard to imagine a one-time situation becoming a reputation. After that, it's easy for expectations and assumptions to start compounding.

Is there nothing at Michigan's Adventure other than rides? I wonder if the family thought that anyone who isn't able to ride gets free admission. Or, perhaps, did they think that because this involved a veteran, there were special rules? Curious ...

Gemini said:

The problem started when they took their case to the newspaper.

I'll give you that.

Yes, this was a one-time example. But I don't think it's hard to imagine a one-time situation becoming a reputation. After that, it's easy for expectations and assumptions to start compounding.

Like I said in response to Eric - this story wouldn't have gone anywhere without the denial of admission. There wouldn't have been this magical parade of people expecting free entry. The problem would never have manifested.

If anything, it will be now that everyone knows the story and outcome. (bitch and get comped)

In the age of the YouTube video, you don't need a newspaper story for people to find out about something. Perhaps it wouldn't be a swarm of people the next day, but I think it only gets worse over time. It's fairly easy for me to connect a one-time incident to a reputation, without a article in a local paper.

And "bitch and get comped" has been entrenched in our culture for a long time. :)

So you really think an quadriplegic, mute veteran being allowed admission would turn into a problem with people expecting free entry?

I just can't see any reason the story goes anywhere if the park does as I said earlier:

"There's no reason they couldn't have taken him inside the gate, paged his family, explained the circumstances and let him in for a little bit with the understanding that this isn't how it works and leave the family aware in the future."

Why would it go any further than that?

I still say Gonch handled the siutuation exactly as I would hope "my" employees would handle it....without me having to get involved. I understand what Jeff is sayng about it being a small park, but really, does the GM need to be that involved over a simple "comp the ticket but explain the rules" scenario? Seems like the GM would theoretically have more pressing matters to attend to...until the media was involved... ;)

And yet a fresh podcast is still 4 days away...sigh....

Seems like everyone wants to make this black and white.

Very few things are in life and nothing in customer service is. A hard set of rules that define yes and no goes agsinst the very definition of good customer service in my mind.

If you're looking at a handbook or set of rules to tell you how to handle any situation with a guest - you've lost the battle already.

EDIT - I just want to reiterate...

I believe there was fault on both sides. This isn't a free pass for the veteran. They created an awkward situation and the park handled it poorly.

The problem really is the fact that there are few people who refuse to respect the park's rights to establish policy and enforce it.

I see your logic and I don't have a problem with the park offering free admission if they choose to do so. However, it doesn't exempt you from criticism or media attacks like this. Your free admission policy is again going to have rules to qualify and there will be someone out there who takes exception with the policy.

The park is not the bad guy and they're not deserving of the criticism since they're simply trying to operate within their established policies.

Does the same logic for this marine apply every where else he goes? Does his family expect free groceries when they grocery shop? What about the movies? It's a never ending cycle when you think about it.

^To finish up your thought, does he get a free cell phone to talk on since he is mute? I know Im horrible

I generally agree, Eric. But there was such negativity towards the guy in the responses here that I had to play the other side...and I stand by what I said.

I'm the one who thought CF really had no obligation to honor the reading vouchers that SF gave out at GL when they bought it. (lots of threads on that story - I chose to link to the follow-up)

Me and CF don't see eye-to-eye on handling 'sitch-ee-ay-shuns' when they arise. ;)

Gonch. Like veterans. Hates kids who read.

Probably wouldn't get me elected, huh?

Hmmph, they should have just gone to Knoebels.

Lord Gonchar said:
So you really think an quadriplegic, mute veteran being allowed admission would turn into a problem with people expecting free entry?

Not at all. But this case isn't inside a vacuum. Is this the only time they're going to face a decision where they need to make an exception? Without guidelines, I think it can become messy.

It does sound like the park could have handled it better, but I don't think they share any fault.

I do agree, as a general principle, that workers should be empowered to make decisions. That does seem to be a problem at Cedar Fair.

Lord Gonchar said:Gonch. Like veterans. Hates kids who read.Probably wouldn't get me elected, huh?

Actually, given our military presence all over the globe and the sitch-ee-ay-shun in our schools, I'd say your positions on these two issues makes you eminently electable... ;)

Did you see the comments on the news article? Calling the GM of Michigan's Adventure a "bitch" is taking it way too far. At least this discussion has been civil.

^Well we have moderators that will not allow things to get too out of hand and uncivilized. The news/media likes the frenzy that something like this can stir up, even if it resorts in nothing more than childish name calling.

I do think that in this case the park was thinking profesionally, and not personally. This is the unfortunate circumstance of having to meet corporate goals, and having to please a board or directors who have lost touch with their audience.

As odd as it may seem... I do agree with Gonch. The customer friendly approach was the side to err on. I just wish that "the customer is always right" was something that was at least in the back of most companies minds, even if not their outright plolicy.

The PR/Sports Management side of me says the prudent thing to do might have been to go ahead and let them in under the condition that this was a one-time courtesy since they might not have been clear on park policies.

That could set a bad example but if they had done thaT, not one would know, because it wouldn't have been "news" in the first place.

This kind of article infuriates me.

Gonch you say you don't understand where the animosity toward this family is coming from. I would say, this article was written to elicit pure emotion and there are really only a couple of ways for the average reader to go with it.

You either feel sympathy for the veteran/family and then rage for the park or you feel resentment toward the veteran/family and sympathy for the park. Of course I don't mean that literally as the only options, but my point is that this article was written to get you to "feel" something. Period.

It seems to me that this story is pretty unclear in terms of facts, too. It's reported the issue of veteran didn't come into play until after the man was denied admission. He appeared assuming that given he was unable to participate in the attractions, he would be admitted for free. And the park has a pretty clear stance on that issue alone. Once denied based on the fact that others in similar scenarios are expected to pay, then the veteran issue comes up.

So, if the expectation was that he deserved free admission because he cannot participate physically, what was the point of the planned "rendezvous" for he and his fiance? Why is he there if his expectation is that of being unable to gain from what the park offers?

I agree with Jeff and Pagoda in that a call to the park would have been the right thing to do. I would also add that given a single, consistent circumstance was not presented at the time (disabled veteran, injured in the tour of duty) it becomes really muddy for the employees.

Beyond all of that, I guess I don't understand why the comp tickets are being perceived as the park changing their minds, per se. What else can they offer to make peace with a disgruntled guest? They can't offer a free souvenir to the guy they denied free admission to, right? ;)

They want to make amends. They need to make amends. Not necessarily because they believe they were wrong, but rather because this went to press. What other way can they do it really?

Yes, there are clearly some idiots on the newspaper's site. I've never met Camille personally, but friends who do know her speak the world of her. Calling her names is completely out of line.

I think the worst thing here is that it seems like the family making all of the demands. It's natural that they would be emotional about the issue, but again, no matter what the situation, you never assume entitlement. I think in polite society, you can expect that being reasonable and calling ahead will get you what you want in this case. Showing up, making demands and making media calls is being a douche.

The treatment of people who have served has changed a great deal in the last 30 years. People volunteer and know the risks, and they are not drafted. Care for wounded vets was getting better, though it at least appears that's reversing, perhaps because of the sheer quantity. This is also not Vietnam, where people were wrongly looked down on for serving when, again, most had no choice.

I take issue with any suggestion that these kinds of situations imply that you don't support what these guys (and women) do for the country. That's the kind of crap in those comments that bothers me.

phoenixphan :-) said:
The customer friendly approach was the side to err on. I just wish that "the customer is always right" was something that was at least in the back of most companies minds, even if not their outright plolicy.

Lord (not Gonch, the other one ;) ) knows I rambled enough in my previous post, but I appreciate this comment because it gets to a thought I was trying to formulate and was having trouble.

Ordinarily phoenix (and Brad G.) I would agree with you. But in this case, the primary presenting issue was one the parks get hit with on a fairly regular basis from all kinds of angles.

"I can't ride (or fully participate), therefore I shouldn't have to pay for entrance."

I would give the park the benefit of the doubt that says they get hit with that issue so many times that the resulting response is a little rehearsed and automatic. No.

In retrospect, it makes perfect sense that this scenario, once completely revealed, doesn't fit the average mold. But at the time, there are some reflex responses going on to the request. That seems to be reasonable to me.

Though there are loop holes in it, when you guy a park ticket you are adhearing to the rules on the back of the ticket. Its for the safety of the park. With out a ticket you could sue for anything. You can sue for anything now but having a ticket is atleast some defense for the park.