News New Changes Coming to the Disney Look 2021

[Nubs70]

And I am certain being an executive, his main dress code is suits which thusly hide his tattoos

You got it.

To perform his position, he is required to play a role that is very much appearance based. He can express himself all he wants after hours and not on work functions.

 

[Gringrinngghost]

Arguing about this is pointless. No one’s changing each other’s mind here.

Its a good exercise to see people for what they truly are however.

 

[MickeyLuv'r]

Well typically the debate is “who cares about small detail” - in this case one side thinks it’s morally wrong to care about the detail because it means those of us who care are prejudiced or old fashioned.

I care about the blank napkins and that keys to world cards aren’t themed to the specific resort I’m staying at. But the argument is just that I shouldn’t care, not that caring makes me a bad person because the napkins should be able to express themselves however they want.

And five years ago, this likely would have been a fairly mundane thread topic. Some would have discussed it, but likely the differences of opinion would have been discussed with some civility.

Many forum members rarely visit WDW. Maybe once every five years?

 

[Mac Tonight]

Look at it from this perspective. Would you rather hire someone who you would know for the position is completely incompetent or would you rather hire the person who you know would be extremely competent for the position that has a little ink instead of making a polarizing judgement that makes them work backstage.

I'd hire the person with a little ink... and politely ask them to cover it. It's worked that way just fine for decades.

Would you as a Disney exec prefer your Jungle Cruise skipper to wear long sleeves, or hang a visible Harry Potter Rules! tat on their forearm??

 

[Amidala]

Reminds me of an argument with an electrician who was very proud of his Price Albert.

His job duties routinely had him in close proximity to 24KV electrical service. His "ornament" is a documented liability in the event of an arc flash. He could not "express" himself while conducting his duties.

??? In what way are tattoos a safety liability for CMs working a cash register.

 

[91JLovesDisney]

Its a good exercise to see people for what they truly are however.

Is that something you need to see?

 

[Brer Oswald]

It feels like they have only done it to make the company look good/woke/whatever the correct phrase is these days rather than to make their cast members happier.

It’s a lazy way at attempting good PR, and it works because the audience lacks any ability to think critically. For years, I’ve complained about Disney treating their audience like they weren’t that bright. Looks like I’m the fool and they were right.

I’m glad the CMs get to benefit though.

Arguing about this is pointless. No one’s changing each other’s mind here.

Word.

 

[Gringrinngghost]

Is that something you need to see?

Yes it is. You see them for what they really are.

 

[91JLovesDisney]

Yes it is. You see them for what they really are.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯
if that's how you want to spend your time, have at it!

 

[Nubs70]

And while you want to be an condescending asshat, at the end of the day he has the luxury to not have to work paycheck to paycheck as he is salaired and would presumably have a nice golden parachute. There is a difference between the Executive with the MBA than the attractions host trying to finish their degree.

Your starting to get it.

Whether and MBA or cast member, you play a role in duty and appearance that is dictated by corporate guidelines. When "not on the clock", both can let their freak flag fly. That sounds like inclusion.

 

[MisterPenguin]

But what makes such distinctions anything but arbitrary? Why does one person get to have a larger tattoo because they have a larger hand?

This is just epistemological sophistry. Judgement calls have to be made all the time.

When does a guest's revealing clothes become too revealing that they're barred entry?

When does a guest's T-shirt logo or slogan become too offensive to allow into the park?

CMs at the entrance have to make that judgment call all the time.

Some of the 'new look' has clear standards: Earrings -- maximum of two and no bigger than X inches.

Some of the 'new look' is based on judgement calls. When are tattoos 'too much'? Only general guidelines are given that can not be boiled down to "X square inches of coverage, and here's a list of a thousand things it can be and a thousand things it can't be."

Just like entrance CMs don't measure the ratio of bikini top to square inches of revealed breast to make a judgment call that a top is too revealing, you don't need anything more than the general guideline "no bigger than your hand."

CMs have to make a judgment call over what they then have to cover or not. Their supervisors then have to give them feedback on whether they chose correctly.

Boiling this down to "tats everywhere or no tats at all" is way too black and white and ignores the judgment calls we have to make all the time.

 

[Disney Analyst]

You know why they did it.

I do think they had to advertise it in some way, to entice potential new hires. But the way they went about it was, predictably, very self serving.

Part of the reason, of course.

I also think they HAD to, as knowing many types of Disney fans, the first CM they saw with a visible tattoo was going to get called out by guests, or someone was going to go to Guest Services.

You know it would have happened.

 

[MisterPenguin]

Yes I'm a stickler for scruffy looking beards/moustaches on men, or crazy coloured hair for any cast member. It doesn't scream we are a family friendly park,

You'll be happy to know that none of that will be allowed. Please read the friendly manual...

https://disneycasting.net/downloads/wdpr/Disney_Look_Book.pdf

 

[Mac Tonight]

And the opposite seems to be true as well: that more self expression seems to automatically translate into reduced customer service. While people keep insisting that the rules and standards are important (and yes, I agree they are), they can't really give a detailed example of why seeing a person with a tattoo or piercing creates a reduced experience.

If the implication is really supposed to be that people are in a role and this further deviates from an ideal image of that role, then the case needs to be made why that's more important than the Cast Member's comfort. Obviously LOTS of exceptions have been made (forever) in creating the image of a role that aligned with Cast comfort over realism. Gender based stereotypes have been broken even when a role would traditionally require only one gender (like the Jungle Cruise). Maybe historical accuracy demands that only certain races of people be in a role? Cast Members are required to shower when, despite historical accuracy demanding otherwise. Cast Members are allowed to wear sunblock and sunglasses to protect themselves from the heat and plastic rain ponchos, because safety is more important than show right?

So if you make all these concessions on how accurately a role is portrayed, why draw the line at tattoos?

What is an "acceptable" tattoo? And if one, why not two? Why not three? A sleeve? Both sleeves? Why not a neck tattoo? Don't tell me a Jungle Cruise Skipper with the whole cast of Pee-Wee's Playhouse tattooed across their body wouldn't be even the slightest bit distracting from the attraction.

 

[91JLovesDisney]

I also think they HAD to, as knowing many types of Disney fans, the first person they saw with a visible tattoo was going to get called out by guests, or someone was going to go to Guest Services.

I didn't even think about that... that's a good point.

 

[Brer Oswald]

Its a good exercise to see people for what they truly are however.

I think it’s good exercise to illustrate the issues on how we talk to each other. You get hostility in return for being hostile. We’re just amplifying things for each other for no good reason. You can apply this to just about any public controversy.

If we weren’t so prone to name calling and role casting, perhaps we might have insightful discussions with different viewpoints.

 

[Brer Oswald]

Part of the reason, of course.

I also think they HAD to, as knowing many types of Disney fans, the first CM they saw with a visible tattoo was going to get called out by guests, or someone was going to go to Guest Services.

You know it would have happened.

A day after the Haunted Mansion discussion. I don’t think it was a huge coincidence.

If the post didn’t read like a product advertisement, I’d cut them slack here.

 

[Mac Tonight]

I think it’s good exercise to illustrate the issues on how we talk to each other. You get hostility in return for being hostile. We’re just amplifying things for each other for no good reason. You can apply this to just about any public controversy.

If we weren’t so prone to name calling and role casting, perhaps we might have insightful discussions with different viewpoints.

The anonymity of being behind a computer screen doesn't help anything either. 99% of these conversations likely wouldn't happen the way they do if you talk to someone face to face.

 

[Brer Oswald]

The anonymity of being behind a computer screen doesn't help anything either. 99% of these conversations likely wouldn't happen the way they do when you talk to someone face to face.

Depends on what’s at stake. Some people don’t have anything to lose. Some do.

 

[el_super]

What is an "acceptable" tattoo?

Let Disney decide that.

And if one, why not two? Why not three? A sleeve? Both sleeves? Why not a neck tattoo? Don't tell me a Jungle Cruise Skipper with the whole cast of Pee-Wee's Playhouse tattooed across their body wouldn't be even the slightest bit distracting from the attraction.

How would a tattoo across the body of a Cast Member distract you if they were wearing a shirt, standing in a boat, with their back to you?