News The 'Disney Look' to be further relaxed at Walt Disney World

[Sir_Cliff]

Slow your roll friend, save the strawmen for the cornfields. I'm actually trying to communicate.

Uniforms are a standard component of employment, they are not part of the "Disney look". Having people dressed as bellhops, for example, is a particular uniform, lots of places have them. They are not special. The Disney-look does not allow stubble or jewlery, it is very specific, hence the name "Disney look". It exists because it is different from the norm. If you make it more like everywhere else, it ceases to exist.

Do you follow? Irrespective of however people feel about it, it either exists or it doesnt. Either it is special and abnormal, or it is lax and no longer particular to Disney.

I was referring to another poster regarding the uniforms.

In terms of the Disney look, this rigid attitude that what was set down by Walt in 1955 can never change represents a fundamentalist strain of Disney fandom that I really don't relate to. The idea that Disney can't update what they refer to as the Disney Look without abandoning the concept altogether seems absurd to me.

 

[The_Jobu]

I was referring to another poster regarding the uniforms.

In terms of the Disney look, this rigid attitude that what was set down by Walt in 1955 can never change represents a fundamentalist strain of Disney fandom that I really don't relate to. The idea that Disney can't update what they refer to as the Disney Look without abandoning the concept altogether seems absurd to me.

I'm glad we agree then that uniforms are a separate argument. The clothes CMs are given are not part of the Disney Look, just their uniform. Trying to strawman that Frontierland should be all in leather is silly.

The remaining opinion is still skirting the issue. Regardless of what people feel, the "Disney look" is so called because it has a specific list of requirements that make it unique. If you change that, and make it common to everywhere else, it by definition no longer exists. The "Disney look" no longer exists because its no longer unique.

You can argue your opinion on modern norms till the cows return, but its got not to do with the qualifications which compose the "Disney look".

 

[lazyboy97o]

Right.

So you disagree with allowing personal accessories?

I was referring to another poster regarding the uniforms.

In terms of the Disney look, this rigid attitude that what was set down by Walt in 1955 can never change represents a fundamentalist strain of Disney fandom that I really don't relate to. The idea that Disney can't update what they refer to as the Disney Look without abandoning the concept altogether seems absurd to me.

Who is mentioning 1955?

 

[phillip9698]

I'm glad we agree then that uniforms are a separate argument. The clothes CMs are given are not part of the Disney Look, just their uniform. Trying to strawman that Frontierland should be all in leather is silly.

The remaining opinion is still skirting the issue. Regardless of what people feel, the "Disney look" is so called because it has a specific list of requirements that make it unique. If you change that, and make it common to everywhere else, it by definition no longer exists. The "Disney look" no longer exists because its no longer unique.

You can argue your opinion on modern norms till the cows return, but its got not to do with the qualifications which compose the "Disney look".

The Disney look? Is that what the Yankees had for all those years, the Disney look?

Its not a Disney look. It's the looks of a bygone Era that people nostalgic for the 1950s want to pretend represents a better more respectable Era.

 

[_caleb]

So you disagree with allowing personal accessories?

Most of them, yes– for the reasons I mentioned above. I don’t think every personal accessory necessarily “contradict” or compete with theming, though. Seems a bit subjective to me.

 

[The_Jobu]

The Disney look? Is that what the Yankees had for all those years, the Disney look?

Its not a Disney look. It's the looks of a bygone Era that people nostalgic for the 1950s want to pretend represents a better more respectable Era.

Yes, I think that is what they had, or something similar, I'm not sure their policy on jewellery.

You and your issues with the 50s are irrelevant I'm afraid. The Disney Look does exist, it is a thing, it is a codification of requirements for on stage employees.

 

[The_Jobu]

Who is mentioning 1955?

It seems to be a decade for which many members have a preoccupation regarding the permisiveness of past generations.

 

[_caleb]

Here’s an older copy of the Disney Look policy I found online:

http://www.worldclassservice.co.uk/userfiles/downloads/thedisneylook.pdf

 

[The_Jobu]

Here’s an older copy of the Disney Look policy I found online:

http://www.worldclassservice.co.uk/userfiles/downloads/thedisneylook.pdf

Precisely. This is the Disney Look. It exists. It is exacting which separates it from the norm through its existence. Its got not to do with people's feelings on the 1950s or their ideas on lowering standards of modern society.

 

[_caleb]

Precisely. This is the Disney Look. It exists. It is exacting which separates it from the norm through its existence. Its got not to do with people's feelings on the 1950s or their ideas on lowering standards of modern society.

I do think the association with the 1950’s has to do with the origins of the policy, which was put in place at the beginnings of Disneyland and didn’t change much over the years. Critics have claimed that the Disney Look was based on a 1950’s white, middle-class aesthetic that may be more difficult for others (some people of color, for example, or adherents of various religions) and that the enforcement of the Disney Look has been used to discriminate.

 

[The_Jobu]

I do think the association with the 1950’s has to do with the origins of the policy, which was put in place at the beginnings of Disneyland and didn’t change much over the years. Critics have claimed that the Disney Look was based on a 1950’s white, middle-class aesthetic that may be more difficult for others (some people of color, for example, or adherents of various religions) and that the enforcement of the Disney Look has been used to discriminate.

It is an odd association though, I dont follow the intensity of feeling. Associating clean shaven men with professionalism pre-dates the 1950s and goes beyond race or class. And I certainly don't associate not wearing jewellery with the 1950s, white people or the middle class.

 

[Nunu]

Precisely. This is the Disney Look. It exists.

Took these screenshots a minute ago, they're from DisneyCareers.com

 

[The_Jobu]

Took these screenshots a minute ago, they're from DisneyCareers.com

View attachment 420027
View attachment 420029
View attachment 420029View attachment 420031

Exactly.

If people wish to disagree with the usefulness of the Look, then that is an entirely separate issue.

 

[Lilofan]

All those who were disciplined for not following the Disney look before the look got "relaxed", are their personnel records going to be wiped clean?

 

[The_Jobu]

All those who were disciplined for not following the Disney look before the look got "relaxed", are their personnel records going to be wiped clean?

Perhaps, though I dont see it being very likely.

 

[The_Jobu]

I’m for the new and improved paper straws. But it occurs to me that for Disney, getting rid of plastic straws is a bit like when they got rid of the designated smoking areas around the parks.

Originally, providing smoking areas was a concession that cost the company money but kept guests happy. But as attitudes changed, Disney saw an opportunity to reclaim those spaces for more lucrative uses and spin it for positive PR. Sure, a few people were unhappy, but Disney was able to talk about its commitment to a more healthy environment while reusing the space to sell popcorn or whatever.

Plastic straw users are the new smokers. They might complain, but the majority of guests feel good about getting rid of single-use plastics and Disney saves money and gets positive PR in the process. I’ll admit that I’m about as sympathetic to plastic straw devotees as I am to smokers (which is to say, not at all), but this seems like an interesting way to think about this.

I think you posted this in the wrong thread friend.

 

[_caleb]

I think you posted this in the wrong thread friend.

Oops! Sorry. Thanks!

 

[CAV]

I’d rather have good CMs with a beard and a bracelet than lazy clean-shaven ones.

Such a specious argument. The two are not mutually exclusive.

 

[ToTBellHop]

Such a specious argument. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Disney thinks they now are (i.e. there are not enough good workers in Central Florida who meet the old standard). But I’m sure you know better than the people actually managing parks and resorts hiring.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

I'm glad we agree then that uniforms are a separate argument. The clothes CMs are given are not part of the Disney Look, just their uniform. Trying to strawman that Frontierland should be all in leather is silly.

The remaining opinion is still skirting the issue. Regardless of what people feel, the "Disney look" is so called because it has a specific list of requirements that make it unique. If you change that, and make it common to everywhere else, it by definition no longer exists. The "Disney look" no longer exists because its no longer unique.

You can argue your opinion on modern norms till the cows return, but its got not to do with the qualifications which compose the "Disney look".

Honestly, if retaining the Disney Look meant that Disney could never modify policies regarding the grooming and personal appearance of their employees, I would suggest ditching the concept. I don't think that is the case at all, however. I guess this is what counts as an originalist vs. living document interpretation in the Disney world!

This, to me, also seems like a very conservative update. The issue of jewellery seems less immediately understandable than the changing policy on facial hair. If I had to guess, I would say it is meant to address in a small way discontent about how much Disney's appearance standards bleed into the real life of their generally young employees. A few on here have already mentioned how Disney's standards can make little pleasures like getting a manicure or expressions of individuality like changing your hairstyle a pain. The hope may be that allowing CMs to wear a small pendant or bracelet rather than stripping off every expression of individuality may increase morale a little.

For the most part, we're talking about people earning close to minimum wage working in standard service jobs. Those kinds of jobs exist all over Orlando at the same or better wages, so why would someone put up with all of this just to have the privilege of, for example, sitting behind a cash register at Pecos Bill's all day? It also seems petty to complain about a necklace taking you out of the story when you have other modern conveniences like digital menu screens, mobile ordering, etc. that don't exactly immerse one in frontier times but have been introduced for the benefit of guests. The person serving you is also a human being trying to earn a living and I think it's a bit unfair to begrudge them some small expressions of that humanity.