Consistency versus the Carousel of Policy

[bicker]

Back in 2000, we started referring to Disney's inconsistencies as its "Carousel of Policy" where some guests would be able to bypass the rules when it would be in their favor to do so, and some guests wouldn't. Which approach would you prefer?

 

[poohandwendy]

Edited this post because I think it might be a better idea to keep it non-specific...as specifics will probably just bring about a debate of those instead of the bigger picture.

I believe that consistency is the best policy. I like to know what to expect.

 

[Marseeya]

I'm a rule follower and I'd prefer to see consistent policies in place for everyone.

 

[bicker]

I did a quick search of the RADP archives and found this list of examples: Dining Plan (presumably things like what's included and what's not, enforcement of "2A2C", etc.), free Dining Plan (presumably things like being able to book for a two year old, efforts to catch "phantom guest" bookings), Magic Your Way Passes (presumably things like the enforcement of the 3 year age limit), AP discounts (the requirement to have the pass in-hand a check-in), Ft. Wilderness pet policy (whether pets that never leave the RV are charged, whether such pets are allowed on "no pets" loops), the prohibition of outside food (enforcement or lack thereof, although I don't see that as a carousel -- they simply rely on each guest's own integrity to comply; I suppose that's the carousel: some guests comply while others don't), locker transfer passes (something about the $2 deposit), refillable mugs (enforcement, or again, simply compliance versus non-compliance), FastPasses (the time you can get the next one, but I believe that that was a misunderstanding on the part of the poster), Mickey Monitor (getting multiple copies to the same home), multiple hotel reservations (not sure I understood that issue), shipping to your hotel (whether there is a receipt and holding fee or not), AAA parking passes (but to be fair that's AAA's carousel, not Disney's), AP passes (whether the renewal rate applies on an upgrade), hotel reservations (applying a discount code to an existing reservation, and the mess with canceling or deposit transferring), connecting rooms (whether guaranteed, with what set of ages in your party), resort water launches (restriction to resort guests only),

There were also some examples from programs that no longer exist, like UMPs (removing a day, or two), and the DVC shopping discount (where applicable, whether it had to be a room charge or not, etc.).

 

[poohandwendy]

LOL, lots of examples there...I still vote for consistency. Honestly, they are doing nothing but adding confusion when blurring the lines. Confusion generally leads to disappointment, IMHO.

 

[tmt martins]

I voted Consistency .

But I do think the bending of the rules BY DISNEY for when customer service comes into play.When REAL expectations were not met and this is a form of compensation.

Like others have said when the rules are clear they are easy to enforce by all.

 

[Luv2Roam]

I have always said Disney is Consistently Inconsistent. Yep, rules as firm as Jello. Makes rules, just doesn't enforce them.
It's hard to do and keep everyone happy. Which is the goal -- to make guests happy, enjoy their stay and know their trip was worthwhile.

 

[DawnCt1]

I think at any vacation destination, flexibility is important to the guest experience. It also depends upon where that flexibility is applied. I will address the issue of the AP for example. If a discount is available for an AP holder and a guest wishes to take advantage of that, what difference does it make when that AP is purchased? When I consider all of the lodging discounts that I have received over the years, I can't recall ONE incident in which I was asked to show an AP, a military ID (except for at SOG) or even the old Gold Magic Kingdom Club card. In only one instance did I not have it because WDW would not expedite the card in less than the 8 weeks. I purchased it, it didn't arrive but I was never asked for it. I personally think that guests worry too much about what other people do on vacation. As long as it doesn't impact my experience, I personally don't care. If there is a discount out there, its up to me to find it. That applies to no matter where I travel. For example, I wanted five of us to stay at the Marriott Ocean Club Resort on Maui. I booked a one bedroom/2 bathroom unit which had a king size bed, and a queen pull out sleep sofa. The occupancy limit is 4. I believe that in that square footage, it is for "economic" reasons so that more rooms can be sold rather than fire code reasons. The Embassy Suites has similar square footage and their occupancy limit is 5. We did not want to travel 3500 miles and not have a room so I called, spoke to the manager of the resort and said, "I would love to stay at your hotel but I need to accommodate five and want a rollaway bed". I got it. He made a "rule" exception. We were quiet guests and didn't inconvenience anyone.

 

[mickeyfan2]

I'm a rule follower and I'd prefer to see consistent policies in place for everyone.

Me too.

 

[rayelias]

I'll bet that 99% of people are going to claim they want consistency, but there's probably about 30% who want consistency for everyone else, just not them.

There are way too many posts about certain things that "don't hurt anyone" and "I don't see anything wrong with"... pool hopping, reusing mugs, 5 or 6 to a room, stroller swapping, etc, etc, etc. (And, I'm not talking about things like "meal sharing" or "buying an extra bun" which are OK according to WDW - I'm talking about things that are against the rules.) So, there are a good amount of people who think that the rules don't apply to them. Of course, I'm completely OK if you ask for and receive permission ahead of time. I don't like when people are "sneaky" about it - like they're trying to get away with something.

For those who say "it doesn't hurt anyone"... it does. It hurts everyone. Does shoplifiting hurt anyone? Of course. Reusing mugs is stealing soda/coffee/etc. It raises the price to those of us who DO follow the rules. If you pay extra to stay at GF and I'm at Pop - you deserve to use the GF pools - not me. I would be using the towels, the lifeguard services, the chairs, and taking space away from someone who paid to use the pool.

If you're trying to sneak in extra people in your room because you don't want to pay for 2 rooms, should I get a discount because I only have 2 people in my room? You know the rules going in. Unless you get permission beforehand, IMHO, you're sneaky and unethical.

For me... the rules are the rules. It's called the Magic Kingdom, not the Magic Democracy. If you don't like the rules, then don't visit. I hear Universal's attendance is down, I'm sure they'd love to have you.

 

[DawnCt1]

There are way too many posts about certain things that "don't hurt anyone" and "I don't see anything wrong with"... pool hopping, reusing mugs, 5 or 6 to a room, stroller swapping, etc, etc, etc.

I know that you gave pool hopping as a facetious example, But pool hopping does in fact hurt the guest that has paid for a room at a particular resort and find that the pool isn't available to them. I can recall the early days of the Yacht and Beach Club, absolutely not being able to find even an upright chair for my mother because of pool hoppers. Not just pool hoppers from other resorts around WDW mind you, but from other resorts around Orlando and sometimes from their homes! I asked one teenage girl who was not staying at the Y&B to give up one of the upright chairs that she was using as a foot rest and she refused. I found a CM who wouldn't ask her but took another chair out of storage. Pool hopping is a good policy and should be enforced. Should their be exceptions? Sure. If you have guests visiting you at your hotel and you want to enjoy the pool. A checked in guest should be able to visit with someone from another resort. That's reasonable.

 

[rayelias]

I know that you gave pool hopping as a facetious example, But pool hopping does in fact hurt the guest that has paid for a room at a particular resort and find that the pool isn't available to them. I can recall the early days of the Yacht and Beach Club, absolutely not being able to find even an upright chair for my mother because of pool hoppers. Not just pool hoppers from other resorts around WDW mind you, but from other resorts around Orlando and sometimes from their homes! I asked one teenage girl who was not staying at the Y&B to give up one of the upright chairs that she was using as a foot rest and she refused. I found a CM who wouldn't ask her but took another chair out of storage. Pool hopping is a good policy and should be enforced. Should their be exceptions? Sure. If you have guests visiting you at your hotel and you want to enjoy the pool. A checked in guest should be able to visit with someone from another resort. That's reasonable.

Dawn,

Reread my post - I think we're in complete agreement (as usual).

 

[DawnCt1]

Dawn,

Reread my post - I think we're in complete agreement (as usual).

To some degree. I wouldn't for example call the front desk and say my BIL will be visiting us around the pool today. I would assume that it would be perfectly acceptable as a paying guest to have a guest at the pool. I have also had an extra person in the room. I would not seek permission to have a child just over 2 in the room, I would just have that child in the room. Six of us had our airline tickets stolen from the Yacht Club room, one of us was over 2. The management was fully aware of the situation and it wasn't an issue. In fact, it wasn't even mentioned. It was clear to me that they would prefer to have our $$$ with 6 in the room, rather than an empty room. The following year a new manager helped 6 of us with concierge reservations to make amends for the stolen tickets and inconvenience.

 

[taximomfor4]

I am all for consistency. And I am one of those who would LOVE to fit my family into one room at a monorail resort, since dh will NEVER let me buy two rooms. But our family is 6 people. As tempted as I am, I would have a terrible time trying to enjoy my vacation while knowing I was breaking a rule. In fact, last summer we were soooooo tempted to play around with our 2 rooms and the dining plan. We could have, you know. But once again, my blasted conscience wouldn't let me do it. But I did get THIS close. Of course, I am also one of THOSE employees that managers love -- One manager said it best:"I LOVE your work ethic and attitude. You just come to work, do your job, and close your ears and mouth to those around you in the gossip mill." It landed me a great job well before the rest of my group of fellow temps (2 months instead of 9 months, and I never had to interview.) I used to notice, and get frustrated by, the amount of coworkers who did the bare minimum and bent rules.

No, I am not perfect. But I am working on it I have sped (maybe 6 mph over the speed limit--the one time I went 9 over, I got a ticket. ) I just try to not knowingly break rules that are in place. I don't need to know the reason...if it's a rule on private property especially, I try to follow it.

man, I get wordy sometimes.

 

[va32h]

I used to work in retail, and several of us employees would complain about certain customers who got away with breaking the "rules"; chiefly, returning items they had obviously used, or purchased eons ago.

Our district manager would always say "yes, it is frustrating when customers do that. However, while it seems like "everyone" is doing it, in the big picture, it is really a very small percentage of our customers that behave that way, and we would rather take the loss on those items than get a reputation of being unfriendly and uncooperative."

Obviously, I did not work at Target.

Let me qualify this by saying that I have never, to my knowledge, broken a Disney "rule". I have purchased only one refillable mug, which was used at one resort on one trip. We only used our own resort pool, we haven't evenvisited WDW since the free dining plan was introduced, and I called and got my own CRT reservations, long before the credit card deposit was required.

But even as a "rule-follower", I don't blame Disney for bending those rules in the name of customer service. I might think the guest is totally unreasonable, and console myself that karmically, someday they will be punished for their selfishness, but I completely understand why Disney makes the choices it does.

 

[bicker]

I'll bet that 99% of people are going to claim they want consistency, but there's probably about 30% who want consistency for everyone else, just not them.

Indeed. Many people will bend the rules for themselves under the guise of figuring the flexibility they're assuming is "reasonable" when in reality it is up to their host to determine that.

Our district manager would always say "yes, it is frustrating when customers do that. However, while it seems like "everyone" is doing it, in the big picture, it is really a very small percentage of our customers that behave that way, and we would rather take the loss on those items than get a reputation of being unfriendly and uncooperative."

That's sad. Some of these situations truly are zero-sum: What one guest takes they take from another. (There's a thread, this morning, about some women who set up cane-seats to watch a storyteller, blocking the view of people sitting behind them on the ground.) In other situations, transgressors are pushing the host to the point where eventually the host may have to change or take away things, just so they don't have to be put in the position of being considered unfriendly and uncooperative. (There's a thread here that has a nice list of all the things Disney had to change or take away because of abuse. In each case, guests who behaved with integrity were hurt by the change or the removal, due to the actions of violators before them.)

 

[Stacerita]

I'm a rule follower and I'd prefer to see consistent policies in place for everyone.

Consistency. Im a rule follower too.

 

[katerkat]

I generally follow rules, but I'll be bringing in food for my toddler this December. Sorry, but I don't see anything wrong with a baggie of Cheerios and a sippy cup.

Mostly, though, I'm too lazy to plan out ways to cheat the system. And we've not stayed on property since the mugs have been around. (Plus we don't drink enough non-water to justify it in the first place. Darn diets!)

 

[Planogirl]

I prefer Consistency too but mostly when the rule-bending inconveniences other guests in some manner. I believe that management looking the other way when guests break the rules in a manner that causes others discomfort only leads to hard feelings.

I'm not quite as rigid in my thinking when it comes to the things that don't affect others though. An extra child in a room, a snack for a small child being brought into a park and such things seem relatively minor in the overall scheme of things.

 

[auntpolly]

I follow the rules and I don't like it when people try to get away with things. But if someone asks and is given permission to do something that is against the rules , normally, this is fine.

I don't want to live in a world where people are so inflexbile that they can't envision rules ever being bent if there is a good reason.

You call it the carousel of policy - I call it people not being inflexible jerks all the time.