Tdo

[MickeyMind]

Simple...

Why is TDO still allowed to be in charge of wdw? people like meg crofton contribute nothing to the value of wdw and are responsible for letting the parks get as bad as they have gotten.. Why do the higher ups still keep them in charge of wdw?

 

[WDW Monorail]

Because they're doing their job well. They get people through the door.
People here might disagree but their performing their job description.
I'm personally fine with that. If some people from this site were managers for a short period of time, a lot of not so good things would happen in order to suit their own agenda rather than that of the company and other guests.

 

[fosse76]

Because they're doing their job well. They get people through the door.

No, they're not. Disney's attendance remained flat...and if Universal saw a 36% attendance increase, then it means those people either didn't visit Disney, or they made up for what would have been a large decrease in attendance figures for Disney.

People here might disagree but their performing their job description. I'm personally fine with that. If some people from this site were managers for a short period of time, a lot of not so good things would happen in order to suit their own agenda rather than that of the company and other guests.

They aren't. Their job is to make money. Cost-cutting is only a temporary way of making money. Ideally, and in a real free market, the product should be able to sell itself without those types of influences.

 

[wdwmagic]

The vast majority of people who talk about "TDO" are nowhere near close enough to the company to have any idea how well they are performing. Are you familiar with Meg Crofton's day-to-day performance to say that she contributes nothing to the value of WDW?

 

[wizards8507]

Cost-cutting is only a temporary way of making money. Ideally, and in a real free market, the product should be able to sell itself without those types of influences.

But Disney is a premium product with a premium price. When the economy is in the tubes, the first thing to go is not only luxuries, but high-end luxuries. The product DOES sell itself, but only at a certain price. If the price were any higher (which would be necessary to avoid "cost cutting"), then attendance would be MUCH worse than "flat."

 

[Lynne M]

Sorry, but "Disney's not doing what I want" doesn't equate to "Meg Crofton doesn't do her job well". :ROFLOL:

 

[dreamfinder]

Sorry, but "Disney's not doing what I want" doesn't equate to "Meg Crofton doesn't do her job well". :ROFLOL:

This.

And unfortunately, most companies are now run with their attention on short term gains, not caring about the long term outlook. Stockholders want a return now, not in 10 years. So things like cutting back on maintenance, not plussing an attraction, holding off on rehabs, that stuff all makes them look good NOW which keeps them employed, and often rewarded. Long term outlooks like dropping billions on new lands are often very hard fought battles that may not show a return while current management is in power.

 

[devoy1701]

Sorry, but "Disney's not doing what I want" doesn't equate to "Meg Crofton doesn't do her job well". :ROFLOL:

But all we have to look at is the state of the parks in terms of how she is doing at her job. When we see something like the Yeti being broken and Uni opening a mega hit section of a theme park with no answer on our end, and PI closing down and sitting more or less deserted for 3 years, then that equates (atleast to those on the outside looking in) to her not doing her job well.

 

[stphnbogert]

But all we have to look at is the state of the parks in terms of how she is doing at her job. When we see something like the Yeti being broken and Uni opening a mega hit section of a theme park with no answer on our end, and PI closing down and sitting more or less deserted for 3 years, then that equates (atleast to those on the outside looking in) to her not doing her job well.

she doesn't have the authority to put endless amount of money into the parks. there is a certain amount of money that goes to each park. she dictates on how to use it. from what i've heard the yeti and pi are very expensive to do. disney is on a strict budget. its up to the shareholders and higher up than her to where and how much money is going to be put in.

 

[devoy1701]

she doesn't have the authority to put endless amount of money into the parks. there is a certain amount of money that goes to each park. she dictates on how to use it. from what i've heard the yeti and pi are very expensive to do. disney is on a strict budget. its up to the shareholders and higher up than her to where and how much money is going to be put in.

IMO, You don't close a guest area like PI and have no plans for it for 3 years. All that shows is that TDO is stumped on how they should proceed from there. Not that any of us have eyes into the finances of PI, but having the place shuddered for 3 years has to be worse than how it was operating.

Plain and simple, they shouldn't have closed it like they did. And when they announced the closing, they should have announced what would be replacing it. At the least, if they wanted to keep all of us "in the dark", we should have seem some construction going on with the area. But it more or less sat dorment for those 3 years after it closed which led most of us to believe they were just scratching their heads while we guests are sitting there wonder what the heck we are supposed to do during the "slower times" or when there are hard ticket events at MK and the latest park opened that night is Epcot which closes at 9. Not to mention we are still 2.5 years away from a new guest area to replace it. That is very bad planning and project management the way I see it. And whoever's fault it truly is, the blame falls back to Meg because she is president of the complex.

 

[Master Yoda]

IMO, You don't close a guest area like PI and have no plans for it for 3 years. All that shows is that TDO is stumped on how they should proceed from there. Not that any of us have eyes into the finances of PI, but having the place shuddered for 3 years has to be worse than how it was operating.

Plain and simple, they shouldn't have closed it like they did. And when they announced the closing, they should have announced what would be replacing it. At the least, if they wanted to keep all of us "in the dark", we should have seem some construction going on with the area. But it more or less sat dorment for those 3 years after it closed which led most of us to believe they were just scratching their heads while we guests are sitting there wonder what the heck we are supposed to do during the "slower times" or when there are hard ticket events at MK and the latest park opened that night is Epcot which closes at 9. Not to mention we are still 2.5 years away from a new guest area to replace it. That is very bad planning and project management the way I see it. And whoever's fault it truly is, the blame falls back to Meg because she is president of the complex.

Technically they did have a plan but the plan fell through. It was still a stupid move but it was not completely unplanned.

 

[stphnbogert]

IMO, You don't close a guest area like PI and have no plans for it for 3 years. All that shows is that TDO is stumped on how they should proceed from there. Not that any of us have eyes into the finances of PI, but having the place shuddered for 3 years has to be worse than how it was operating.

Plain and simple, they shouldn't have closed it like they did. And when they announced the closing, they should have announced what would be replacing it. At the least, if they wanted to keep all of us "in the dark", we should have seem some construction going on with the area. But it more or less sat dorment for those 3 years after it closed which led most of us to believe they were just scratching their heads while we guests are sitting there wonder what the heck we are supposed to do during the "slower times" or when there are hard ticket events at MK and the latest park opened that night is Epcot which closes at 9. Not to mention we are still 2.5 years away from a new guest area to replace it. That is very bad planning and project management the way I see it. And whoever's fault it truly is, the blame falls back to Meg because she is president of the complex.

I understand and completely agree with you about PI. I think Disney loses money but having buildings sitting there vacant. I think it was a very stupid decision why it was left sitting there for such a long time but at the same time it's not Meg Crofton who decides what gets built. I'm sure the Imagineers show what they decided to the shareholders and they decide if they want to put money into it. Maybe no one wanted to put money into that area of Downtown Disney until now. Maybe someone should interview Meg Crofton and see her views on the whole Pleasure Island thing before we blame her for not taking action. She is the President but what about Iger? Maybe Iger is to blame....maybe he didn't want Hyperion Wharf until now.

 

[devoy1701]

I understand and completely agree with you about PI. I think Disney loses money but having buildings sitting there vacant. I think it was a very stupid decision why it was left sitting there for such a long time but at the same time it's not Meg Crofton who decides what gets built. I'm sure the Imagineers show what they decided to the shareholders and they decide if they want to put money into it. Maybe no one wanted to put money into that area of Downtown Disney until now. Maybe someone should interview Meg Crofton and see her views on the whole Pleasure Island thing before we blame her for not taking action. She is the President but what about Iger? Maybe Iger is to blame....maybe he didn't want Hyperion Wharf until now.

This is not how it works. Shareholders do not get direct say in the day to day operation of a large company like Disney, nor do we get to directly chose how we want our money invested. That is what Board of Directors, Advisory Boards, and Financial Advisors and Analysts are for.

Iger is not to blame. It's Crofton's ship. Iger doesn't seem to be running the parks as "hands on" as Eisner did. He most likely has nothing to do with day-to-day, year-to-year budget planning of the resorts with the exception of "approving" them. Crofton has virtually limitless authority at WDW (I know i'm simplifying that tremendously). And from what I've heard from employees (not sure if their story is exactly how it went down) it was her who personally pulled the plug on PI.

 

[stphnbogert]

This is not how it works. Shareholders do not get direct say in the day to day operation of a large company like Disney, nor do we get to directly chose how we want our money invested. That is what Board of Directors, Advisory Boards, and Financial Advisors and Analysts are for.

Iger is not to blame. It's Crofton's ship. Iger doesn't seem to be running the parks as "hands on" as Eisner did. He most likely has nothing to do with day-to-day, year-to-year budget planning of the resorts with the exception of "approving" them. Crofton has virtually limitless authority at WDW (I know i'm simplifying that tremendously). And from what I've heard from employees (not sure if their story is exactly how it went down) it was her who personally pulled the plug on PI.

Thanks for clarifying on it works. I think we should just blame everyone then. Lol. Hopefully this Fantasyland Forest and Hyperion Wharf is a sign of changing things to come at WDW

 

[devoy1701]

Technically they did have a plan but the plan fell through. It was still a stupid move but it was not completely unplanned.

note to self...always make a second plan, just incase the first breaks down... :dazzle:

It definitely seemed like they had no clue what to do, and perception is key in business and mass media.

 

[fosse76]

But Disney is a premium product with a premium price. When the economy is in the tubes, the first thing to go is not only luxuries, but high-end luxuries. The product DOES sell itself, but only at a certain price. If the price were any higher (which would be necessary to avoid "cost cutting"), then attendance would be MUCH worse than "flat."

No. Cost-cutting is not an equation in free market ideals. Free market is based on the idea that demand is unlimited (i.e., you can't saturate the market). Cost-cutting is not the way to increase demand, lowere prices are. Cost-cutting decreases the value of the product.

 

[Master Yoda]

note to self...always make a second plan, just incase the first breaks down... :dazzle:

It definitely seemed like they had no clue what to do, and perception is key in business and mass media.

Quite true. From what I could gather they knew the plan had fallen through somewhere between the announcement of the closure and the actual closure. I am guessing that pride was the reason they kept the course. I just hope that all of this will be behind us in a couple of years and if I can have a Kongaloosh during a Hoopla in the new Hyperion Warf I will be willing to forgive and forget.

 

[WDW Monorail]

Iger is not to blame. It's Crofton's ship. Iger doesn't seem to be running the parks as "hands on" as Eisner did. He most likely has nothing to do with day-to-day, year-to-year budget planning of the resorts with the exception of "approving" them. Crofton has virtually limitless authority at WDW (I know i'm simplifying that tremendously). And from what I've heard from employees (not sure if their story is exactly how it went down) it was her who personally pulled the plug on PI.

It was't Meg. The plan had been in place before she took her position. She may have gone along with it during her tenure but it wasn't designed by her. PI was going downhill in terms of attendance and into the red anyway.
Although I do agree that there seemed to be a log period of time in which no one knew what to do with the place.

 

[devoy1701]

It was't Meg. The plan had been in place before she took her position. She may have gone along with it during her tenure but it wasn't designed by her. PI was going downhill in terms of attendance and into the red anyway.
Although I do agree that there seemed to be a log period of time in which no one knew what to do with the place.

Regardless, it happened during her tenure so she is responsible. She could have reversed course, redirected course, or delayed the act of closing PI as apparently Plan A wasn't looking to work out. The action of closing PI happened while she was president of the resort, and so did the 3 years of desolate abandonment. I'm not buying the whole "i inherited the mess" crap.

All i'm saying is the actions that have taken place thus far during Crofton's tenure, and the actions that TDO has taken over the past 10 years or so do not speak very highly at all on how well they have been performing. How they are at managing their day-to-day activities does not matter when the result we are seeing on the outside is a diminishing quality of product. That's what this group seems to be doing for us.

 

[wizards8507]

No. Cost-cutting is not an equation in free market ideals. Free market is based on the idea that demand is unlimited (i.e., you can't saturate the market). Cost-cutting is not the way to increase demand, lowere prices are. Cost-cutting decreases the value of the product.

That's not true AT ALL. The fundamental principles of a free market is that Supply and Demand are functions of Price, and that equilibrium is reached when Quantity Supplied equals Quantity Demanded. Lower prices don't increase Demand, they artificially increase Quantity Demanded.

The following is probably bored and tedious to most readers, but fosse76 is obviously a smart guy, so let's take a look a little deeper:

Disney's willingness to spend on their product is dictated by the supply curve, S, and the Consumers' willingness to consume dictated by Demand curve D. These curves represent the Quantity and Price of goods in the market. Higher price, Disney is willing to provide more quality but the Consumer demands less. Lower price, the consumer will purchase a large quantity, but Disney will not be profitable to supply it. Originally, Disney was operating at point (Q*,P*), the equilibrium in this market. When the global economy took a hit, Demand shifted to the left to D-, and equilibrium (the intersection) is now at a lower Price and Quantity than it would have been if demand remained constant. Note that Disney's only control is over the Supply curve, and this curve has been unchanged. The Devil here is the demise of the larger economy, resulting in the shift of the Demand curve.

Your notion of "infinite demand" is a macroeconomic principle that applies to the economic problem of scarcity, but is irrelevant in the microeconomic scenario of an individual firm, in this case, Walt Disney Parks and Resorts.

Iger is not to blame. It's Crofton's ship. Iger doesn't seem to be running the parks as "hands on" as Eisner did. He most likely has nothing to do with day-to-day, year-to-year budget planning of the resorts with the exception of "approving" them.

This. But in addition, FLE and Hyperion Wharf are still major plans for this economic climate. Also, Parks and Resorts is operated somewhat autonomously from the other business units of the Walt Disney Company, and the MAJOR outlays for the two new cruise ships need to be factored in when people complain that there's not enough investment going into the parks.