New Executive Structure?

[devoy1701]

You get that is metaphor, right, that nobody actually told me that my dole whip won't taste good?

Again, I would care more about Meg Crofton "almost making the FL expansion not happen", if, you know, it hadn't happened. But it did.

My point again, is more about the setting up of one particular straw man (or woman in this case), and getting out all of the constant internet rage on that.

Also, the people who do these things because they love the parks, seem to only point out negatives. And that's not a criticism of them per se, but of how our culture works now in the internet age. I read a Trip Report yesterday, where every sentence ended with "nothing to complain about here" or "nothing negative to report". We are constantly looking to find what is BAD in everything so we can shout it to the rafters, and that only intensifies when these mob-like crusades happen every couple of years or so, and I don't enjoy it, that's all.

well if they would fix the things we see as negatives we wouldn't have anything to complain about anymore...would we?

 

[jakeman]

well if they would fix the things we see as negatives we wouldn't have anything to complain about anymore...would we?

Oh like the raptors in Jurassic Park, I'm sure folks would find a way.

 

[iubigman]

well if they would fix the things we see as negatives we wouldn't have anything to complain about anymore...would we?

Actually, you just hit the nail on the head there, and not sure if you are being sarcastic or not.

 

[iubigman]

Yes, I know you were being sarcastic, and over dramatic.

See, there's the problem. Again, you don't seem to care about WHY people are upset with her. You don't like people being negative. Period. The expansion happened despite her, so you're happy. Good for you. But then she gets promoted to a higher position, with a track record of actually nixing expansions, refurbs, etc and making bad decisions for the parks. Some people know it, aren't happy about it. You admittedly don't know much about her, but don't want people criticizing her. Well, too bad. Not trying to be harsh, but that's the way it works.

That's not really what I am after here, so sorry if it came off that way. When people have legitimate criticisms that is valid. Even better when they have knowledge of the situation. However, you know as well as I do, that the % of thoughtful valid criticism about Crofton (or anything on the internet) will be small, and the percentage of posts with actual knowledge of the facts at hand will be smaller. The bothersome thing, which is what my original post was about, is the snowball effect this will have, virtually wiping out any rational discussion, and killing a lot of positivity here, and other places, regarding the Parks.

 

[devoy1701]

it seems that my one-liner post has overshadowed my longer, more thought out post from moments before that actually addressed the issues... :brick:

 

[iubigman]

it seems that my one-liner post has overshadowed my longer, more thought out post from moments before that actually addressed the issues... :brick:

Welcome to another fun effect of the "Twitter-Age"
:ROFLOL:

 

[devoy1701]

Welcome to another fun effect of the "Twitter-Age"
:ROFLOL:

perhaps next time i will just post 50 comments of 140 characters each... :lookaroun

 

[MerlinTheGoat]

My point isn't so much about people like me ignoring things, it's that I don't believe there is that much to ignore.

It's also more a comment on the way the internet communities (not just Disney) operate.

The mob mentality, and overt negativism is simply astounding. However, I get it, people don't go running to their keyboard to post about how great something is.

I went though the Save Disney stuff, which I think was far more valid than this current "protest", and I enjoyed the parks then as well. I think the switch to Iger really helped the parks, and the last decade has seen far more good brought to the Parks than bad, that's just my opinion, and I just get sad that Disney Fandom will now be dominated by this for the next few weeks, months?

I'm going to choose to ignore it all, and enjoy myself.

And no one will try to stop you from enjoying it, or try to convince you to hate them (unless you want to argue here about it, which is setting yourself up to try to be convinced lol). Feel free to enjoy it. I still do myself, but that doesn't mean i can't also remain critical of flaws i see that are ruining the atmosphere and show.

I disagree about people not running to their keyboard to report good news. I and many others offer up praise when due ALL the time. The recent Haunted Mansion queue and new ghost effects were met here with almost universal acclaim and praise. When something is good, we take note of it and definitely dish out kudos to those in charge of such things. Same goes with them finally fixing that fake rock in BTM (which was praised). Though slipping into the negative range, it's a shame we have to give praise at all to things that should never have needed fixing at all (the fake rock for instance should have not been in its previous state for as long as it was in a better maintained order).

Obviously though, the amount of flaws found is going to be a subjective thing. They are still there, but some people like yourself may not notice them. I do however, and i give due criticism where it's warranted. But i can assure you that when something is fixed or a worthwhile addition is given, i praise the hell out of it.

I don't look for things to complain about, and i don't WANT to have to complain about it. But it's there and i'm not going to ignore it if it's what i consider a poor show and in need of fixing. Simple as that. I expect Disney to live up to their own standards, which i share as well.

@devoy1701

I shall attempt to help out the fixthemagic stuff (if that's what you're referring to). In any way i can. Dunno if i'll be of any help, but i appreciate that you think i can.

 

[aladdin2007]

Heres Al's message post today:

Yes, Meg Crofton is apparently "in charge" of the US and Paris Disney parks.

No, she does not have same job that Al Weiss had; it has been reconfigured.

Yes, we may see her occasionally on the West Coast.

No, she won't be a regular visitor to the West Coast.

Yes, things probably won't get all that much better at WDW.
No, things probably won't change all that much at the Disneyland Resort.

Yes, this is a very short comment for such a major upheaval.

No, this isn't the whole story.

Yes, we'll have more to tell you as soon as we finish researching everything

 

[jakeman]

I disagree about people not running to their keyboard to report good news. I and many others offer up praise when due ALL the time. The recent Haunted Mansion queue and new ghost effects were met here with almost universal acclaim and praise.

I think we read two different threads then...

 

[MerlinTheGoat]

I think we read two different threads then...

Maybe we are, dunno. I've seen a few people who hated the new stuff, but most of the messages seem positive. I'm one of these people. I really can't find anything that bugs me about the new stuff recently added.

I also like the new Pooh queue as well (except for the noise from the popping at times). But my main point was that i and plenty of other people offer praise up as well as negativity.

 

[Pioneer Hall]

Oh wow...this is a fun one!



Evan...in the business world, you are responsible for every decision that your subordinates make...regardless of whether you micromanage them or not. While certain maintenance decisions might have been made by an Operations Manager, or the decision to cut F! down to 2 nights a week might have rested with a VP, the decision to let those decisions stand fall with her. In another scenario...a CEO or CEO might have no idea that a certain corporate accountant was cooking the books and supplying the auditors with false records, but it's still their responsibility to know and their fault they let it happen.

Anything that has happened under Meg's watch that has led to a deteriorating product is ultimately her fault.

Thanks for the insight into the business world, but having worked for a company that rivals Disney in size and probably has a similar organization strategy I will have to disagree. Let's assume for a second that Rilous Carter wanted to cut down on Fantasmic. By looking at the parks financial documents and information (things that no one here has any access to) he determined that in order to help the park out he needed to cut back. Unless the idea is completely out of left field and makes no business sense, she (like any good manager) won't challenge him. She put him into the position in order to make big decisions like this and shouldn't have to do his job for him. Granted, this is an example and I have no idea how this situation truly played out.

While Bob Iger is ultimately responsible for every dirty bathroom at Downtown Disney, they put people who they believe to be competent to handle such situations down the line. Also, I tend to notice a "want their cake and eat it too mentality here"...Disney doesn't print their own money and while I agree that while slipping maintenance and show cuts aren't good moves, if money goes there then it isn't going to new improvements either. While cost cutting will help their bottom line, I won't jump to saying they do it solely for their bonuses until I am able to see that is actually the case.

 

[menamechris]

Heres Al's message post today:

Yes, Meg Crofton is apparently "in charge" of the US and Paris Disney parks.

Yes, things probably won't get all that much better at WDW.

Is this for real? Niiiiiice.....

 

[devoy1701]

Thanks for the insight into the business world, but having worked for a company that rivals Disney in size and probably has a similar organization strategy I will have to disagree. Let's assume for a second that Rilous Carter wanted to cut down on Fantasmic. By looking at the parks financial documents and information (things that no one here has any access to) he determined that in order to help the park out he needed to cut back. Unless the idea is completely out of left field and makes no business sense, she (like any good manager) won't challenge him. She put him into the position in order to make big decisions like this and shouldn't have to do his job for him. Granted, this is an example and I have no idea how this situation truly played out.

While Bob Iger is ultimately responsible for every dirty bathroom at Downtown Disney, they put people who they believe to be competent to handle such situations down the line. Also, I tend to notice a "want their cake and eat it too mentality here"...Disney doesn't print their own money and while I agree that while slipping maintenance and show cuts aren't good moves, if money goes there then it isn't going to new improvements either. While cost cutting will help their bottom line, I won't jump to saying they do it solely for their bonuses until I am able to see that is actually the case.

You can disagree if you want but that's the way it goes. The head honcho gets the blame whether they gave the order, pulled the trigger themselves, or just let one of their subordinates make the call. I also work for a multinational corporation with a similar structure with VPs over regional divisions and operational support that acts more or less autonomously from the VP and is expected to make decisions on their own that are in the best interest of the Business. That doesn't change the fact that is someone made a decision they thought was a good one (with or without the VP knowing) and it came back to bite them in the , that the VP wouldn't get blamed for it.

As a manager you do put subordinates in place that you hope will make sound decisions, but you also are supposed to instill a culture and lead by example on what is acceptable and not, and the mentality from the outside looking in seems to be that there is little resistance to saving money wherever possible, even when show or overall experience is at stake. And while Meg might have not personally been the one to decide to let shows deteriorate or to cut 2 mins off of HalloWishes...she didn't stop the decisions either when she had the ability too.

 

[Alektronic]

Here is an item about that article that most probably missed because of the new structure or don't know who the supporting players are.

"Jeff Vahle, executive vice president for facilities operations services, and Erin Wallace, executive vice president for operations integration, will report jointly to Crofton and to Bill Ernest, president of operations in Asia, which includes Hong Kong Disneyland, Tokyo Disney and the soon-to-be-built Shanghai Disneyland. Kevin Lansberry, senior vice president of revenue management and analytics, will now report to Wallace."

JEFF VAHLE is the top dog responsible for all maintenance at WDW and now he will be responsible for all maintenance at WDW, DLR, DLP, HKDL, Tokyo Disney and the new Shanghai Disney. Let's hope his budget cutting ways for maintenance programs won't affect the other parks as much as they do WDW.

 

[theguitarman]

Thanks for the insight into the business world, but having worked for a company that rivals Disney in size and probably has a similar organization strategy I will have to disagree. Let's assume for a second that Rilous Carter wanted to cut down on Fantasmic. By looking at the parks financial documents and information (things that no one here has any access to) he determined that in order to help the park out he needed to cut back. Unless the idea is completely out of left field and makes no business sense, she (like any good manager) won't challenge him. She put him into the position in order to make big decisions like this and shouldn't have to do his job for him. Granted, this is an example and I have no idea how this situation truly played out.

While Bob Iger is ultimately responsible for every dirty bathroom at Downtown Disney, they put people who they believe to be competent to handle such situations down the line. Also, I tend to notice a "want their cake and eat it too mentality here"...Disney doesn't print their own money and while I agree that while slipping maintenance and show cuts aren't good moves, if money goes there then it isn't going to new improvements either. While cost cutting will help their bottom line, I won't jump to saying they do it solely for their bonuses until I am able to see that is actually the case.

I also work for a very large corporation, comparable in size to Disney. And a manager is definitely in charge of and responsible for the decisions his subordinates make. Using your example, when Mr Carter presented his business case for saving money and cutting down on Fantastmic, she would have to weigh the potential monetary savings against the drawbacks. Even if Mr Carter didn't present the idea to her, and just did it, as his superior, she would look at what he did and say "No, that is not the direction we want to go". I see managers make decisions all the time, and usually their superior says nothing. Occasionally, a manager will make a decision, and I will see someone higher up come in and say "No, do it this way".

I'm certainly not a hater of Meg Crofton, and I do see both sides of the coin here. On one side, her tenure as head of WDW has coincided with the world economy being unstable, including the US recession. Hard to compare those years to any others in terms of what WDW did, because the finances just weren't the same.

On the other hand, looking at the other parks doing well the last few years, while WDW declined in attendance, had no major projects going on (until FLE), and has seen quality definitely decline, you have to look to her as the head of WDW. As a boss, you are responsible to keep an eye on those below you, and ensure the decisions they make are accomplishing your goals, and the goals of the company. There is no scenario where this isn't true. Ignorance is not an excuse in business ("I know I am their boss, but I didn't know they were making those bad decisions!") That will never fly! So at the very least, TWDC needs to look at TDO and figure out what is causing this difference, and correct it! Not saying it's Meg, or any specific person, but since she is in charge of WDW, she is bound to get the blame to begin with.

 

[devoy1701]

Here is an item about that article that most probably missed because of the new structure or don't know who the supporting players are.

"Jeff Vahle, executive vice president for facilities operations services, and Erin Wallace, executive vice president for operations integration, will report jointly to Crofton and to Bill Ernest, president of operations in Asia, which includes Hong Kong Disneyland, Tokyo Disney and the soon-to-be-built Shanghai Disneyland. Kevin Lansberry, senior vice president of revenue management and analytics, will now report to Wallace."

JEFF VAHLE is the top dog responsible for all maintenance at WDW and now he will be responsible for all maintenance at WDW, DLR, DLP, HKDL, Tokyo Disney and the new Shanghai Disney. Let's hope his budget cutting ways for maintenance programs won't affect the other parks as much as they do WDW.

Alek, you are always on top of the Maintenance structure. Thanks for the input. So he has always reported into Crofton at WDW and now he is responsible for ALL resorts??? Sounds like a double whammy with these structure changes.

 

[wedway71]

This is my take on WDW leadership...I.E. Meg Crofton...

I want to prefice that I have never ran a theme park....BUT have been in upper management with Fortune 100 companies.

Now... My last position, I ran an operation that grossed $75 million the last year I was there. I had 16 salaried managers report to me as well as 450 team members...

Ok...back to the point... It is true that as a leader you must have faith in your leadership. One can not baby sit them daily, if you have to, then they need to go. I empowered my managers to make decisions daily based on scheduling, hiring/firing, training, merchandising, sales, etc....

Sometime they made a bad decision...thats fine, at least they made one...

Here is my point.... As a leader, despite me allowing my staff to make decisions....it my job to follow up and ensure those decisions are good ones.

If I was Meg and gave my leadership the power to make command decisions on upkeep of certain areas.... then I would make sure as the President of WDW, I would follow up on those decisions.... I am not saying she has time to visit every bathroom on property, but making sure Splash Mountain and other E ticket attractions are spotless and well kept would be part of my weekly tours.

 

[devoy1701]

This is my take on WDW leadership...I.E. Meg Crofton...

I want to prefice that I have never ran a theme park....BUT have been in upper management with Fortune 100 companies.

Now... My last position, I ran an operation that grossed $75 million the last year I was there. I had 16 salaried managers report to me as well as 450 team members...

Ok...back to the point... It is true that as a leader you must have faith in your leadership. One can not baby sit them daily, if you have to, then they need to go. I empowered my managers to make decisions daily based on scheduling, hiring/firing, training, merchandising, sales, etc....

Sometime they made a bad decision...thats fine, at least they made one...

Here is my point.... As a leader, despite me allowing my staff to make decisions....it my job to follow up and ensure those decisions are good ones.

If I was Meg and gave my leadership the power to make command decisions on upkeep of certain areas.... then I would make sure as the President of WDW, I would follow up on those decisions.... I am not saying she has time to visit every bathroom on property, but making sure Splash Mountain and other E ticket attractions are spotless and well kept would be part of my weekly tours.

Exactly. To further that thought, if she sees something wrong (ie: missing rock on Thunder) she has the authority and the responsibility (well...she might not think so, but as a guest I think so) to address something that her subordinates are not addressing in a timely manner, or to overturn a decision made by those subordinates. Even though Meg hasn't made these decisions (or lack of) herself, she has let them stand.

It doesn't take having experience to run a theme park to come to this understanding on the subject.

 

[Captain Chaos]

In the end, it is all about show... And show at WDW has fallen... No one is saying a good time still cannot be had.. it can... Even the doomers and gloomers still have a good time... The problem is SHOW... Splash Mountain is a fantastic ride... But when major AA's in the ride don't work AFTER a long refurbishment, that is poor show... As president of the WDW resort she should know what is going on... If she doesn't then she is a poor manager or just clueless...

A friend of mine just texted me... She thinks this move was made to force Crofton's exit from the company faster... While that may be the case, I don't believe in doing something like that... I'd just find her replacement and fire her... HOWEVER, maybe, just maybe, Staggs did this move, letting her keep the seat warm.... He'll make the decision, she'll say YES SIR... then, in a year or two, when the truly chosen replacement is ready (Cockerall anyone??) Meg will come down with a case of needing more time with her family-itis...

I was po'ed about the move yesterday but I changed my stance today.... I'm taking a wait and see approach to this move... Maybe something bigger is at play here, something none of us are privy too, and if some are, they can't say....