Meg Crofton Promoted to President of US & France Parks - Good or Bad?

[DisneyDad61]

Good morning -

In that I have not seen a thread pertaining to the very recent news, I thought I would start what will likely be a pretty interesting discussion on Meg's previous role as WDW Park President and now her new role as US and France Parks President.

As alot of you here in the discussion boards are HUGE Disney fans as am I, we look at WDW and/or DL with a fine tooth comb as basically we want Disney to stay fresh, current, updated and consistent with Walt's philosophy when DL opened in 1955.
So.......what do you all think of this new promotion for Meg? Good or Bad in your own opinions...............
Do I have my own?...of course..!!!! We all do..right?
As a sidebar but relevant comment to all this is that without a doubt, I think there are two very distinct and different management philosophies when it comes to park management between DL and WDW. I will definitely chime in more later but let me leave you with this to chew on.....Overall, mind you, do you think that Meg has done a better than average (superb) job at running the WDW resort as a whole? I know my answer, what si yours?

Sound off......

 

[Reddog1134]

I don't know a lot about Meg Crofton except what I've read recently. So my opinion is based on that alone.

I've read that under her tenure the following has happened:

Pleasure Island closed
Fantasmic was reduced to a few times a week
Space and Splash had sub-par refurbs
Splash and Big Thunder have several broken effects which are still not repaired
Disco Yeti
and more

Granted, there are other good things that have happened. Star Tours 2, TSMM, FLE but some of those may have been decisions above her head.

Time will tell but I as of right now, it doesn't look good for Paris and Anaheim.

 

[mjstaceyuofm]

I'm worried that this might be the beginning of the second era of Pressler. That was an epic fail and this could be sure to follow in that path.

Not good at all. I don't like this business of "Disney Parks" at all nor the "One Disney" initiative. WDW has lost a lot of it's identity lately. We shall see how it comes about, but I think Meg is better with numbers and at being the "cleaning lady" vs. bringing a vision and enthusiasm to the parks.

This is bad.

 

[nytimez]

It would be silly to think Meg Crofton will improve or worsen things one way or another. She is a warm body that enacts the will of Iger and the board. If she retires tomorrow, she will be replaced by another Meg Crofton.

 

[Horace Horsecollar]

It would be silly to think Meg Crofton will improve or worsen things one way or another. She is a warm body that enacts the will of Iger and the board. If she retires tomorrow, she will be replaced by another Meg Crofton.

To some degree that can be true. If we assume that all executives are cut from the same cloth, then replacing executive A with executive B makes no difference.

However, the reality is that the right executive in the right job can provide leadership, vision, and direction, while generating strong profits by delighting customers (whose willingness to open their wallets is what ultimately matters).

And the wrong person can mismanage priorities, allocate budgets ineffectively, discourage middle management, lower the morale of the employees who interact with customers, undermine customer goodwill, make decisions that lack creativity and vision, and lose ground to the competition.

By the time an executive is at the level of Meg Crofton, it's not just a matter of enacting orders of an even higher executive. Yes, the really big decisions (such as approvals for multi-hundred-mllion dollar capital projects and multi-billion dollar operating budgets) come from the top. But someone at the level of Meg Crofton is expected to do more than implement someone else's decisions.

Consider Matt Ouimet's string of excellent management in various capacities during his 17 years with Disney. Compare that to a few of the people who ran Disneyland before and after him.

 

[nytimez]

To some degree that can be true. If we assume that all executives are cut from the same cloth, then replacing executive A with executive B makes no difference.

However, the reality is that the right executive in the right job can provide leadership, vision, and direction, while generating strong profits by delighting customers (whose willingness to open their wallets is what ultimately matters).

And the wrong person can mismanage priorities, allocate budgets ineffectively, discourage middle management, lower the morale of the employees who interact with customers, undermine customer goodwill, make decisions that lack creativity and vision, and lose ground to the competition.

By the time an executive is at the level of Meg Crofton, it's not just a matter of enacting orders of an even higher executive. Yes, the really big decisions (such as approvals for multi-hundred-mllion dollar capital projects and multi-billion dollar operating budgets) come from the top. But someone at the level of Meg Crofton is expected to do more than implement someone else's decisions.

Consider Matt Ouimet's string of excellent management in various capacities during his 17 years with Disney. Compare that to a few of the people who ran Disneyland before and after him.

All executives are not cut from the same cloth. I'm saying Disney WANTS its theme parks run by an executive cut from the pattern Meg Crofton came out of.

She doesn't have to wait for orders from the board. She is naturally in tune with their penny-pinching, uninspiring, corner-cutting goals and would never dream of going rogue and shooting for a higher target.

Ugh. Did I just use the phrase "going rogue?" Can someone shoot me now... please?

 

[mjstaceyuofm]

Ugh... the more you all post, the worse this seems to be.

 

[Peter Pirate 2]

NYTimz is dead on. She has been nothing good for us (the guests). She is simply a corporate player who was given little room to impart her will should she have been so inclined. Undoubtedly her replacement will be the same empty suit.

 

[Horace Horsecollar]

In my previous post in this thread, I was careful not to offer an opinion on Meg Crofton, but just to comment on what an executive at her level can do. I'm aware that Meg Crofton does not enjoy a stellar reputation among WDW Cast Members and WDW watchers on the Internet.

 

[Reddog1134]

They had an interesting reaction over at ProgressCityUSA.
http://progresscityusa.com/2011/07/05/uh-oh-2/#comments

 

[mrsR123]

If you compare the recent improvements at WDW and those at DL/DCA, I'm not hopeful.

Maybe, if FLE goes well, or is going well, then Ms. Crofton's leadership will be a good thing. But so far, Team Orlando seems to have a penchant for cheaping out on upgrades.

 

[jimmytammy]

Disneys woes stem from stockholders and bottom lines. Walt refused for a long time until Roy convinced him out of necessity for continuation to become a public co. Walt knew what the end result would bring, and it is coming true. As his philosophy drifts from the co., so the co. becomes washed in the bottom line. So whoever is in place in exec. positions is just a puppet, incl. Iger. And I am a stockholder. JMHO

 

[Horace Horsecollar]

Disneys woes stem from stockholders and bottom lines. Walt refused for a long time until Roy convinced him out of necessity for continuation to become a public co. Walt knew what the end result would bring, and it is coming true. As his philosophy drifts from the co., so the co. becomes washed in the bottom line. So whoever is in place in exec. positions is just a puppet, incl. Iger. And I am a stockholder. JMHO

When you're selling a non-essential product or service (such as entertainment or vacation destinations) in a competitive market, the bottom line depends on delighting customers and providing value. We can debate how well the executives at Disney are doing this, but I don't buy that the top executives at The Walt Disney Company are just puppets. (I also don't buy the excuses, made by various posters over the years, that the next level of executives or the managers below them are just puppets.)

And there's nothing wrong with executives and managers striving to achieve strong and ever-growing bottom lines. Profits are not a bad thing. Keeping expenses under control is a necessary part of maintaining profitability, but, in the end, it's not a way to drive growth. That requires excellence in what you deliver to your customers and how you invest in the future.

Executives at the top provide direction, set the priorities, put the right people in place, and make the biggest financial decisions. Say you want about Robert Iger and how he has run Disney, he is not a "puppet."

 

[Horace Horsecollar]

MiceAge editor Al Lutz has an essay today about Meg Crofton's new position and what it means to Disney park fans:

http://miceage.micechat.com/allutz/al071211a.htm

 

[Michael623]

DLP is the most poorly managed theme park I've ever visited. I honestly believe that new blood could only help there.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Ugh. Did I just use the phrase "going rogue?" Can someone shoot me now... please?

you probably deserve it for that one

 

[lockedoutlogic]

When you're selling a non-essential product or service (such as entertainment or vacation destinations) in a competitive market, the bottom line depends on delighting customers and providing value. We can debate how well the executives at Disney are doing this, but I don't buy that the top executives at The Walt Disney Company are just puppets. (I also don't buy the excuses, made by various posters over the years, that the next level of executives or the managers below them are just puppets.)

And there's nothing wrong with executives and managers striving to achieve strong and ever-growing bottom lines. Profits are not a bad thing. Keeping expenses under control is a necessary part of maintaining profitability, but, in the end, it's not a way to drive growth. That requires excellence in what you deliver to your customers and how you invest in the future.

Executives at the top provide direction, set the priorities, put the right people in place, and make the biggest financial decisions. Say you want about Robert Iger and how he has run Disney, he is not a "puppet."

what you said is all well and fine...but i don't think it applies to the cast of characters we're talking about here...

Iger, i agree, is not a puppet...he's a non-creative suit from TV whose sole purpose prior to ABC being bought was to suck up as much advertising dollars as he could.

At least Eisner had a creative background...

so in alot of ways it would be better if Iger were a puppet...because he does have real power and control...and as long as their is revenue growth or the potential for revenue growth...he has a board and shareholder rubberstamp. That is dangerous. But as i've said before, the problem with disney is that it is a public company with too many holdings...and that's not gonna change.

But as far as the rest of them: they really are just puppets. Have you seen Rasulo or Staggs ever speak? The muppets have more lifeblood than those two...same with al weiss (orlando mouthpiece...and not just another hairclub client)...definitely paul "the brain" pressler...and on and on and on.

The last disney exec that used his personality to try and sell product other than Eisner was- ironically - Michael Ovitz. And that worked out well...he still makes about 2 mil a year from TWDC and hasn't worked in 15 years.

But they are plug in suits...i can't give any benefit of the doubt here. I have no doubt that Crofton is one. Anyone who has presided over park stagnation - and that's whats happened at WDW in particular - and gone along with substandard new park construction...is a non-creative tool.

They are simply riding the Disney name and rep for as long as they can...and the cost cutting and stupidity will be masked by it for quite sometime so there will be no excuses. It might take another 50 years to destroy the thing. But that is what is going on...once it became only about the stock price and the dividend...the course was set. Now it's profiteering under an elaborate PR shield that attempts to maintain the "brand". But the shield can't last forever.

 

[mjstaceyuofm]

Logic - I've been known to get on Disney's case just as much as the next guy, but I'm wondering what kind of progress the President of WDW should be showing at the resort or in the parks to satisfy you? Honestly, I haven't been to WDW in 2 years (going down in just a few months here though), but prior to that we did 4 trips in two years and I thought the parks and entire operation seemed to be running OK. Aside from OKW needing a refurb (which it got after we went down), I was pretty satisfied with our experience. Admittedly, my kids are getting older and when we go down there's some touring the parks, but not as commando crazy as it used to be. We've been so many times it's about hitting the favorites, the new stuff and soaking up that Disney atmosphere. We love just hanging at the pool, hopping in/out of the parks and eating at the restaurants. It's less about characters, riding *every* ride, etc. I see the posts about stagnation, but with rides being refurbed and added, new resorts being built, park expansion, etc. I don't really see the stagnation.

I'm sure you have lots to say, so please..... I know we agree on a lot as I've read and agreed with many of your posts and views. I'm anxious to hear.

Also, do you think there is any potential to have Meg vacate her role as Pres. of WDW in favor of someone else (like Dan Cockerel) and concentrate on her new role as head of parks?

 

[DanMedix]

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/the-daily-disney/os-disney-executive-changes-20110705,0,6941221.story


...I'm sorry, but she LOOKS like a Disney VILLAIN.....lol