Why the Hatred Towards Meg Crofton and Jay Rasulo?

[disneyphilip]

I don't really understand why most folks hate Meg Crofton (WDW's current president) and Jay Rasulo (the head of the Disney Parks & Resorts division).

It sounds like most folks have been bashing them for no reason and are refusing to give them chances to prove themselves.

To me, they're only criticizing Rasulo because they don't like the "Year of a Million Dreams" campaign or the "global" restructuring of the parks division. They think he's out of touch with the parks.

And they seem to hate Crofton because they think she's just a spinless figurehead and a Rasulo puppet. They also seem to think that an HR person (what Crofton was) should not have a high position in running the resort. She especially needs time to prove herself, since she's only been in the position for a few months already.

I hope to hear what you folks have to say about them, preferably from those who I think that they are not so bad.

 

[Zippa D Doodah]

Funny thing... I think this latest trend of bashing Rasulo and Crofton has shown me how many of us will bash whomever happens to be in leadership position at the time. We think XYZ should happen; XYZ doesn't happen so therefore leaders must be to blame.

Now that Eisner is history I pay a whole lot less attention to who's running the show for Disney. Rasulo and Crofton? I don't have an opinion on how they're doing.

 

[bicker]

Funny thing... I think this latest trend of bashing Rasulo and Crofton has shown me how many of us will bash whomever happens to be in leadership position at the time.

BINGO. I've been discussing Disney theme parks online for well over 20 years, and there has always been a healthy contingent of curmudgeons, ready to take cheap pot-shots at those in power at the drop of the hat, pretty-much always based solely on the fact that the leaders aren't doing what the curmudgeons themselves personally want. They feel emboldened by the anonymity of the web, and that fact that the people they're slinging mud at aren't present to defend themselves.

 

[CarolA]

Two thoughts.

Does the OP expect to get a different response here then on the other message boards? (This post is an EXACT duplicate of one posted on at least one other Disney message board)

Two, I agree with Bicker. It's not that I have any problem with the current leadership, but I think there's a tendency amoung a large portion of Disney fans to live in the "What Would Walt Do" world. (Here's a hint, he wasn't a saint and he isn't going to be defrosted and brought back to life) These same folks tend to be of the any change is bad. If WDW does not change it will become stagnant and folks will not go. Don't believe me? See the finanical results of Disney PRIOR to Eisner, Try to find a park called Opryland. (Opryland never changed anything)

For those of you who wanted Eiser gone and are now unhappy some of us tried to warn you that change did NOT gurantee you became happy LOL!

 

[Gurgi]

BINGO. I've been discussing Disney theme parks online for well over 20 years, and there has always been a healthy contingent of curmudgeons, ready to take cheap pot-shots at those in power at the drop of the hat, pretty-much always based solely on the fact that the leaders aren't doing what the curmudgeons themselves personally want. They feel emboldened by the anonymity of the web, and that fact that the people they're slinging mud at aren't present to defend themselves.

Whoa, you've been on the internet for 20 years??? How was that possible????

 

[bytheblood]

I have no hatred. Eisner is gone and that is the last I thought about who was in charge.

 

[nbodyhome]

Whoa, you've been on the internet for 20 years??? How was that possible????

I don't know if this was tongue-in-cheek or not? Of course, online communities existed way before the internet (including BBS's).

I can't say that I like some of the current changes, like the hotel going in so close to FW. I don't know who decided it, but I think that is a very bad idea. But I don't pay attention to who is in charge, because I have no power over their decisions anyway!

 

[Luv2Roam]

OT, but:
I was thinking the same. I bet I have been on the internet 20 years, or at least nearly.
Yeah -- I recall those membership BBS days, no graphics and having to match protocols.
Things are much easier now!

I was just thrilled Eisner left. Have no opinions to those mentioned now.

 

[nbodyhome]

I remember Fidonet, I know it's still around. If nothing else, it was quick - it took a while for the graphics to catch up (plodding around early Prodigy and AOL took a long time!)

 

[SnackyStacky]

1.) This is off-topic for the theme parks board, so I'm moving it.

2.) I think that while there are a decent number of people willing to take pot-shots at whoever is in leadership, there's also a good number of people who are concerned simply with the underlying causes behind things. I'm one of those people. Make whatever decisions you want. But the heart and soul of Disney was that it was better than everything else. Money was invested. And it hurt to invest that money - there wasn't a lot of it. But when they DID invest it? It returned to them 10 fold. And while I don't mean to compare to Walt - an example from his day was Disneyland. From Eisner's day - Splash Mountain - the renaissance of the entire feature animation division. And Splash was actually Frank Wells. Eisner said "We can't afford to build this!" Wells said "We can't afford NOT to build this!". Who won?

I'm glad Eisner is gone. I think it's way too soon to tell how Iger's hand will affect the company. He's only been in his position for a year now. I like the way things are moving - but before I proclaim him the Disney company's savior - I'll withold judgement. Likewise with Meg Crofton. She's too new to make any kind of judgement call. At least for me.

I think Matt Ouimet was the best thing that EVER happened to a Disney park.

 

[disneyphilip]

It's also clear to me that a lot of those critics miss the good old days of the Eisner-bashing.

It's like they're saying "We can't bash Eisner anymore, so we're going to have to bash somebody else".

All this mud-slinging towards Disney has gone on too long, IMO, and I'm just tired of it.

 

[Sleeping Becca]

I don't have any experience running a multi-million (billion) dollar corporation so I really can't judge the performance of those who do, unless they drop a corporation into the toliet and take their employees and stock holders down with the corporation, and spend their employees retirement funds on lavish lifestyles (tyco/enron). I didn't have a problem with Eisner, I don't have a problem with current managment.

 

[basas]

How about their inexperience, being completely ‘out of touch’ with the theme parks, and their plans for complete globalization (and taking anyone any individual identity) of the parks (Disney Parks anyone?). Not to mention poor maintenance, cheap attractions, and handful of other issues to go along with the parks’ current issues. As others have said, Crofton is in the wrong position, and Rasulo is just not doing a good job…at all.

 

[disneyphilip]

How about their inexperience, being completely ‘out of touch’ with the theme parks, and their plans for complete globalization (and taking anyone any individual identity) of the parks (Disney Parks anyone?). Not to mention poor maintenance, cheap attractions, and handful of other issues to go along with the parks’ current issues. As others have said, Crofton is in the wrong position, and Rasulo is just not doing a good job…at all.

That's EXACTLY the kind of finger-pointing that I'm so sick and tired of.

 

[jemiaule]

Whoa, you've been on the internet for 20 years??? How was that possible????

Well let's see, AOL alone has been around in one form or another for almost 25 years:

In it's current incarnation has been around since 1989 (18 years)

AOLs predecessor was Qlink which started in 1985 (22 years)

Prior to that their first offering as Quantum was Gamline started in 1983 (24 years)


Then you got USENET, FIDONET, BBS', Prodigy, INN, etc. All of these have been around a very long time. Email, file & information sharing thru Gopher and local message boards you dial into have been in existance for a very long time.

I know I had my first email address in 1986 and was posting to discussions on USENET around that time too. Ok, I feel old now.

This useless piece of trivia brought to you by someone who not only knows what a 1200 baud modem was but owned one too.

 

[disneyfan67]

To the OP, Disney fans are passionate people and truly love the parks and the wonderful legacy and history of the company. I go to a couple other Disney related sites/boards and the authors of the weekly columns can be quite critical of the upper management. Some of it is warranted, some of it isn't. Bicker made some good points but I think Disney fans are a lot more sensitive after seeing the neglect of Disneyland years ago under Paul Pressler/Cynthia Harris. Mention those two names to most Disney fans in the know and you will see a passionate response. The park suffered under their leadership and it just wasn't the Internet that thought so, it was business magazines and newspapers that pointed that out as well. I think anytime some passionate fans see change they don't like, they blame the management.


To Bicker, my hat is off to you sir. In the past couple of years here on these boards, I have never seen anyone else write a post like you do. You make some fine points as usual and are the only one here that could fit the word "curmudgeons" in a sentence discussing anything Disney related.



As for Micheal Eisner, I don't think he gets the proper credit he deserves. When he took over in 1984 or so, Disney was in trouble and ripe for a hostile corporate take over. I have now read three books on that man and while I'm convinced he needed to step down sooner than he did, he should be credited with the good that happened under his watch. It was his idea to build two more parks in WDW and expand Disney's ownership of more resorts on property. There's a long list of accomplishments and there's a good size list of failures though, as well. The company really was thriving under him, Frank Wells, and Jeffery Katzenberg. His mistakes just caught up with him in the end. If I ever got to meet him, I would personally thank him.

 

[disneyphilip]

To the OP, Disney fans are passionate people and truly love the parks and the wonderful legacy and history of the company.

I understand that, but I often beg to differ.

By listening to a lot of those often-over-zealous criticisms, I tend to find myself thinking of them as either anti-Disney or people who just don't know how to be happy.

It's as if they don't like the parks anymore and should stop going to them if they cannot enjoy them without pointing out the flaws.

Disney is supposed to be about happiness and good things, but it seems that it's those "curmedgeons" who attempt to go out of their way to ruin Disney and make them look REALLY, REALLY bad, which is quite depressing, IMO.

 

[fabshelly]

ITA DisneyPhilip.

 

[YoHo]

Sigh.

 

[basas]

That's EXACTLY the kind of finger-pointing that I'm so sick and tired of.

Maybe you should sit back for a minute and wonder why you got such negative responses on the other message board, and why you continue to here. If you want to visit “Disney Park 1”, “Disney Park 2”, “Disney Park 3” and “Disney Park 4” at “Disney Resort 2”- continue to support Rasulo because that would be his "dream come true" in his failed YOAMD.