I also remain skeptical that taking away decision-making responsibilities from a boots-on-the-ground leadership at each park is going to lead to the best for each park. I just think there are some things about what a park needs that you can only understand if you are
deeply entrenched in the park’s culture, history, community, and all its little minutiae and quirks day after day. The big things might not be affected as heavily (it’s not hard to set a corporate strategy that says “KD needs theming investment to expand upon the Jungle X momentum”), but it’s the small, easy to overlook things I worry about.
For example, I remember Bridgette Bywater saying last year that she really wanted to turn the bathhouse roof behind Victoria’s into an elevated rooftop patio. She got her wish this year (with it coming to fruition sadly just a few weeks before she left). It’s small opportunities like that which I think only arise when you’re forced to pay attention to all the ins and outs of the park and what might make it better — not a monthly strategy visit to the park.
That said, outside of that concern (which is a big one), I’ve warmed up slightly to the idea of this new corporate structure. I think it’s important not to lament a change because “it’s always been this way” — and it’s possible that Six Flags genuinely believes, given their unprecedented scope and scale, this new structure is an opportunity to more effective manage the parks (in addition to the obvious cost-saving motivation). They’ve talked for months about their desire to flatten the organization and streamline decision-making to make it faster and less bureaucratic. Under CF’s pre-merger structure, the GMs had lost considerable decision-making power several years ago once CF added the SVP of Operations role — with every GM reporting directly to Jason McClure or Pat Jones, and all big decisions ultimately being decided by them or another corporate office. Simultaneously, many roles previously managed by the GMs (finance, marketing, capital planning, etc.) had been centralized to corporate.
I wonder if SF realized two things:
- With 27 parks in the portfolio, having the GM/president of every park report to a regional executive for decision-making and accountability would lead to slower decision-making and redundancy
- Much of the GM’s/president’s job responsibilities were an anachronism of a time when the GM led business functions like marketing and finance, and with those centralized at corporate the GMs spent less and less of their time making strategic business decisions
Given those (valid, in my opinion) problems, I think the idea of splitting GM role into two roles isn’t completely illogical: one that focuses on day-to-day operations (Park Manager) and one that focuses on the business strategy (Regional GM). Essentially, here’s what each person says:
- Park Manager: What does the park need today?
- Regional GM: What does the park need over the next 5 years?
I think in theory, that structure can lead to more focused decisions and accountability on both fronts. My biggest concern is that sometimes you can only know what a park needs in the future by understanding how the park operates every day, so hopefully the regional GMs will be in frequent contact with their Park Managers. If I were in charge, I would also probably give some decision-making authority to the Park Manager to make small one-off investments in the park as they see necessary (though maybe that’s the case now.)
Wasn’t planning to write so much about this, but I’ve thought a lot about this change in my free time. It’s cliche to say the theme park industry is ultimately all about people, but it’s true. KD in particular has throughout its history been shaped and rocked by people who cared about and understood the park to varying degrees. I just hope Six Flags had more than just a cost-saving motivation behind this change and that they felt this was a legitimate opportunity to put the right people in place to make the right decisions.