News Jill Estorino Named President of Disneyland Resort

[Disney Irish]

Not for nothing but it’s possible that this was a choice she made. As long as she’s been with the company, I’m sure she has the room to approach someone like Iger or Josh and say “hey, I know this position is gonna open and I’d like to have it.”

She certainly wouldn’t be the first person I’ve heard of getting close to retirement and choosing to move into an easier, lower scale role.

Flip side to that, it could be seen that the two Domestic Resorts are more prestigious and rank higher than even the Head of International Parks who have the other 4 International Resort Presidents reporting to them. We know for example that all past Disney Experiences Chairman's have all come from the Domestic Resorts. So this could be a stepping stone to something larger within the company. Also as we know retirement age isn't the same as it used to be, many executives (look at Iger) continue on into their 70s. So even if she is early 60s she could legitimately got another 10 years or more at the company.

 

[Mr. Sullivan]

Flip side to that, it could be seen that the two Domestic Resorts are more prestigious and rank higher than even the Head of International Parks who have the other 4 International Resort Presidents reporting to them. We know for example that all past Disney Experiences Chairman's have all come from the Domestic Resorts. So this could be a stepping stone to something larger within the company. Also as we know retirement age isn't the same as it used to be, many executives (look at Iger) continue on into their 70s. So even if she is early 60s she could legitimately got another 10 years or more at the company.

That’s true!

I had considered whether or not Josh maybe wanted to build a local team of people with long time experience to be able to rely on as both US resorts undergo massive work. Could be helpful for him having someone of her experience overseeing one of the US resorts.

 

[TP2000]

I did have a thought once I hit send on my last message that I wonder about maybe being a factor in this

At this point, it’s an open secret that they’re preparing to press go on a second gate at Shanghai. Do you think it might be possible that it was decided to move her into this role for the rest of her time with the company before her retirement so that they can go ahead and get a new person in her role that will be there once the actual construction of that park begins rather than having to do that handoff in the middle of that project?

If her previous role is to be the person that the international presidents report to, I can imagine some value in having the person who’s fulfilling that role when construction begins, and the person who is fulfilling that role when that park opens being the same person.

Perhaps. There is definitely always some level of strategy when you move any manager around, and certainly with the ones who have executive titles on their business cards. It usually looks about one or two fiscal years out, at most.

But the thought that Disney, or any big company really, has an executive strategy that looks more than 3 full fiscal years in advance is usually folly. No one, not even Josh D'Amaro, can pretend to know what the world and his team will look like in 2029, much less beyond 2030.

I'm thinking the most likely answer is the most obvious one; Jill Estorino has had a long and successful career with The Walt Disney Company. She has a hefty salaried pension waiting for her, from the time when companies still had pension plans for salaried folks, plus all the usual 401K, IRA, etc.. And it is the right and appropriate thing to do to give Ms. Estorino a last and final executive gig to allow her a save-face landing pad for her storied career, even if it's a demotion in scale and scope from her previous roles.

I'm still looking forward to seeing her first interview in the OC Register and OC Business Journal (Hell, does that one even still exist? It used to be the Bible!), plus whatever fawning lifestylers they allow to have access to her.

But from the basic data and resume' she has publicly available, I don't expect her to be in Anaheim terribly long. But the Walt Disney Company thanks her for her service!

 

[TP2000]

Flip side to that, it could be seen that the two Domestic Resorts are more prestigious and rank higher than even the Head of International Parks who have the other 4 International Resort Presidents reporting to them.

There's definitely a hierarchy of the Disney properties. WDW is the biggest ship of the line, the behemoth that will never be matched in size, even if the style is a bit bland. Disneyland Resort is the stylish flagship, the one they'll never be able to recreate even if they tried.

Then there's the four overseas properties, which seem to be ranked Tokyo, Paris, Shanghai, Hong Kong (I bet they wished they hadn't ever done that one, at this point).

But to have a President who oversees the four international resorts combined, and then reports to the Chairman, is definitely a taller order and larger role than the site specific Resort President in Anaheim.

We know for example that all past Disney Experiences Chairman's have all come from the Domestic Resorts. So this could be a stepping stone to something larger within the company.

I think the clock is running against her on that. If she was 48, or even 55, I could consider that. But at her age at 62 or 63? Nope. Not when they have a 55 year old man now running the entire Company.

I can't imagine Ms. Estorino, as a self-described Marketing Thought Leader with 35+ years of sales and marketing experience is suddenly going to be interested in theme park rides, hamburger production lines, hotel housekeepers, parking booth attendants, security guards and custodians, and the various maintenance trades that make it all run.

And then take that sudden interest in daily blue collar operations and use that as a springboard to later-in-life career greatness? At age 66? Seems like a very wild stretch. When she could just retire normally, with wealth, and go play tennis.

The most obvious answer is the most likely one; she got a gig that was a demotion in scope but with a lateral title move to end her storied executive career at. She'll be gone before her 3 year contract is up, also known as her 65th birthday when her full pension is available. Or a year or two before her 65th, when the Company credits her that last few pension years.

 

[DrStarlander]

Josh D'Amaro and The Walt Disney Company are not putting someone in charge of the Disneyland Resort as some kind of retirement gift or consideration to benefit that person for their service to the company. Josh: "Though we are a $175 billion publicly-traded media company with dozens and dozens of long-term executives, you get to run one of our most critical assets because we feel we owe you something." She has the job because Josh and Thomas Mazloum want her in that seat. The stakes are waaaaay too high for these guys to be fooling around. If anything, she's doing them a favor.

 

[TP2000]

She has the job because Josh and Thomas Mazloum want her in that seat. The stakes are waaaaay too high for these guys to be fooling around. If anything, she's doing them a favor.

She certainly is doing them a favor to take a demotion in scope and scale, if not actual title. It's likely a way to graciously allow her long and successful career in Disney marketing to steer itself onto a short glide path to retirement.

Last week, she was in charge 4 properties with 6 Parks, 18 Hotels, 3 malls, and 66,000 CM's. Resort President's reported up to her.

Next week, she will be in charge of 1 property with 2 Parks, 3 Hotels, 1 mall, and 36,000 CM's. She is now one of those Resort Presidents who used to report to her, and now she reports to Thomas Mazloum who just got promoted from his President role to Chairman.

Regardless of what industry it is, that's not a promotion in scale, scope, or responsibility. In a carefully scripted way, it might be able to be spun as a lateral move. In real life though, it's a demotion in scale, scope, and responsibility.

 

[PiratesMansion]

There are three possible ways to read going from the internationals to Disneyland:
1.) Downsizing of responsibility
2.) A promotion-a disproportionate number of people that have gone on to higher things have had tenures at the domestic rather than the international parks.
3.) Random shuffling of the deck chairs that has no real meaning/merit to Estorino herself.

Historically I'd be inclined to go with number two, and while ostensibly 63 is close to retirement age, let's be real, there are plenty of workaholic boomers who don't know how to do anything except work, and she need not necessarily be removed from that category simply because she's a woman.

 

[DrStarlander]

She certainly is doing them a favor to take a demotion in scope and scale, if not actual title. It's likely a way to graciously allow her long and successful career in Disney marketing to steer itself onto a short glide path to retirement.

Last week, she was in charge 4 properties with 6 Parks, 18 Hotels, 3 malls, and 66,000 CM's. Resort President's reported up to her.

Next week, she will be in charge of 1 property with 2 Parks, 3 Hotels, 1 mall, and 36,000 CM's. She is now one of those Resort Presidents who used to report to her, and now she reports to Thomas Mazloum who just got promoted from his President role to Chairman.

Regardless of what industry it is, that's not a promotion in scale, scope, or responsibility. In a carefully scripted way, it might be able to be spun as a lateral move. In real life though, it's a demotion in scale, scope, and responsibility.

Nah, you keep looking for the compromise in all this. You're rooting around trying to find a way this reflects poorly on her, reflects poorly on Josh, on the company, that a decision is being made for a small reason like as a retirement gift for a loyal foot soldier, or her "last gig" request before retiring, or "it's demotion! See she sucks!"

You seem not to be able to come up with the most obvious explanation of all: she's the best fit for the job. I have no doubt she got a pay bump (not that it's my business), and it's a critical position and there is nobody else at the Disney company that Josh wants in this seat.

I also want to point out that the new International Parks President (perhaps they dropped the "Managing Director" part of the title, that's a very international title, common overseas, not used much in American business) comes from Consumer Products, as noted below:

Tasia Filippatos is appointed President, Disney Parks International, overseeing the growth and evolution of Disney’s parks outside the United States.

Most recently, Filippatos served as President of Disney Consumer Products, guiding the business through a period of transformation fueled by innovation-led growth. Her leadership included a global portfolio spanning products, Parks merchandise, retail, publishing and games while translating iconic storytelling into scaled consumer experiences through premier brand partnerships worldwide.

In her new role as President of Disney Parks International, Filippatos brings a proven track record of leading complex global businesses at scale across diverse international markets. A visionary leader at the forefront of creativity and innovation, she will oversee the operations, expansion, and development of Disney’s international parks — including Disneyland Paris, Hong Kong Disneyland, Shanghai Disneyland, Tokyo Disney Resort in partnership with Oriental Land Company, and our newest park coming to Abu Dhabi in partnership with Miral.


So, if you're going to make a case that being International Parks President is higher than Disneyland President, the fact the new International Parks President is from Consumer Products, not directly from (any) Parks, would seem to undercut that argument. It makes it appear International Parks President is the warm-up act, Disneyland President is the spotlight role.

Big picture, Josh is about to take on the biggest job in his life. He has nothing on his mind other than "what will help me be successful." The ghost of Chapek hangs over him. The dream of being the next Iger or even Eisner hangs out there. He's not doling out jobs as gifts, he's not "accommodating" requests from tenured executives, he's not accepting bad-fit executives because he feels he owes them something.

He wants her in that job because he knows her and what she's capable of and what talents she brings. Given Josh and Thomas's backgrounds, I'm confident it was a good pick. And given it was announced before Josh had even had taken the CEO position -- and the actual CEO, Bob Iger, is down the hall and knows Jill -- I'm sure it was completely signed off and supported as a great move.

 

[denyuntilcaught]

He wants her in that job because he knows her and what she's capable of and what talents she brings. Given Josh and Thomas's backgrounds, I'm confident it was a good pick. And given it was announced before Josh had even had taken the CEO position -- and the actual CEO, Bob Iger, is down the hall and knows Jill -- I'm sure it was completely signed off and supported as a great move.

In all fairness, I didn't read the comments as an invalidation of her worthiness to be in the role - I think her being the best fit is a given! - but also an analysis or rather an inquiry as to what it means beyond that.

For example, a comment on the page prior brings up an interesting point: placing Estorino at DLR and Filippatos at International sets the leads in place ahead of announcing the 2nd Shanghai gate (and Abu Dhabi construction in earnest, assuming that continues to move forward), ensuring stability in the long run.

Or as I believe TP2000 mentioned, her intentionally wanting to downsize her own role and perhaps live closer to home. That move can speak volumes as to who she is, and wanting to get to know who she is is proper fodder for a forum like this. I'd believe that person to be intentional and thoughtful about their decisions, and hopefully more emotionally invested in one resort versus four. That's more revealing than the initial press release.

I understand the subtext in your post aimed at TP2000, DrStarlander, but I think the bigger picture here is an and, not an or.

 

[DrStarlander]

In all fairness, I didn't read the comments as an invalidation of her worthiness to be in the role - I think her being the best fit is a given! - but also an analysis or rather an inquiry as to what it means beyond that.

For example, a comment on the page prior brings up an interesting point: placing Estorino at DLR and Filippatos at International sets the leads in place ahead of announcing the 2nd Shanghai gate (and Abu Dhabi construction in earnest, assuming that continues to move forward), ensuring stability in the long run.

Or as I believe TP2000 mentioned, her intentionally wanting to downsize her own role and perhaps live closer to home. That move can speak volumes as to who she is, and wanting to get to know who she is is proper fodder for a forum like this. I'd believe that person to be intentional and thoughtful about their decisions, and hopefully more emotionally invested in one resort versus four. That's more revealing than the initial press release.

I understand the subtext in your post aimed at TP2000, DrStarlander, but I think the bigger picture here is an and, not an or.

The comments absolutely were intended to invalidate her. There is little doubt about that as far as I'm concerned.

I'm challenging the theory that this is true:

Or as I believe TP2000 mentioned, her intentionally wanting to downsize her own role

Counting parks and hotels and employees is quite likely irrelevant. That's how an outsider may size things up. But quite likely not the metric to judge the "size" of a role. And I'm pointing out that the new person who will be overseeing all those parks, all those hotel rooms, all those employees was just at Consumer Products where they operate zero parks, zero hotel rooms, and far fewer employees.

So, my goal is to challenge the entire conceptual narrative that this new role is a step down rather than a step up. I think I've successfully defeated that position simply by pointing out the path Filippatos is on. Once we can all agree that this is most likely a promotion (why the hell would Josh demote someone into one of the most critical roles in the company at the most critical point in his career? It's lunacy), this is a more likely a more important role, then let's move forward discussing how her background -- the things she's credited with doing -- could provide insight into her future tenure.

 

[Disney Irish]

In all fairness, I didn't read the comments as an invalidation of her worthiness to be in the role - I think her being the best fit is a given! - but also an analysis or rather an inquiry as to what it means beyond that.

For example, a comment on the page prior brings up an interesting point: placing Estorino at DLR and Filippatos at International sets the leads in place ahead of announcing the 2nd Shanghai gate (and Abu Dhabi construction in earnest, assuming that continues to move forward), ensuring stability in the long run.

Or as I believe TP2000 mentioned, her intentionally wanting to downsize her own role and perhaps live closer to home. That move can speak volumes as to who she is, and wanting to get to know who she is is proper fodder for a forum like this. I'd believe that person to be intentional and thoughtful about their decisions, and hopefully more emotionally invested in one resort versus four. That's more revealing than the initial press release.

I understand the subtext in your post aimed at TP2000, DrStarlander, but I think the bigger picture here is an and, not an or.

Other than travel the Disney Parks International President is out of Burbank reporting to the Parks Chairman. So unless Estorino wanted to cut down on travel I don't see how this is "trying to be closer to home" or even downsizing her role as she'll just be in Anaheim instead of Burbank still reporting to the Parks Chairman. And given how DLR is changing and expanding over the next decade or two this can be a larger role than her previous position.

 

[denyuntilcaught]

The comments absolutely were intended to invalidate her. There is little doubt about that as far as I'm concerned.

Emotional narratives are called that for a reason.

Counting parks and hotels and employees is quite likely irrelevant. That's how an outsider may size things up. But quite likely not the metric to judge the "size" of a role. And I'm pointing out that the new person who will be overseeing all those parks, all those hotel rooms, all those employees was just at Consumer Products where they operate zero parks, zero hotel rooms, and far fewer employees.

It's not, but okay. Let's not conflate scale and importance. International inarguably has a greater scope and scale than DLR. That's just...numbers. To an extent, you're arguing both scale and importance, to the latter which I don't think anyone is disagreeing.

Filippatos' role is of greater scale, Estorino's is of greater importance, particularly from a visibility standpoint both internally and externally - and unironically, certainly from a marketability standpoint (they certainly make the figureheads of DLR and WDW more visible than, say, the heads of SDL and HKDL, for example.)

From a revenue and pure significance standpoint, DLR "means more" to the company than any of the international resorts - I'm being lazy with metrics, but we all intrinsically know it. But that's an importance metric, not a scale. It's up to Josh to determine what that means from a move - even if it's lateral, which hasn't been discussed.

Once we can all agree that this is most likely a promotion (why the hell would Josh demote someone into one of the most critical roles in the company at the most critical point in his career? It's lunacy), this is a more likely a more important role, then let's move forward discussing how her background -- the things she's credited with doing -- could provide insight into her future tenure.

So is the intention to continue the conversation until there's complete control of the narrative, or can we continue to have productive debate?

Other than travel the Disney Parks International President is out of Burbank reporting to the Parks Chairman. So unless Estorino wanted to cut down on travel I don't see how this is "trying to be closer to home" or even downsizing her role as she'll just be in Anaheim instead of Burbank still reporting to the Parks Chairman. And given how DLR is changing and expanding over the next decade or two this can be a larger role than her previous position.

My note on being closer to home wasn't literal zip codes - an international role inherently requires a lot of airplane travel regardless of where it's located out of. And anyone who has had that kind of role knows it gets tiring after a while.

 

[Disney Irish]

Emotional narratives are called that for a reason.

It's not, but okay. Let's not conflate scale and importance. International inarguably has a greater scope and scale than DLR. That's just...numbers. To an extent, you're arguing both scale and importance, to the latter which I don't think anyone is disagreeing.

Filippatos' role is of greater scale, Estorino's is of greater importance, particularly from a visibility standpoint both internally and externally - and unironically, certainly from a marketability standpoint (they certainly make the figureheads of DLR and WDW more visible than, say, the heads of SDL and HKDL, for example.)

From a revenue and pure significance standpoint, DLR "means more" to the company than any of the international resorts - I'm being lazy with metrics, but we all intrinsically know it. But that's an importance metric, not a scale. It's up to Josh to determine what that means from a move - even if it's lateral, which hasn't been discussed.

Except none of us here really know how inside Disney each of these roles are viewed. Again for all we know DLR and WDW are the pinnacle of Disney Experiences, and that being President of each Resort respectively is tantamount to being 2nd's in command behind the Disney Experience Chairman. So you might think that the President of International Resorts is greater in scale, but remember that in reality that role is likely minor in comparison due to Disney not owning most of the International Resorts, ie they only fully own DLP and have either minor stakes or licensing agreements for the others. So really much of that role is likely lesser as its more likely to be about managing the relationships rather than true day-to-day as DLR or WDW President would be doing. Meaning the person in the role likely have no input on future projects for say TDL or SDL. It appears to be a learning role for Parks, as much of the current (new) and former people in the role have been outside of Parks as has been mentioned. That means they aren't putting a seasoned Parks person in the role since its not likely a critical part of the overall operations of each of those Resorts. So that can't be discounted here. So again I don't feel this is a demotion or downsizing in anyway.

So is the intention to continue the conversation until there's complete control of the narrative, or can we continue to have productive debate?

The problem is that the narrative is being controlled by someone who is pushing this idea that this is a "lesser" role, a demotion, and that it was given to someone on their way out, which is all speculation without foundation. That isn't trying to have a conversation, its trying to push a specific narrative without being open to other possibilities.

My note on being closer to home wasn't literal zip codes - an international role inherently requires a lot of airplane travel regardless of where it's located out of. And anyone who has had that kind of role knows it gets tiring after a while.

Except that too just like everything else here is speculation without foundation. Because we don't know if less travel is the reason why she accepted the role. So saying she intentionally is downsizing her role and perhaps wanting to be closer to home isn't something that we can know, as we don't know her actual intentions.

 

[denyuntilcaught]

The problem is that the narrative is being controlled by someone who is pushing this idea that this is a "lesser" role, a demotion, and that it was given to someone on their way out, which is all speculation without foundation. That isn't trying to have a conversation, its trying to push a specific narrative without being open to other possibilities.


Except that too just like everything else here is speculation without foundation. Because we don't know if less travel is the reason why she accepted the role. So saying she intentionally is downsizing her role and perhaps wanting to be closer to home isn't something that we can know, as we don't know her actual intentions.

You're absolutely correct! This is a discussion, and no one here - as far as I know - has claimed knowledge of anything beyond the fact that Estorino is now in charge of DLR there's been a few other changes in the organization. And no one is assuming that we do know more, hence the discussion.

It reads as if there may be a few here that may be assuming that this individual may be "controlling" the narrative about Estorino choosing a lesser role based on past experiences with this individual. I'm coming from a different angle, again, of an and, not an or.

But then again, this individual isn't the one who has outwardly claimed to control the narrative or has said "once we all agree...,"... that was someone else entirely.

Either way, to say "we don't know anything else, that's it!" is a closed ended way of approaching the discussion and is inherently unproductive to a forum. But that's just my opinion, and I've put it out there, and now I leave you all to continue fussing.

 

[DrStarlander]

International inarguably has a greater scope and scale than DLR. That's just...numbers.

But we don't know what the International Parks President actually has control over or not. The Filippatos change empirically suggests that numbers of parks, hotel rooms, and employees doesn't matter as much as some fans think.

Filippatos' role is of greater scale

Without knowing the positions' actual authorities, who knows.

This is a discussion, and no one here - as far as I know - has claimed knowledge of anything beyond the fact that Estorino is now in charge of DLR there's been a few other changes in the organization.

People are claiming all sorts of knowledge, some speculative (that numbers of parks, hotel rooms, and employees is what matters at The Disney Company, thereby this is a demotion) and some is factual knowledge (Filipinos just got the International job as a move from Consumer Products).

But then again, this individual isn't the one who has outwardly claimed to control the narrative or has said "once we all agree...,"... that was someone else entirely.

What I said was:

Once we can all agree that this is most likely a promotion..., this is a more likely a more important role, then let's move forward discussing how her background -- the things she's credited with doing -- could provide insight into her future tenure.

I think most likely and more likely is a reasonable bar in this circumstance. If people want to keep arguing that Disneyland President is a demotion and/or less important, by all means, continue. Apologies for seeming to stifle further exchange.

 

[CoastalElite64]

Either way, to say "we don't know anything else, that's it!" is a closed ended way of approaching the discussion and is inherently unproductive to a forum.

100%

 

[Disney Irish]

Either way, to say "we don't know anything else, that's it!" is a closed ended way of approaching the discussion and is inherently unproductive to a forum. But that's just my opinion, and I've put it out there, and now I leave you all to continue fussing.

I don't think anyone specifically said that directly or even indirectly.

As for the rest of your post, its pretty clear some are trying to push some narrative for whatever reason. Point is that any number of things are possible including things we've never even thought of. So really its anyone's guess, and no one is really right here.

 

[TP2000]

Nah, you keep looking for the compromise in all this. You're rooting around trying to find a way this reflects poorly on her, reflects poorly on Josh, on the company, that a decision is being made for a small reason like as a retirement gift for a loyal foot soldier, or her "last gig" request before retiring, or "it's demotion!

I'm rooting around for information on a senior Disney executive, a self-described "Marketing Thought Leader", that no one here has ever heard of. The search function shows her name has never been typed here in the last 20 years until last week.

And now she's in charge of Disneyland? Who is she? What's her deal? Where'd she come from?

See she sucks!"

No one has said that.

We have only looked into her own background, from the well-scrubbed and carefully phrased information Disney itself has put out about her, and her own interviews with typically fawning industry trade magazines.

He wants her in that job because he knows her and what she's capable of and what talents she brings. Given Josh and Thomas's backgrounds, I'm confident it was a good pick. And given it was announced before Josh had even had taken the CEO position -- and the actual CEO, Bob Iger, is down the hall and knows Jill -- I'm sure it was completely signed off and supported as a great move.

Could be, but we've watched this movie before.... Exciting news of new TDA President Du Jour!

It's Cynthia Harriss!
It's Ed Grier!
It's Rebecca Campbell!

I think we're all hoping that Ms. Estorino becomes a Ouimet, or even just a Potrock, instead of a Grier or Campbell or Harriss.

 

[ToEarthandback]

Could be, but we've watched this movie before.... Exciting news of new TDA President Du Jour!

It's Cynthia Harriss!
It's Ed Grier!
It's Rebecca Campbell!

I think we're all hoping that Ms. Estorino becomes a Ouimet, or even just a Potrock, instead of a Grier or Campbell or Harriss.

I don’t think anyone believes that’s what you are hoping for. You are rooting for failure so you have something to post about in your usual smug, baby-boomer way

 

[TP2000]

Historically I'd be inclined to go with number two, and while ostensibly 63 is close to retirement age, let's be real, there are plenty of workaholic boomers who don't know how to do anything except work, and she need not necessarily be removed from that category simply because she's a woman.

No one has done that, until that sentence you just typed.

I'm trying to remember the last Disneyland President they appointed that was over 60 years old, and I'm drawing a blank. They've always been people in their late 40's to late 50's, and the older ones skewed heavily to Park experience. George Kalogridis was in his late 50's and had worked his way up from WDW busboy when he arrived in Anaheim in '09.

The first Disneyland President was Jack Lindquist in 1990. He'd been with the park since '55 and was about Jill Estorino's age and was clearly on a glide path to his retirement a few years later. He suffered the annoyance of having to Co-President with Paul Pressler for his last year.

The work experience these unknown execs bring to Anaheim, which alludes to directly to their age, would be a valid point of reference to use for anyone given that role, especially someone from Marketing who has never directly overseen Resortwide operations before.

In her most previous role as Disney Parks International President, she oversaw four different site Presidents who were in charge of their own Resortwide operations. Now, suddenly, she's in charge of her own 2-park Resort, and she's doing the job her underlings had. That's worth noting.