Okay, okay… So I took a week off. I guess I first should apologize for not getting the third part of this series posted last week. It’s just that, this is Spring Break season, and while that may bring thoughts of rest and relaxation to the average person, for someone like me who works in the tourism industry, it can evoke thoughts of sheer terror (especially when you don’t have enough staff!). Furthermore, it is this same time when college instructors like to make projects and papers due as well as have exams. Finally, to top it all off, last week was “State Ride Inspector” week, and, well… let’s just say not everything went according to plan.

But, this is a new week. Projects are turned in. Exams are finished, and all rides are operating as planned (weather permitting, of course!) So, now that I’ve completed the self-pity portion of this article, let’s get down to the real business at hand, shall we?

When last we left off, I had departed the WDC shareholder meeting after nearly three hours and forty-five minutes. As it would turn out, the meeting would last over one hour longer before finally announcing the results of the vote and then convening. By this time, I was well on my way home.

Well, we all know how that turned out, but for those who may have been living in a cave, an astounding 43% of shares were voted against Michael Eisner in an unprecedented vote of no confidence. Within 24 hours, Eisner was stripped of his title as Chairman of the Board, but retained as CEO of the company. The Chairman role was then filled by George Mitchell, who himself received over a 24% vote of no confidence – the second largest after Michael.

It has been nearly a month since the “Fireworks in Philly,” and, well, not much is happening. But as I’ve followed this story for the past four weeks, I’ve surprised myself at how my opinion has developed.

Now, be forewarned. The following statements are MY OWN VIEWS. I don’t expect everyone to agree with them. I’m sure everyone has their own opinion, and I certainly respect that. But, I just want to share with you my views on this mess, and what I think should be done.

Before going to Philadelphia – and in the weeks immediately after returning – I was part of the angry mob trying to storm Eisner’s office and have him burned at the stake… But that’s not so much my opinion anymore. In order to demonstrate my opinion, I’m going to first discuss the points that Roy and Stan have made that I agree with, and then I’ll discuss where my opinion may veer off in another direction.

Roy and Stan claim that Michael Eisner has lost touch creatively. I agree. They claim that he is focused too much on the bottom line. I agree. I recently read an excerpt from a TIME Magazine article that was published a few years after Eisner took the helm at Disney (back when he had more hair!). The article praises him for turning the Disney Company into a multi-billion dollar company, and for growing it in creative ways that were never imagined.

Look at what Michael spearheaded at the beginning of his career at Disney:

• Dramatically increasing the number of on-property hotel rooms at Walt Disney World.
• Creating exciting new attractions such as Splash Mountain, Star Tours, Tower of Terror, and Indiana Jones Adventure.
• Building a successful (at least at that time) chain of Disney Stores that sold unique merchandise that appealed to people of all ages.
• Producing a stream of successful animated features like The Little Mermaid, Aladdin, Beauty and the Beast, and The Lion King.
• Expanding the Disney parks to Europe with the creating of one of the most detailed theme parks ever built at Disneyland Paris.

Now, I’m not saying that Michael Eisner was personally responsible for all of these things, but he certainly did have a hand in them. But let’s compare that to some of the projects he has overseen recently:

• Closing attractions at the theme parks and either replacing them with stores or restaurants, or not replacing them at all (the submarine rides at both WDW and Disneyland immediately come to mind…)
• Overbuilding the Disney Stores, spreading them too thin so that they are no longer so unique, and filling them with merchandise that does not appeal to a large audience.
• Producing a stream of “so-so” animated features, such as Atlantis, The Emperor’s New Groove, Treasure Planet, Dinosaur…
• Completely stopping production on all future traditional 2-D animated films, laying off thousands of animators, and focusing solely on 3-D CGI animation (to compete with PIXAR?)
• Building new parks such as the troubled Disney Studios Paris and the underwhelming Disney’s California Adventure that feature very few “new” and “innovative” rides, but instead feature clones of existing rides at other Disney parks, and off-the-shelf rides that you can experience at your local Six Flags.

These are just a few examples, but it is easy to see that the quality of the output has declined in recent years under Eisner’s leadership. Building parks and attractions cheaper saves money. Replacing attractions – which do not generate money – with retail stores or restaurants that increase the cash flow and add to the bottom line.

So, what is it that happened? Where did Michael Eisner go wrong? When did things change from taking risks and innovation to being financially conservative and copying others successes?

I think it was between 1992 and 1995. There were a series of events that took place that, in my opinion, drastically changed the way Michael Eisner ran the Walt Disney Company from his top spot.

First, Euro Disneyland (later re-named Disneyland Paris) opens as arguably the most beautiful and detailed “Magic Kingdom” style Disney theme park that has ever been created. Not long after the park opened, however, things were looking dismal. The park was loosing millions of dollars a year and analysts predicted that the park would be permanently shuttered. That had to be quite an eye-opener for uncle “Mikey.”

In 1994, Frank Wells, the President of the Walt Disney Company (essentially the #2 man in charge) dies suddenly and unexpectedly in a helicopter crash. Frank, long the business genius of the duo, balanced Michael well. It was kind of like a check and balance system. Michael had his hands in the creative things while Frank made sure they were financially sound. With the loss of Frank, Michael suddenly found himself taking on both roles, and the creativity began to fade.

Finally, it wasn’t long after Frank Wells’ death that Michael himself suddenly found himself looking at his own mortality. Around that time, Michael underwent emergency quadruple heart bypass surgery.

I think these three things combined were what changed Michael. If just one of them had happened and not the others, I don’t think we would be where we are today. The Euro Disneyland situation lowered Michael’s confidence. Frank Well’s sudden passing left him without his check and balance, and heart bypass surgery made him realize that even he was not invincible. This, I believe, was the turning point.

But what do we do now? Yes, a 43% no confidence vote is huge, but I think it is premature to call for Eisner’s immediate dismissal. This must be done very carefully. I agree Eisner should step down, but I think that this should only be done after a timely and orderly transition has taken place between him and his successor. Of course, this means that first a successor must be found.

But this might be a harder task than one might think. The Walt Disney Company is so much different than the company Walt Disney and his brother Roy O. Disney left behind when they died. Back then “Walt Disney Productions” (as it was then known) was only in the movie and theme park business. Disney as we know it today is a massive media and entertainment conglomerate that includes film productions of all varieties, television networks and cable stations, theme parks and resorts, and consumer products. The company Eisner now runs has morphed so much that the person who runs it needs to be skilled in all of these trades.

What complicates that matter even more is the looming Comcast takeover bid. I certainly hope that Disney can continue to remain an independent company (although, after reading Dave Parker’s recent columns, who knows!), if Eisner is just tossed out on the street with no immediate successor in place, it would only serve to make Disney an easier target for Comcast maybe even other companies!

And I don’t think Roy E. Disney is right on target, either. I have to wonder why he waited so long to be so vocal about his disapproval of Michael Eisner. I think it just seems too coincidental that he waited until he was going to be thrown off the board (because of a mandatory retirement age that he voted for!) to do so. I think that, regardless of what they tell you, Roy Disney’s campaign IS personal.

Roy and Stan are making Michael Eisner out to be the evil villain in the next big animated feature (well… COMPUTER animated feature…). But, I don’t see Michael Eisner as a villain. He did do wondrous things in his tenure with the company. I just think that his creativity has run dry, and it is time to bring in some fresh blood with fresh, new ideas to pump some excitement and creativity back into the ranks of the company. (Very much like what Eisner himself did 20 years ago!) After all, twenty years IS a long time for one person to be in control of the creative direction of a company.

So, I guess to sum things up, I pretty much agree with Diane Disney-Miller, Walt Disney’s sole surviving child. She was recently interviewed by the LA Times saying that “it’s time [for Michael Eisner] to step down and let someone else come in for the future. New leadership is necessary. Michael Eisner did some great things for the company, but there are also some not so great things.”

In the same interview, Diane criticized Roy E. Disney – her cousin – on what she called a “vicious” and “personal” campaign to oust Eisner that she thinks was a catalyst for the Comcast takeover bid. She feels that the best course of action would be for the board to immediately begin a search for a suitable replacement to Eisner, and then have an orderly transition.

Diane, I think your dad would be proud. I just hope this story has a happy ending.

I’ll see ya next week!