I got a message from SaveDisney.com requesting I send an email to Eisner requesting he resign. I did so, but the email bounced. Do you think Disney disabled his account, or is it just full from people emailing him?

Well, what did the bounce-back message say? It'll probably tell you.

this is what mine said: Your message was not delivered to the following recipient:

michael.eisner: User unknown
ra

I got a bounced one and it said "This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification.

Delivery to the following recipients failed.

george.mitchell@pipperrudnick.com"

it was sent from postmaster@DHP0482.savedisney.com

Maybe refer your bouncers to the folks at SaveDisney.com, in case SaveDisney may have gotten the addresses wrong, or in case SaveDisney is unaware of the bounces. They'd (SD) appreciate the feedback.

Did anyone elses letter to Eisner not go through for Savedisney.com? I just sent it yesterday but today got an email from disney saying it didnt go through. Oh well it doesnt matter because i just send three more.

I sent a custom letter (not the form letter) about 1 hour after receiving the request from savedisney.com yesterday. It did not get bounced back from Eisner or any of the board members.

Clearly, they started getting bombarded and had their respective IT staffs temporarily disable the email accounts.

Email bombing the executives seems like a particularly childish and useless approach. The only likely impact I can of this particular activity is some major headaches for front-line IS staff.

It would be really nice if the SaveDisney.com folks would learn to distinguish between constructive approaches and this kind of nonsense.

-Jeff

It would really be nice if Mr. Eisner took off the denial blinders and do what 43% of the shareholders requested: Step down, now.

Originally posted by wendybeth
It would really be nice if Mr. Eisner took off the denial blinders and do what 43% of the shareholders requested: Step down, now.

Actually, I agree with that. More accurately, I would agree that they need to get a succession plan into place directed toward Eisner's exit at the earliest point that a suitable replacement can take over.

I simply don't see how spamming Disney's email servers is going to accomplish that goal. I really don't see it doing anything other than causing major headaches for front-line IS staff, potentially causing further disruption of the ongoing business operations that really have nothing to do with the executive office.

For what its worth, I don't have any problem with a letter-writing campaign. In fact, I think it is one of the most appropriate and effective means of communicating one's views in situations like this. What I have a big problem with is this kind of "sign and click" mailbombing. It is a lazy and ineffectual method of communication.

-Jeff

I sent one the other day and it did not come back, at least not yet;)

Originally posted by JeffG

For what its worth, I don't have any problem with a letter-writing campaign. In fact, I think it is one of the most appropriate and effective means of communicating one's views in situations like this. What I have a big problem with is this kind of "sign and click" mailbombing. It is a lazy and ineffectual method of communication.

-Jeff

JeffG, I agree. It's just 'way too easy for our auto-generated messages to be auto-deleted at the other end. Mark all as being read, then hit delete, no muss, no fuss, no wading through a spectrum of E-mail content. Not too effective. The letter writing and clicking to send is offset by the auto-deletion or auto-rejection at the other end. Tit for tat. Net gain for any effectiveness is zero.

Traditional letter writing campaigns can be effective, provided the recipient is impressed with the volume of it and the content of it. They do keep tallies of letter writing in government offices and in corporations.

To give a grain of sand of fairness to the Eisner and Disney Board of Director's camps: In lieu of the four of them stepping down from their posts immediately, with no sucession plan in place and which might put Disney into some short-term instability, they are: Splitting the positions of CEO and Chairman of the Board into two separate positions served by two separate people. May not be the ideal people for those jobs, at the present, but it's an interim move. Eisner's contract is over in September 2006 anyway. The Board may be dealing with the results of the proxy vote at their upcoming retreat in April, trying to draw up better governance and perhaps see who else could get on their Board who is more independent yet savvy in the business and entertainment and technology industries. They may end up not renewing Eisner's contract in two years. They may in fact see handwriting on the wall, but for now feel Eisner is better and more familiar with the company today and that a new person from outside would have a steep learning curve the Board feels is too long a time to wait. Now they have two years to get their act together, show the stockholders they are in fact listening and in fact attempting to do, and that these things don't turn on a dime and need to be carefully thought out. So pipe down with the petitions, they may be saying, and give us a chance to do something, they may be saying.

I said it was a grain of sand in fairness to Eisner and the Board. They may just want to chance to act as they may hear the shareholders are telling them, but do it carefully to keep the stock price up and stable and fend off Comcast at the same time. I didn't say I agreed necessarily with the above, but it is what it is, a grain of sand of fairness in their general direction. They may be buying time, in their minds to do all the changes they want to do in accordance withthe shareholders' and not rush into anything hastily they'd regret later.

Not trying to start anything here, just based on some of what I heard on CNBC after the vote earlier this month.

Originally posted by CarolKoster
JeffG, I agree. It's just 'way too easy for our auto-generated messages to be auto-deleted at the other end. Mark all as being read, then hit delete, no muss, no fuss, no wading through a spectrum of E-mail content. Not too effective. The letter writing and clicking to send is offset by the auto-deletion or auto-rejection at the other end. Tit for tat. Net gain for any effectiveness is zero.

Simpler than that. Email client rule saying:

If body text contains "[section of text from form letter]"
Then move to trash

No human intervention required.

Or you can use the alternative, which apparently Disney used. Kill the targeted mailbox and give him a new mailbox that doesn't follow standard naming conventions so that the general public can't find it or guess it.