Before revision:  We found that the recipients were not retaining most of the messages from the bulk emails though they opened a large number of them. The tools for designing and URLanizational bulk email for communicators were very limited. The assessments on bulk emails ' values and effectiveness were different between communicatorsand recipients. We discussed possible solutions that could URLanizational bulk emails ' designing and distributing mechanisms .
After revision:  We found that URLanizational bulk email system as a whole was strained, and communicators are caught in the middle of this multi-stakeholder problem. First, though the communicators had an interest in preserving the effectiveness of channels in reaching employees, they had high-level clients whose interests might outweigh judgment about whether a message deserves widespread circulation. Second, though communicators thought they were sending important information, recipients viewed most of URLanizational bulk emails as not relevant to them. Third, this disagreement was amplified by the success metric used by communicators. They viewed their bulk emails as successful if they had a high open rate. But recipients often opened and then rapidly discarded emails without reading the details. Last, while the communicators in general understood the challenge, they had a limited set of targeting and feedback tools to support their task .