Why email stamps are a good idea
A little while ago AOL decided to charge organisations and companies for guaranteed delivery of fully-hyperlinked and imaged emails in users’ inboxes.
A New York Times article described it 
as “a major change in the economics of the Internet”.
Many saw this a bad thing. Some because it looks like a naked grab for cash , others because it creates a two-tier email system, others because they view it as an attack on free speech (SpamHaus too), others because it might be anti-competitive, putting another squeeze on small businesses but easily absorbed by larger corporations.
Seth Godin, however, puts his head up above the parapet and provides a robust defence of the idea.
It’s all about friction, apparently. He concludes that everyone’s a winner. The only people who will lose are spammers and marketers who measure tonnage.
Similar Posts:
- Apple Mail Team engineer who blogs!
- AOL demands cash on delivery for email
- The Gmail disposable email address hack
- Two ways to send emails at a specific time
- Schedule emails to send later in Mail.app
Tags: AOL, delivery assurance, email, friction, goodmail, metrics, spammers, stamps, Yahoo
February 9th, 2006 at 4:43 am
Still think this is a flawed argument — he’s saying purchasing stamps destroys ‘anonymity’… just like that my Wellsfargo Identity tracking is supposed to prevent Identity theft should I pay a monthly fee? The point is, if they wanted to do this, they could provide verification of stamps WITHOUT paying.
And if cash is the balance here that is supposed to separate the legitimates from the illegals — I’d beg to differ largely. I’m sure that the average home office user has less finances to blow than large spammers world wide.
We buy physical stamps in the world to fund the process of sorting, delivering, and the man power it accomodates. We’re paying her for the simple man power… to do what? Something that I can program spam assassin or exim to do? I see it as the IRS irony — 30% of the funds are going to run the project — but in this case, I don’t get to elect the other allocations.
I think it’s snake oil to pitch a flawed program. Old ideas don’t always adapt to the new. Money has never been the answer to this type of vilification — if that were so, Yahoo AND Microsoft would have solved spam like Gates argued.
I’ll quote the The Onion on this one:
“Finally, I’ll be able to trust that my inbox will be filled only with legitimate, paid spam.”
February 9th, 2006 at 4:50 am
I’d also like to note that I’m required to keep my URL information up to date for whois as well, and that is part of our annual fee for url’s… this is supposed to halt hacks and spammers, but it does none of the sort — mainly because the manpower to validate all of that is near to impossible.
While this is more automated, and running through aol/yahoo’s servers, so it can be caught at the get go — it’s a similar, though toned down idea, that I can see having the same problem. Never watched, it’ll just be a dated system — difficult to update, difficult to get off your list.
February 9th, 2006 at 5:10 am
I’d even also note SSL certifications were started for similar reasons, and I see fake ones of those around as well all the time from ISP’s who don’t care to validate the purchase.
February 9th, 2006 at 8:03 am
People have said that (insert pay-for-email scheme here) is the solution to spam for years, and the idea has always been flawed and always fails. This is no different.
The minute my ISP fails to deliver mail to me because someone won’t pay for it is the minute I change ISPs.
Basically these people are idiots.
February 9th, 2006 at 12:44 pm
The strongest objections seem to be coming from the “attach on freedom of speech” angle – see Cory Doctorow on Boing Boing and SpamHaus’ comments.
February 9th, 2006 at 12:47 pm
I don’t know if I’d go so far as to label it a freedom of speech issue, but I do agree: “Email being basically free isn’t a bug. It’s a feature that has driven the digital revolution.”
I think it will push more and more people to the edge of alternative communications, namely more chat interaction and online collaboration tools.
February 16th, 2006 at 11:58 am
I’d accept the argument that a fee would solve the spam problem if I didn’t get a nice big pile of junk mail delivered to my doorstep every single day.