(Deliverability) Email stamps
Latest posts | Feed | By Mark Brownlow
The cat is out of the proverbial bag, and he's carrying a sheet of stamps. Though the idea of paying for guaranteed delivery of email is not new, the whole Goodmail / AOL rumpus brought it to the attention of the mainstream media.
On top of that, leading voices in the marketing world are coming out in favor of an email delivery system that is based on a for-fee fast-track alternative (i.e. stamps). One of those is Seth Godin, a man whose opinion carries plenty of weight.
There are various arguments in favor of charging for email delivery, but the biggest practical one is that it makes money for the ISPs.
These are the gatekeepers. Until now, they've paid (in infrastructure) for the privilege of delivering other people's marketing emails. Any concept that turns that cost into a revenue source has strong attractions.
Whether it makes sense for anyone else or for society may be irrelevant. If changing to a for-fee delivery approach boosts the bottom line, that's what they will most likely do.
What might persuade them otherwise?
Arguing that it goes against some mystical spirit of the Internet is a non-starter. Like that's ever meant anything in the face of commercial realities. I'm old enough to remember the same argument being used against banner ads and pay-per-click search engine listings.
But the real problem may simply be implementation: finding a system that works. Here are just a few issues...
1. The system needs to make provisions for one-to-one non-spam email (from friends, colleagues, web visitors sending feedback etc.) This is a big one. Using my address book as a whitelist for incoming email won't work. Not everyone I want email from is in there. Not even all my friends are in there.
Do we require everyone to pay for all the email they send? That might be a little tricky to sell to the general public. (Though it would put an end to those annoying chain emails from my sister.)
What can work, then, is to have this stamp system tacked on to the current system. If you don't pay, then nothing changes. If you do pay, you get guaranteed delivery. Everyone makes their own decision about paying and nobody loses. That's the situation we seem to have now with AOL.
The only problem there is that there's an enormous incentive for ISPs to make the current system as "unreliable" as possible, at least with regard to commercial bulk email, in order to get mailers to switch to the pay-for-delivery version. Ooops, turned the anti-spam filter up too high again.
That's an issue touched on in this leader at silicon.com, suggesting paid email effectively downgrades those not using certification.
What if we could reach a point where everyone has to pay for their email to be delivered? Even then...
2. There must be provisions for non-commercial bulk email (charities etc.) who may not have the economic justification or commercial skills to go the full-blown stamps route.
(In this whole debate, nearly everyone forgets that not every sender of opt-in bulk email is doing it to generate direct revenue.)
3. The system has to be widely applicable. Postage stamps work because there is one basic source and their stamps are accepted everywhere in the world. It's no good if every ISP uses a different certification and stamp system.
And if there is one system, who controls it?
4. The certification criteria applied to those wanting to get the stamp need to ensure spammers do not get certified and that the very highest permission standards are followed. Otherwise you just add to the spam / inbox clutter problem.
And these criteria need to support a level playing field.
The post office doesn't require you to be a US resident to send a postcard to the USA. Goodmail's AOL certification process, for example, requires "business headquarters located in the United States or Canada."
5. The solution has to be simple. Not everyone is an email marketing giant with a dedicated IT team.
Tom O'Leary expands on this implementation problem and Bill McCloskey raises some more questions about the impact on (and reaction of) marketers, lawyers, agencies and consumers.
It seems very unlikely that a working solution could be found to all these problems, at least in the medium term. But the debate is not over and presumably there are more alternatives likely to appear as the conversation continues.
On top of that, leading voices in the marketing world are coming out in favor of an email delivery system that is based on a for-fee fast-track alternative (i.e. stamps). One of those is Seth Godin, a man whose opinion carries plenty of weight.
There are various arguments in favor of charging for email delivery, but the biggest practical one is that it makes money for the ISPs.
These are the gatekeepers. Until now, they've paid (in infrastructure) for the privilege of delivering other people's marketing emails. Any concept that turns that cost into a revenue source has strong attractions.
Whether it makes sense for anyone else or for society may be irrelevant. If changing to a for-fee delivery approach boosts the bottom line, that's what they will most likely do.
What might persuade them otherwise?
Arguing that it goes against some mystical spirit of the Internet is a non-starter. Like that's ever meant anything in the face of commercial realities. I'm old enough to remember the same argument being used against banner ads and pay-per-click search engine listings.
But the real problem may simply be implementation: finding a system that works. Here are just a few issues...
1. The system needs to make provisions for one-to-one non-spam email (from friends, colleagues, web visitors sending feedback etc.) This is a big one. Using my address book as a whitelist for incoming email won't work. Not everyone I want email from is in there. Not even all my friends are in there.
Do we require everyone to pay for all the email they send? That might be a little tricky to sell to the general public. (Though it would put an end to those annoying chain emails from my sister.)
What can work, then, is to have this stamp system tacked on to the current system. If you don't pay, then nothing changes. If you do pay, you get guaranteed delivery. Everyone makes their own decision about paying and nobody loses. That's the situation we seem to have now with AOL.
The only problem there is that there's an enormous incentive for ISPs to make the current system as "unreliable" as possible, at least with regard to commercial bulk email, in order to get mailers to switch to the pay-for-delivery version. Ooops, turned the anti-spam filter up too high again.
That's an issue touched on in this leader at silicon.com, suggesting paid email effectively downgrades those not using certification.
What if we could reach a point where everyone has to pay for their email to be delivered? Even then...
2. There must be provisions for non-commercial bulk email (charities etc.) who may not have the economic justification or commercial skills to go the full-blown stamps route.
(In this whole debate, nearly everyone forgets that not every sender of opt-in bulk email is doing it to generate direct revenue.)
3. The system has to be widely applicable. Postage stamps work because there is one basic source and their stamps are accepted everywhere in the world. It's no good if every ISP uses a different certification and stamp system.
And if there is one system, who controls it?
4. The certification criteria applied to those wanting to get the stamp need to ensure spammers do not get certified and that the very highest permission standards are followed. Otherwise you just add to the spam / inbox clutter problem.
And these criteria need to support a level playing field.
The post office doesn't require you to be a US resident to send a postcard to the USA. Goodmail's AOL certification process, for example, requires "business headquarters located in the United States or Canada."
5. The solution has to be simple. Not everyone is an email marketing giant with a dedicated IT team.
Tom O'Leary expands on this implementation problem and Bill McCloskey raises some more questions about the impact on (and reaction of) marketers, lawyers, agencies and consumers.
It seems very unlikely that a working solution could be found to all these problems, at least in the medium term. But the debate is not over and presumably there are more alternatives likely to appear as the conversation continues.
Permalink | February 08, 2006 |
0 comment(s)
Get posts like this: as an RSS feed | biweekly email | via Twitter
Get posts like this: as an RSS feed | biweekly email | via Twitter
0 Comments:
Comments closed for this post
