More on e-mail

I missed Seth’s earlier post on email stamps, but he’s got a newer post where he clarifies why he’s in favor of email stamps.

As I understand it, the argument for adding a “stamp” price to e-mail is to add friction to the system, so that mailers will think twice whether they actually get value out of sending mass mailings.

From a marketing and business perspective, this makes sense, but I agree with Fred: it doesn’t add up from the users viewpoint.

One of the things I love about e-mail is how open it is. Anyone can, in theory, e-mail anyone whose e-mail address they can find. Anyone who finds my blog online can e-mail me. Anyone can email Jason Calacanis or Fred Wilson with a simple question, because e-mail is free and frictionless and completely equal.

But Seth’s proposal splits my inbox and my e-mail experience. Seth says I’ll have a “goodmail” box with mail from both people i’ve pre-approved and people who’ve paid (provided they don’t get too many complaints).

But then I would have to check a “otherbox” for e-mails that people sent me without paying for a stamp, but that I may still want.

The bottom line is that stamps don’t make my life that much easier. I still have to worry about checking a second inbox for misfiled e-mail (in fact, the chances of misfilings have increased), and the mail that has a value to the sender (i.e. worth sending from a business standpoint) is not the e-mail I want to recieve.

RSS feeds, even if centralized RSS does happen, can’t replace the e-mails I actually want to get from Amazon, Netflix, and E-bay: the ones that confirm product orders or shipments. Netflix is unlikely to pay the stamp rate just to let me know that they’ve shipped my next DVD - but I would still appreciate the e-mail.

Also, as I already said, RSS doesn’t “come to your inbox” yet.

But this is all academic anyway, since nobody who actually makes decisions is likely to read this blog.