TechCrunch yesterday examined yet another Web 2.0 company called Seriosity that wants us to use a virtual currency for -- get this -- sending emails.
The idea is that the more currency (called Serio) "spent", the higher the assumed importance of the email, thus giving us a way to sift through our messages.
Techcrunch rightly poo-poohed the idea:
What isn't clear is what people can do with the currency other than send emails. Let me convert this into cash or frequent flyer miles or something else, and I'm in (beenz did this). Otherwise, what's the point, other than to amass a stunningly large number of Serio and then spend it on ... sending emails.
Nevertheless, the concept got me thinking. What if email weren't always free (aside from the ISP costs of course)? Would I be willing to pay a cent for each email I send, if it decreased the amount of spam I received?
Hmmm... maybe not just now, but if my inbox spam levels got out of control, then I'm sure I would go for it.
After all, I pay 10c -- I think -- to send an SMS message, and I send loads of those every day, never thinking about the cost.
I send more emails than text messages, about 10 times more ... hence my suggestion of 1c per email.
Is it inconceivable to pay for something that used to be free? Absolutely not. Think water.
Comments
2 comments / Skip to comment form
Im not bothered about Google's Ads on Gmail. Plus I get free txts (02 pay as you go). So, no I wouldn't want to pay for email.
I hear ya Phil. What I'm wondering though is -- for people who get a lot of spam, would they pay for email if it guaranteed no spam?
Leave a comment