As someone with a small article on the economics of spam, I was interested in a new book by Seth Godin entitled Small is the New Big. Godin envisions an e-mail service that forces those who misuse it for spam-purposes pay a significant cost. (Today, the marginal cost of a spam email is zero, which is why we see so many of these e-mails filling our inboxes.)
(If the economics of spam interests you, see this exercise. If you really like Spam, go here. And then see this.)
Why might this scheme make Google the gold standard among email providers? Why might it not? Would you sign up for such a service? Would it reduce the amount of spam out there, or would it simply reduce spam originating from Gmail accounts?What if Google decided to make a Gmail account cost $1 a year instead of giving it away for free? And what if you had to use a valid credit card to pay for it?
And further, what if your Google e-mail address had to include your real name?
And what if a violation of Google's anti-spam rules (I'm assuming they'd have some) would cost $20 per incident?
Suddenly Google would become the gold standard. People would happily let it through the spam filters. You could trust it. People would become suspicious of anyone who used any other online e-mail service.
(If the economics of spam interests you, see this exercise. If you really like Spam, go here. And then see this.)
