I think this idea might have potential actually for non famous people. Besides the market for famous people simply isn't that large and suffers anyway from becoming impractical if it were successful. (Unless you raise the price per email to an objectionable level).
But consider whether people would agree to receive email if they were paid per message. All the emails would be pitches and the price paid for the message would depend on a bidding system tailored to both the end user and the person selling something (or the advertiser).
Arbitrary examples:
Car dealer wants to send you an email: .02
Supermarket: .04
Local plumber: .10
Life insurance salesman: .15
PC Mall .01
The idea being that people agree to accept and read spam (maybe you have to click to show you read the message which would have to be only a certain length) to get the money.
Add: While this sounds like opt in it's not. This is money per message. You have to read the messages in order to collect the fee for reading.
Would a life insurance salesman pay .15 per recipient to know that his email had a good chance of being read? I think he would.
As an advertiser, why would I pay potential consumers to read my ads? I would rather spend that money on an agency that is going to make people want to read my ads.
"why would I pay potential consumers to read my ads?"
To get them to take action. You can have a click here in an email.
"I would rather spend that money on an agency"
"That" - You can do that as well and should.
This is not choice of one or the other. Companies spends money on advertising. But they also spend money on events necessary to inform and of course generate publicity.
Comments
I think this idea might have potential actually for non famous people. Besides the market for famous people simply isn't that large and suffers anyway from becoming impractical if it were successful. (Unless you raise the price per email to an objectionable level).
But consider whether people would agree to receive email if they were paid per message. All the emails would be pitches and the price paid for the message would depend on a bidding system tailored to both the end user and the person selling something (or the advertiser).
Arbitrary examples:
Car dealer wants to send you an email: .02 Supermarket: .04 Local plumber: .10 Life insurance salesman: .15 PC Mall .01
The idea being that people agree to accept and read spam (maybe you have to click to show you read the message which would have to be only a certain length) to get the money.
Add: While this sounds like opt in it's not. This is money per message. You have to read the messages in order to collect the fee for reading.
Would a life insurance salesman pay .15 per recipient to know that his email had a good chance of being read? I think he would.
As an advertiser, why would I pay potential consumers to read my ads? I would rather spend that money on an agency that is going to make people want to read my ads.
"why would I pay potential consumers to read my ads?"
To get them to take action. You can have a click here in an email.
"I would rather spend that money on an agency"
"That" - You can do that as well and should.
This is not choice of one or the other. Companies spends money on advertising. But they also spend money on events necessary to inform and of course generate publicity.