Now, if Skype or Google Talk joined forces with these guys, they’d really have something.

You may have heard rumblings about this, but Potomac Tech Wire reports on it succinctly:

“Dulles-based AOL and Yahoo have developed a plan to charge email marketers a fee to allow their emails to bypass spam filtering technologies that often block legitimate email. The move — being compared to stamps on letters — is aimed at allowing legitimate marketers (such as banks, publishers and associations) to get their email messages through spam filters that often block requested messages. Companies using the fee-based system would need to verify that they have been given permission to send email to the end-user. Silicon Valley-based Goodmail Systems said on Monday that its technology will be used for the new system, which would be voluntary. Marketers not wanting to pay the fee would be allowed to use the existing system, but risk that their messages be blocked by spam filters. The New York Times reported that both companies are considering charging between 1/4 cent to 1 cent per email for those firms joining the program.”

Of course it’s all about AOL and Yahoo maximizing profits, but I see this as a potential win-win. Companies engaged in legitimate email marketing spend time, money, and resources trying to keep themselves whitelisted. They don’t have to use the new system, but it may wind up being more cost-effective do so.

Napkin math: Let’s say I’m sending 100,000 emails, but right now am getting 70% deliverability. Assume half my list is AOL and Yahoo addresses. If paying AOL and Yahoo a half-cent an email means I spend $250 to improve my overall deliverability to 90%, that means 20,000 more emails get through. Depending on my business model, it’s likely that will be money very well spent: If I have an average cost per order of $50 and a conversion rate of just one percent, I’ve spent $250 to make $10,000.

Marketing takeaway: Don’t panic. Analyze your email program. Paying a half-cent an email may be flushing money down the drain … but it could also be the best thing that happened to your online marketing program.

This morning, everyone’s talking about the ads. For the record, the FedEx caveman was my favorite. (Something about cavemen seems to crack me up: I like the Geico commercial, too, with the cavemen in the restaurant.) Anyway, is it just me, or is anyone else noticing the mind-boggling irony of the Stones playing Satisfaction at the biggest marketing orgasm of the year?

Today, The Rolling Stones will play the halftime show at the Super Bowl. Yeah, it does seem weird, for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is the NFL playing to the geezer demographic: Mick and crew had seven studio albums, a live album and a compilation album on the racks before the opening snap of Super Bowl I.

Bob Garfield of AdAge had this to say about it: “For them as a band, this is the last surrender to commercialism. Next stop is Hollywood Squares. Any pretentions they have to art are gone and now they are just the ultimate commercialized pop act.”

Didn’t that happen back when Budweiser sponsored the Steel Wheels tour?

Edit: I have been reminded that Jovan spent a half-mil to sponsor the Tattoo You tour in ’81, the first-ever major corporate sponsorship of a rock band.

Bet you didn’t know that Stanford University did a bunch of research into the question of what makes a Web site credible. You do now. Three years of study, incorporating about 4,500 people. Here’s the link to more info, including 10 guidelines for building the credibility of your site.

The good news is that what makes a site credible pretty much boils down to common sense: “Avoid errors of all types, no matter how small they seem” and “Show that honest and trustworthy people stand behind your site” seem to go without saying. The bad news: Some of the research is six years old, an eternity in online terms.

Still, common sense is timeless, isn’t it? One hopes … even if it’s not always all that common.