Ask HN: I have a great idea, but nobody likes it. So here it is.
51 comments
I'm a pretty smart guy. Degree in math from a top university, started a few companies, etc., but I am totally, completely confused by what your product does.
And you're expecting someone who hasn't decided they're really going to make a go at understanding your product (i.e., the average, time-starved consumer) to not only understand but hand over money to use your product?
And you're expecting someone who hasn't decided they're really going to make a go at understanding your product (i.e., the average, time-starved consumer) to not only understand but hand over money to use your product?
I played high stakes poker for years and so understanding higher levels of "metagame" (I think that he thinks that I think, etc) comes easy to me. Naturally this is a problem when it's largely what my idea hinges upon and the target market isn't familiar with it.
You're on Mars, man. None of that has anything to do with your customer.
What hurt does your product soothe?
Right now you're describing a (very complicated) mechanism. It's what you use that mechanism for that counts.
As an exercise I'd come up with three customer stories and write a pretend press release for your product, because right now it's f^%$ing confusing.
What hurt does your product soothe?
Right now you're describing a (very complicated) mechanism. It's what you use that mechanism for that counts.
As an exercise I'd come up with three customer stories and write a pretend press release for your product, because right now it's f^%$ing confusing.
Simplified explanation: Unreliable email, so the recipient can pretend they never received the email but still act upon it's contents.
i.e. so you can tell someone that they smell, or their partner is cheating on them, without having to have the awkward conversation that both the sender and recipient would like to avoid.
i.e. so you can tell someone that they smell, or their partner is cheating on them, without having to have the awkward conversation that both the sender and recipient would like to avoid.
Example:
Subject: You Smell
Body: Sorry mate, but I wanted to tell you that you really stink, it's really offputting and I feel pretty sick when I have to stand near you. This message was sent through chancemail, there was a 1 in 10 chance this message was delivered, so the sender probably thinks you never got this message, allowing you to act on it without having to feel awkward about it.
Reaction: wtf dude, why did you email me telling me I smell?
Or in other words: Once you've sold the sender on the concept, you have also to sell the recipient on the concept. That task is even harder, because typically the recipient will just have been told something hurtful or awkward.
Question: Why is this better than anonymous email?
Subject: You Smell
Body: Sorry mate, but I wanted to tell you that you really stink, it's really offputting and I feel pretty sick when I have to stand near you. This message was sent through chancemail, there was a 1 in 10 chance this message was delivered, so the sender probably thinks you never got this message, allowing you to act on it without having to feel awkward about it.
Reaction: wtf dude, why did you email me telling me I smell?
Or in other words: Once you've sold the sender on the concept, you have also to sell the recipient on the concept. That task is even harder, because typically the recipient will just have been told something hurtful or awkward.
Question: Why is this better than anonymous email?
The original post made no sense to me but after reading your one liner I get it.
Do you think this would also help manage the 'drunken email' syndrome many of us get?
Do you think this would also help manage the 'drunken email' syndrome many of us get?
You seem to be trying to implement plausible deniability in email. People are actually capable of rich probabilistic reasoning on communication, but not in the same way that you're thinking.
That is, making electronic plausible deniability more feasible is the kernel of an interesting idea but your implementation doesn't tap into human psychological hooks. Instead of "25%", if you showed pictures of four Facebook accounts and said "one of these sent you this message", that would get the effect you seem to desire. Might be an interesting viral dating site.
Another interesting variation could be for performance reviews or political/government statements. Anytime someone wants to send a message, has an identifiable group from which that message would be seen as legitimate, yet also wants to preserve a degree of plausible deniability...this could be interesting. Suppose someone wants to float a trial balloon to find out what "coming out" as a conservative on Facebook would do. Imagine the wheels turning when it just says "one of the following frienda posted this". It's kind of like the Crushlink scam...humans are fundamentally motivated to try to put a return address on certain kinds of sensitive communication.
That is, making electronic plausible deniability more feasible is the kernel of an interesting idea but your implementation doesn't tap into human psychological hooks. Instead of "25%", if you showed pictures of four Facebook accounts and said "one of these sent you this message", that would get the effect you seem to desire. Might be an interesting viral dating site.
Another interesting variation could be for performance reviews or political/government statements. Anytime someone wants to send a message, has an identifiable group from which that message would be seen as legitimate, yet also wants to preserve a degree of plausible deniability...this could be interesting. Suppose someone wants to float a trial balloon to find out what "coming out" as a conservative on Facebook would do. Imagine the wheels turning when it just says "one of the following frienda posted this". It's kind of like the Crushlink scam...humans are fundamentally motivated to try to put a return address on certain kinds of sensitive communication.
The big problem I see is that not only do you have to explain the whole concept to your potential senders, but also to the recipients. A major reason I see for why Google Wave failed is that it required all parties involved to have signed up (and while your service might not require the recipient to sign up, they still have to know what's going on...or maybe it doesn't? I'd like to see what explanation you'd give to the recipient along with the message or lack thereof).
Actually, as I sit here overthinking things, I think your target audience is not people trying to avoid awkward social interactions, but people trying to avoid awkward social interactions because they overthink them, and what's to say they won't overthink past becoming a customer?
If I send one of these things to my grandmother, I'm fairly certain she's going to not understand whatever explanation you provide in the email and try to ask me about it. Then, once I've explained that I tried to tell her something I don't want to say in person, we're already having a conversation about it, and I would have to say it directly to her, which is what I was trying to avoid. That's the kind of overthinking you don't want, because it takes away customers.
Edit: having said that, I think it's a pretty neat idea and worth developing if you're still interested in it. Not sure I would pay money for something that could just as easily put me into the awkward situations I'd be trying to avoid.
Actually, as I sit here overthinking things, I think your target audience is not people trying to avoid awkward social interactions, but people trying to avoid awkward social interactions because they overthink them, and what's to say they won't overthink past becoming a customer?
If I send one of these things to my grandmother, I'm fairly certain she's going to not understand whatever explanation you provide in the email and try to ask me about it. Then, once I've explained that I tried to tell her something I don't want to say in person, we're already having a conversation about it, and I would have to say it directly to her, which is what I was trying to avoid. That's the kind of overthinking you don't want, because it takes away customers.
Edit: having said that, I think it's a pretty neat idea and worth developing if you're still interested in it. Not sure I would pay money for something that could just as easily put me into the awkward situations I'd be trying to avoid.
First, I think the idea is not very good and confusing.
My advice? Build it. Forget about monetization and just build it as a fun website. Then iterate, iterate, iterate.
You may end up with a website which you can monetize, or not. Either way you will have learnt something and you would be more ready for your next challenge.
My advice? Build it. Forget about monetization and just build it as a fun website. Then iterate, iterate, iterate.
You may end up with a website which you can monetize, or not. Either way you will have learnt something and you would be more ready for your next challenge.
Thanks for the advice. :)
I disagree with the business model being powerful. Think about it in terms of lifetime customer value. How many occasions is a person really going to have to use this service? Maybe once? Twice? Even if it's $50 per message, the lifetime customer value is low.
Furthermore, doesn't buying 20 messages at 10% so you're sure it will go through defeat the purpose of sending a message that you don't really want to send?
I also don't see how you come to the conclusion that the recipient can't respond.
Furthermore, doesn't buying 20 messages at 10% so you're sure it will go through defeat the purpose of sending a message that you don't really want to send?
I also don't see how you come to the conclusion that the recipient can't respond.
>I disagree with the business model being powerful. Think about it in terms of lifetime customer value. How many occasions is a person really going to have to use this service? Maybe once? Twice? Even if it's $50 per message, the lifetime customer value is low.
Perhaps I am used to startups having some sort freemium service that becomes difficult to monetize, while this is unique in the sense that users often would like to pay more for the same service. I would call this powerful. I understand the bottom line is how much the average user pays for the service, and on that note I'd say that the types of people that would like this service would definitely use it multiple times.
>Furthermore, doesn't buying 20 messages at 10% so you're sure it will go through defeat the purpose of sending a message that you don't really want to send?
No. If you do this, you know (or are 95%+ sure) that they have read your message. What you avoid is the knowledge that they know you know. This is what people go to great lengths to avoid for basic human traits such as pride and embarrassment.
>I also don't see how you come to the conclusion that the recipient can't respond.
If they respond, it implies they read the message. Before they respond, it's their own secret, since the sender supposedly doesn't know if the message went through. So they can choose to act as if they didn't get the message.
Perhaps I am used to startups having some sort freemium service that becomes difficult to monetize, while this is unique in the sense that users often would like to pay more for the same service. I would call this powerful. I understand the bottom line is how much the average user pays for the service, and on that note I'd say that the types of people that would like this service would definitely use it multiple times.
>Furthermore, doesn't buying 20 messages at 10% so you're sure it will go through defeat the purpose of sending a message that you don't really want to send?
No. If you do this, you know (or are 95%+ sure) that they have read your message. What you avoid is the knowledge that they know you know. This is what people go to great lengths to avoid for basic human traits such as pride and embarrassment.
>I also don't see how you come to the conclusion that the recipient can't respond.
If they respond, it implies they read the message. Before they respond, it's their own secret, since the sender supposedly doesn't know if the message went through. So they can choose to act as if they didn't get the message.
One of the recurring bits of wisdom from entrepreneurs (even before the web era) is that your first idea will likely not be the end product. Iterate, iterate, iterate.
So run with it and learn how to program. You'll learn how to think through the problem and implement it.
You have no idea what it will become.
You didn't write that there are opportunity costs here - that is, I'm assuming you're not quitting your day job and letting your kids go hungry. If there's nothing to lose, go for it, because you do have the experience to gain. If it works, great; if it doesn't, you'll be better prepared to evaluate an idea's success next time (and better prepared to implement the next idea too).
So run with it and learn how to program. You'll learn how to think through the problem and implement it.
You have no idea what it will become.
You didn't write that there are opportunity costs here - that is, I'm assuming you're not quitting your day job and letting your kids go hungry. If there's nothing to lose, go for it, because you do have the experience to gain. If it works, great; if it doesn't, you'll be better prepared to evaluate an idea's success next time (and better prepared to implement the next idea too).
Thanks for the advice. One of the great things about entrepreneurship is that even failed projects have numerous benefits. It's good to be reminded of this from time to time.
I like this idea. I was really shy in my dating days and it was hard for me to approach girls I liked. But maybe I could have sent a love note if it only had a 10% chance of going through, and best of all if she'd know that I was assuming it hadn't gotten through. (Assume this type of email was in widespread use and people understood it.)
In technical terms, there is in a certain branch of science the concept of "common knowledge". Something is common knowledge between us if I know it, you know it, I know you know, you know I know, I know you know I know, and so on to infinity. It's a powerful concept with many surprising implications.
Basically you aim to sell a service to let some knowledge be shared without it becoming common knowledge. The main problem I see is that it doesn't work - it doesn't achieve that goal. The problem is that the most likely outcome of your low-probability email is that nothing happens. No mail is delivered, no knowledge is shared. This is not providing any value.
I don't see how even in theory to provide knowledge transfer without that becoming common knowledge. If you could come up with a way, it might well be worth paying for.
In technical terms, there is in a certain branch of science the concept of "common knowledge". Something is common knowledge between us if I know it, you know it, I know you know, you know I know, I know you know I know, and so on to infinity. It's a powerful concept with many surprising implications.
Basically you aim to sell a service to let some knowledge be shared without it becoming common knowledge. The main problem I see is that it doesn't work - it doesn't achieve that goal. The problem is that the most likely outcome of your low-probability email is that nothing happens. No mail is delivered, no knowledge is shared. This is not providing any value.
I don't see how even in theory to provide knowledge transfer without that becoming common knowledge. If you could come up with a way, it might well be worth paying for.
I had a lot of fun reading your idea, but I can't say that I'd expect it to gain traction. Simply too confusing.
Also, one problem I notice is that the receiver might simply have no clue what's going on, either failing to read or misinterpreting the "you were to receive this email with 10% probability" message in the footer.
Also, one problem I notice is that the receiver might simply have no clue what's going on, either failing to read or misinterpreting the "you were to receive this email with 10% probability" message in the footer.
If someone is sending a message don't they either want to send it, or not send it. It is a binary decision. Who has time or patience to figure out how this scheme works and then MAYBE send a message. I say move on to the next idea.
Not necessarily. Think of a firing squad, where one rifle has a blank instead of a bullet so no individual member's conscience is burdened.
The application for this chancemail thing is narrow but definitely exists.
The application for this chancemail thing is narrow but definitely exists.
I'd assert that people who would want to use it tend to associate with like-minded thinkers, and thus are more likely to use the app effectively within their network. So it might be fine that there's not a very wide appeal.
Fun game to play with in your head, but way way way too complicated for people to use.
After revisiting this post, I think there is a simple way to state the idea:
The idea is to create a system that tricks email recipients into thinking they were not expected to receive a given message, despite allowing the recipients full knowledge of how the system works.
The first part, however (just tricking the recipients), could be done thousands of ways. For example, spoofed email from a journal service: "Here is a review of what you wrote in your personal, secret journal today: Bob in accounting smells terrible again today, my life sucks... if you believe you received this message in error, please let us know so we can correct our system." So I wonder why it is so necessary to give the recipients full knowledge of how the system works.
The idea is to create a system that tricks email recipients into thinking they were not expected to receive a given message, despite allowing the recipients full knowledge of how the system works.
The first part, however (just tricking the recipients), could be done thousands of ways. For example, spoofed email from a journal service: "Here is a review of what you wrote in your personal, secret journal today: Bob in accounting smells terrible again today, my life sucks... if you believe you received this message in error, please let us know so we can correct our system." So I wonder why it is so necessary to give the recipients full knowledge of how the system works.
Recently on Reddit, someone posted a thread saying that he took medicine that made him forget the 15 minutes after he took it. The number one response for what he should do with this superpower is message a bunch of people on Facebook saying "Would you like to go out? Don't respond if the answer is no." That way, he doesn't feel the shame of rejection if he wakes up in the morning and there are no messages.
I can see this being an example use for your service. If you take out the "someone sent you a message and it failed to go through" part, then it might actually work. People can ask someone out, and just write it off to a failed message if they don't get a response.
I can see this being an example use for your service. If you take out the "someone sent you a message and it failed to go through" part, then it might actually work. People can ask someone out, and just write it off to a failed message if they don't get a response.
This email by proxy system you want to build seems odd. With normal email, a recipient knows that someone intended to send them a message. If you were to add an anonymous service in between, you would have the same setup except that the recipient would not know who the sender was.
What you're talking about here adds another dimension on top of this basic anonymous scenario that doesn't make any sense to me. If I receive an email from an anonymous source that only had a 10% chance of delivery, how is this any different than if the email went through an anonymous mail system that had a 100% chance of being delivered?
What you're talking about here adds another dimension on top of this basic anonymous scenario that doesn't make any sense to me. If I receive an email from an anonymous source that only had a 10% chance of delivery, how is this any different than if the email went through an anonymous mail system that had a 100% chance of being delivered?
It's extremely confusing. A simple email anonymizer seems like a better option in every case I can think of.
What you're selling is essentially the illusion of uncertainty.
Let's assume for the moment your target market exists, and there are a significant number of people trying to convey a message to a particular person whilst leaving them free to act as if they hadn't received it.
There are various ways people can do this already with varying degrees of subtlety/anonymity/probability, from leaving a note somewhere the intended recipient might look before someone throws it away to "accidentally" copying them into an email about them to having a very loud conversation just outside their office. Or you could type "there's a 10% chance that you will receive this email" at the bottom of an email.
The only situation in which the latter approach is more likely to convince the target that you're unsure if they got the message is if they believe the words "there's a 10% chance that you will receive this email" actually means there's a 10% chance they received this email. Most sane people won't believe it just because it's written down.
So ultimately, what people are paying for is the credibility of "there is a 10% chance that you will receive this email". Unfortunately if your business model revolves around this statement often being a lie, the key feature of your email has no credibility and therefore no value.
It might be an interesting psychology experiment, but it isn't a business.
Let's assume for the moment your target market exists, and there are a significant number of people trying to convey a message to a particular person whilst leaving them free to act as if they hadn't received it.
There are various ways people can do this already with varying degrees of subtlety/anonymity/probability, from leaving a note somewhere the intended recipient might look before someone throws it away to "accidentally" copying them into an email about them to having a very loud conversation just outside their office. Or you could type "there's a 10% chance that you will receive this email" at the bottom of an email.
The only situation in which the latter approach is more likely to convince the target that you're unsure if they got the message is if they believe the words "there's a 10% chance that you will receive this email" actually means there's a 10% chance they received this email. Most sane people won't believe it just because it's written down.
So ultimately, what people are paying for is the credibility of "there is a 10% chance that you will receive this email". Unfortunately if your business model revolves around this statement often being a lie, the key feature of your email has no credibility and therefore no value.
It might be an interesting psychology experiment, but it isn't a business.
The major problem that I see is the opposition of incentives.
Your core idea is that, "there's a piece of information you want someone to know, but you don't want them to realize that you know that they know."
This builds uncertainty. Can't say I would ever use it, but that's fine -- I'll hold my disbelief.
Then your monetization model is to pay money to reduce that uncertainty. Said uncertainty is the only reason you used this site to begin. So you're looking for people who want uncertainty, but want to be able to reduce uncertainty within that specific instance? Seems like your target customer has split personalities, which is going to make your idea really hard to sell to them.
The other problem that I see is your explanation isn't very clear or concise. The best I can figure out is this:
"there's a piece of information you want someone to know, but you don't want them to realize that you know that they know... for things where the first level understanding is unbearable... but then you fool yourself into thinking the other person doesn't know if you know that they know."
Can you come up with a good elevator pitch for this? I'm still not quite sure what the core idea is. Examples would be greatly beneficial here, too.
Your core idea is that, "there's a piece of information you want someone to know, but you don't want them to realize that you know that they know."
This builds uncertainty. Can't say I would ever use it, but that's fine -- I'll hold my disbelief.
Then your monetization model is to pay money to reduce that uncertainty. Said uncertainty is the only reason you used this site to begin. So you're looking for people who want uncertainty, but want to be able to reduce uncertainty within that specific instance? Seems like your target customer has split personalities, which is going to make your idea really hard to sell to them.
The other problem that I see is your explanation isn't very clear or concise. The best I can figure out is this:
"there's a piece of information you want someone to know, but you don't want them to realize that you know that they know... for things where the first level understanding is unbearable... but then you fool yourself into thinking the other person doesn't know if you know that they know."
Can you come up with a good elevator pitch for this? I'm still not quite sure what the core idea is. Examples would be greatly beneficial here, too.
>Then your monetization model is to pay money to reduce that uncertainty. Said uncertainty is the only reason you used this site to begin. So you're looking for people who want uncertainty, but want to be able to reduce uncertainty within that specific instance? Seems like your target customer has split personalities, which is going to make your idea really hard to sell to them.
The recipient's perception of the sender's certainty is what's important here. If the recipient knows you sent 25 messages in a row, it's as if you sent a regular email. It logically follows that the recipient must respond, which won't happen if the recipient thinks the sender doesn't know if the message went through.
This is as explicit as I can articulate it, I think. But moving on to a few examples makes it more intuitive.
Say your boss has meetings that take up too much time and he needlessly covers off-topic things that reduce efficiency in the workplace. He's a proud guy and if you told him about this he would defend his position, as adjusting because a subordinate suggests it might make him seem weak. Of course this isn't ideal and many of you would claim to never work in such an environment, but this would be a perfect opportunity to shoot off a chancemail message with some constructive criticism. Now he doesn't have to worry about how he's perceived, because he can tell himself he just as easily could've not received the message and decided to change the meeting structure on his own.
Another example would be a father telling his son or daughter that he's sorry for mistakes made in the past, or that he is simply proud of them. This is hard to do because a response to an explicit message is necessary. With chancemail, the recipient can not respond to let the sender save face, (again, since he could have not gotten the message) while being able to appreciate that the communication took place.
As for an elevator pitch, I'm notoriously bad at them and have been meaning to improve. Often I'm so caught up in the theory behind my ideas that I lose sight of the fact that I usually only have a few seconds to sell someone on the concept. Any help would be great.
The recipient's perception of the sender's certainty is what's important here. If the recipient knows you sent 25 messages in a row, it's as if you sent a regular email. It logically follows that the recipient must respond, which won't happen if the recipient thinks the sender doesn't know if the message went through.
This is as explicit as I can articulate it, I think. But moving on to a few examples makes it more intuitive.
Say your boss has meetings that take up too much time and he needlessly covers off-topic things that reduce efficiency in the workplace. He's a proud guy and if you told him about this he would defend his position, as adjusting because a subordinate suggests it might make him seem weak. Of course this isn't ideal and many of you would claim to never work in such an environment, but this would be a perfect opportunity to shoot off a chancemail message with some constructive criticism. Now he doesn't have to worry about how he's perceived, because he can tell himself he just as easily could've not received the message and decided to change the meeting structure on his own.
Another example would be a father telling his son or daughter that he's sorry for mistakes made in the past, or that he is simply proud of them. This is hard to do because a response to an explicit message is necessary. With chancemail, the recipient can not respond to let the sender save face, (again, since he could have not gotten the message) while being able to appreciate that the communication took place.
As for an elevator pitch, I'm notoriously bad at them and have been meaning to improve. Often I'm so caught up in the theory behind my ideas that I lose sight of the fact that I usually only have a few seconds to sell someone on the concept. Any help would be great.
What advantages does your approach have over simply sending an anonymous email? Your idea looks to break down as follows:
pain: sometimes telling someone necessary causes an interpersonal friction because the recipient of the feedback is aware that the sender is observing / judging him on certain qualities. solution: give a margin for error so the feedback can be sent/received, but both parties can pretend as if the message was never sent.
So again, what does your idea offer versus an anonymous service like http://www.sendanonymousemail.net/ (or any of the others; that was just the first google result).
While I would encourage you to continue to develop this, the fact that you're unable to easily and clearly describe your idea tells me that it's a little vague to you, as well. At least that's how it comes across.
Maybe you could try to explain by analogy? E.g., "ever wish you could send someone an email they could pretend to forget? well, try [blah blah blah]"
pain: sometimes telling someone necessary causes an interpersonal friction because the recipient of the feedback is aware that the sender is observing / judging him on certain qualities. solution: give a margin for error so the feedback can be sent/received, but both parties can pretend as if the message was never sent.
So again, what does your idea offer versus an anonymous service like http://www.sendanonymousemail.net/ (or any of the others; that was just the first google result).
While I would encourage you to continue to develop this, the fact that you're unable to easily and clearly describe your idea tells me that it's a little vague to you, as well. At least that's how it comes across.
Maybe you could try to explain by analogy? E.g., "ever wish you could send someone an email they could pretend to forget? well, try [blah blah blah]"
Slightly modified, the notion could make for a convenient way to ask a female friend out. It allows her the opportunity to ignore it without being rude.
I started http://crushtease.com about a month ago, but the programmer I partnered with got sidetracked with a different idea, so it hasn't gotten traction yet. (Likely because the way we explain the idea on the homepage isn't easy enough to understand)
I think that could be a killer Facebook app (if such a thing doesn't already exist), but I think you're being too smart for your own good. If I want a way to find out if the person I'm into is into me, then I have absolutely no desire not to be warned if there is a match.
I have a similar issue with your chancemail idea. I can just about see the 'let fate decide' value, and also the bit where the receiver gets to pretend it never happened if they wish. But the bit about paying to remove all of this, and add in the receiver's mind the suspicion that you probably did so really muddies the waters.
I have a similar issue with your chancemail idea. I can just about see the 'let fate decide' value, and also the bit where the receiver gets to pretend it never happened if they wish. But the bit about paying to remove all of this, and add in the receiver's mind the suspicion that you probably did so really muddies the waters.
There were FB apps like that, but unfortunately the viral channels that made it possible (notifications) are no longer available.
Agreed - based on the first slide, I thought, "that's an awesome idea". The rest of the slides killed it.
It's unclear to me the pain you are solving that has value and will pull money from my and thousands of others wallets. Clarify is this the problem???? ... for people who are too proud to directly say things to their family and close friends, or things that would embarrass or humiliate someone if you just told them. Who is the competition that has a revenue stream?
I haven't heard of anything like this; there likely is no competition. Of course this is not necessary to qualify an idea, but I recognize the benefits of having a valid market when developing a product/service.
In this case I'm questioning whether there is one for something foreign and new.
In this case I'm questioning whether there is one for something foreign and new.
I'm also confused, but somehow intrigued at trying to decrypt the puzzle that is the idea. As an alternative to chancemail, why wouldn't I just use an anonymous email service? I can't tell from your description whether the message is anonymous or not.
If it's NOT anonymous, is the value to be able to send someone an email with you identified as the sender but with ambiguity about whether the email was delivered? - so that changes in behavior aren't assumed to be linked to the message?
If it's NOT anonymous, is the value to be able to send someone an email with you identified as the sender but with ambiguity about whether the email was delivered? - so that changes in behavior aren't assumed to be linked to the message?
>*
If it's NOT anonymous, is the value to be able to send someone an email with you identified as the sender but with ambiguity about whether the email was delivered? - so that changes in behavior aren't assumed to be linked to the message?*
Yes, that's it.
Yes, that's it.
Build it. Make all statistics on everything available.
License it out to game theory/behavioral economics programs.
Let them access other users analytics just as other users will be able to access their analytics.
That could be a really fun and informative unit... or even the subject of an entire class. Actually using real world data and how users interact with the uncertainty of having their message sent balanced against the necessity of having their message read.
License it out to game theory/behavioral economics programs.
Let them access other users analytics just as other users will be able to access their analytics.
That could be a really fun and informative unit... or even the subject of an entire class. Actually using real world data and how users interact with the uncertainty of having their message sent balanced against the necessity of having their message read.
Seems to me that a much better and more elegant solution would be an anonymous inbox or Facebook/Twitter feed. Sort of like the digital version of the classic "suggestion box." Anonymous hints, tips, etc.
Your users aren't going to want to crunch probabilities in their heads and finely adjust a dial there. Rather, what they're really after is probably conveying information in an anonymous manner. Unless I'm misunderstanding you?
Your users aren't going to want to crunch probabilities in their heads and finely adjust a dial there. Rather, what they're really after is probably conveying information in an anonymous manner. Unless I'm misunderstanding you?
Sounds a bit like the tobacco industry. People buy cigarettes to show off they're killing themselves with some certainty, but perhaps not definitely, so others seeing the smokers don't know if the smokers know they're killing themselves. Look at the profits tobacco companies are making from selling to men in Asia right now! Go for it.
If I'm too embarrassed to say something, I'm 100% too embarrased, not 90% too embarrassed. But even if I was, why would I pay extra to make sure my message got through, when email is free? In other words, I think your imagined use case is weak.
That said, go for it. Who knows what people would do with something so strange?
That said, go for it. Who knows what people would do with something so strange?
Paying extra virtually guarantees it will go through, which makes your perception of the message's delivery equivalent to a regular email.
But the other person doesn't know that you know that they know, while you simply know that they know. This is as explicitly as I can articulate it.
What you're avoiding is them knowing you know they know. Make sense?
But the other person doesn't know that you know that they know, while you simply know that they know. This is as explicitly as I can articulate it.
What you're avoiding is them knowing you know they know. Make sense?
Very, very few people would actually use this.
What's the actual incentive from the users perspective? Pay for something that very likely will not get delivered? On the off chance that if it actually gets recieved, the recipient would know that you didn't expect it to arrive?
Doesn't make much sense, and in all cases, 100% non monetizable.
What's the actual incentive from the users perspective? Pay for something that very likely will not get delivered? On the off chance that if it actually gets recieved, the recipient would know that you didn't expect it to arrive?
Doesn't make much sense, and in all cases, 100% non monetizable.
What advantage does this have over anonymous messaging ?
It seems like a lot of use cases of this product are what people use the anonymous feature of formspring for.
It seems like a lot of use cases of this product are what people use the anonymous feature of formspring for.
I concur. I'm old and out of the loop, but I asked my 16 year old the name of the site she went to in order to tell some girl she goes to school with that her legs were hairy and she should shave. Sure enough - formspring! Searched the page and found your post. Kids love it BTW - not sure if it ever gets to mature adults or not.
As the old dude that I am, I ask myself: Would I pay any amount to get an anonymous message to anyone and the answer is no. Maybe I'm missing the real value of your proposition - and if so, then you need to bring more clarity to the value.
As the old dude that I am, I ask myself: Would I pay any amount to get an anonymous message to anyone and the answer is no. Maybe I'm missing the real value of your proposition - and if so, then you need to bring more clarity to the value.
Random e-mail account anyone. Its free and will always get through.....
Dude, you can have the best idea in the world but all that is useless if you can't execute it.
You can't simply bring an idea to the table. Ideas are a dime a dozen. You better bring some real research, funds, or programming skills for developers to take you seriously. Other than that you could just try to fund the development yourself and keep all the IP rights.
You can't simply bring an idea to the table. Ideas are a dime a dozen. You better bring some real research, funds, or programming skills for developers to take you seriously. Other than that you could just try to fund the development yourself and keep all the IP rights.
So, I've decided to run the idea by you guys to see what you think. Of course anyone who likes it could just implement the concept themselves, but I'd be happy to try and work with someone on it (I'm not a programmer, but am willing to contribute where possible). The concept I've simply called "ChanceMail", and is outlined below. Any advice/criticism is appreciated.
"Chance Mail is a powerful concept in terms of monetization specifically- users benefit based on how much they pay for the same task.
Users are allowed to send a free message to someone, but the message only has a certain percent chance of actually being delivered. This percentage is determined by the sender, and is displayed in the message, if delivered. The sender is not told whether the message is delivered or not. To promote use of the app, when you send a message and it "fails" to go through, the receiver gets a message saying "someone sent you a message and it failed to go through".
Psychologically, when you send a message with say, a 10% success rate, you obviously don't know if they received it. But if they did receive it, when they see it has a 10% success rate, they know you're pretty sure they didn't get it. Ideally, this will work for things that you don't want to admit in person, because the first level understanding is unbearable.
In other words, if there's a piece of information you want someone to know, but you don't want them to realize that you know that they know, this is the best way to achieve such an understanding. But so far, the system is ineffective- the chance your intentions were actually carried out are slim.
Here's where it gets interesting, and where gaming the system for a few bucks can give the sender a psychological advantage:
You charge the sender for each additional "send" of the same message. Someone who wants to ensure that 10% message goes through buys 20 messages, and after one goes through, no more are sent, but we can't tell him nor not charge him for those extras. The great thing about the charging for additional messages is that people will actually want to pay more.
The reason for this is simple- if the receiver knows it's free or even cheap to send a ton of messages with a given small percentage, they will expect the sender to be sure the message goes through, even though on the surface it says 10% (or whatever percent). If the prices are high, they won't expect the sender to part with that kind of cash, so the sender can gain psychological footing by proving the receiver wrong and paying more.
I imagine this being useful for people who are too proud to directly say things to their family and close friends, or things that would embarrass or humiliate someone if you just told them. What's great about it is that the recipient can't directly respond, because that would imply that they received the message. If they don't respond, supposedly there's a chance they haven't even received it. When they change their actions slightly later on, much to the satisfaction of the sender, it could be because they received the chancemail, or it could be for another reason.
I envision this as simply an email website. You can send regular email, as well as chancemail messages which you specify a certain percent. It would probably be best if we limited the options to a few specific percentages, for simplicity's sake."