X-Message-Number: 13874
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 12:08:28 -0700
Subject: Re: CryoNet #13850 - #13856
References: <> <>


Hello CryoNet Administrator...

Did you not get this psoting yesterday? I did not see it amomg todays
cryonet posts.


Michael Riskin
> 6.7.00
> From: Michael Riskin ( Alcor director, but not speaking as an official
> represntative in this posting).
> Re: Dave Pizer's comments about Alcor
> Dave Pizer said:
> > " All Alcor has to do is lower its current
> > prices for what they presently deliver and the added volume and more
> > reasonable public appearances will make things better for Alcor
> > financially and in membership growth and other important areas...."
> I disagree with the notion that a lower price, on its own, will
> accomplish everything that Dave thinks it will. He is analyzing this as
> if it would fit into any one of the many standard price/supply/demand
> curves.
> The real issue here is the tiny demand for services no matter what the
> cost. The great majority of people I talk to about cryonics do not bring
> up cost as an important issue. There are many people we all know of who
> wont even take it as a gift. It is likely, if the costs were brought
> down to a "whimsy factor" of say $500, we would get a great deal of
> impulse buyers from people who like to have stars names after them  but
> that is not what this is all about.
> Cryonics simply put, has very little perceived value in the public eye,
> less than a large screen color TV I believe, and certainly less than a
> luxury automobile. The other thing is that funding through life
> insurance is already at an easily affordable cost to most people and
> less than most of the " amusements" that the typical consumer purchases.
> When we can prove beyond the apparant ( to cryonicists) sensibility of
> doing this, that it works, then the demand will far outstrip the supply
> at almost any price.
> That all being the case, it makes no sense to reduce the price below
> current levels. What is involved for all current and potential patients
> welfare is far more than the expense of grab, perfuse, freeze, and
> store. We need excess funding to cover the contingency costs of new
> technologies, legal challenges, reanimation, and catastrophic events. If
> the only concern was covering freeze and store costs at current expenses
> levels plus a small operating profit, then we would be saying that it it
> is acceptable under extreme adverse circumstances to give up patients,
> like a mainstream business accepts the notion of bankruptcy as an
> option. That is not acceptable to Alcor.
> > anything else.
> >
> > My claims are:
> >

> > 1.      The present prices do not have to be so high for Alcor to come out. 
> > prices were figured using liberal figures and then doubled because ....  I
> > don't know why they doubled the figures.  My guess is that they thought
> > more (money) is better. But some times more money prices your product of
> > service out of reach from what would be your consumers.  Especially the
> > cash sale cases of which the future will be mostly made up of.  So my
> > conclusion is that the present high prices are not helping Alcor as the
> > board thought they would when the board set the prices so darn high.  It
> > isn't working.  Alcor is still very tight on finances.  Membership growth
> > is very slow.  Alcor misses most of the suspensions that are being done.
> > Alcor is falling behind.  None of us Alcorians want to see that continue.
> Alcor is not falling behind in any of the areas in which progress is
> legitimately measured. In fact, exactly the opposite is true. Alcors
> technical capability, already arguably the best at this time, continues
> its' rapid growth.

> > 2.      The public appearance of a more reasonable priced suspension would 
> > Alcor not look like such an elitist organization.  (Another huge increase
> > in public appearance would be to offer a brain suspension rather than the
> > whole head).
> Brain only suspensions have their own technical and cost complications
> that far outweigh any savings from long term storage of a smaller mass
> at this time.
> >

> > 3.      The added volume of doing a lot more suspensions at a reasonable 
> > would end up making Alcor more money than just doing one or two a year at
> > the higher prices.  Too high of prices are costing Alcor money.
> Perhaps in the short run. The short run is not what Alcor is about.
> >

> > 4.      Doing more suspensions would mean that Alcor would get better at 
> > them.
> That is true.
> >

> > 5.      Doing more suspensions would mean that Alcor would get more members.
> > Relatives of patients tend to join up.  They make some of the best members,
> > most loyal and tend to donate additional funds and labor.
> Also true.
> >

> > 6.      A more reasonable priced suspension would mean that more of our 
> > humans could have the benefit of cryonics.
> >
> > Alcor is set up for memembers.  That is not where the cryonics business is
> > going.
> >
> > I believe that most of the prospective suspensions in the future will be
> > people who are not signed up a long time in advance; What are commonly
> > called "last minute" cases.  These are people who did not sign up years ago
> > and have found themselves in a terminal condition.  These are people who
> > did not plan ahead.  These are people who will not be able to get life
> > insurance. They will have to write a check if they are to get suspended.
> > When you have to write a check all at once, rather than make insurance
> > payments, the price is even more critical in your decision.
> That is the cost of shortsightedness. Alcor and its' patients and its
> long term members cannot bear that cost.
> >
> > One of the problems with this is that last minute cases have always been
> > considered the ones with the most potential liability or be harder to do.
> > This may or may not be true.  I remember BIG trouble from relatives in the
> > Dick Jones case.  He was not a last minute case.  In that case, Alcor lost
> > over a million dollars to the relatives (not of Alcor's previous money, but
> > money of Dick's that might have gone to Alcor except for litigation with
> > the relatives).
> >
> > On the other side, Alcor had a patient's sister (a last minute case) sue to
> > have her sister unfrozen.  The monetary cost (in the sister case) to Alcor
> > was a lot less than the Dick Jones case.  My point here is that there is
> > potential risk in *all* cases.  But if the future volume of cryonics is
> > going to be mostly last minute cases, (people who were not signed up for a
> > long time ahead), than Alcor should be learning how to deal with these
> > cases so they can be comfortable in accepting them and have the proper
> > terms and conditions set up in advance so they can take them.
> Last minute cases can often be the very best and most acceptable. Again,
> the primary issue to consider is whether or not these cases will harm
> the patients or signed up members. in fact, there is an argument to be
> made that procrastination should reasonably carry a higher price for
> service and therefore induce early signups.
> >
> > I hope the Alcor Board will consider the items I have raised and also Jeff
> > Davis' suggestions along with all other suggestions on how to make cryonics
> > more successful.
> >
> > I hope others will submit their suggestions on either side of this
> > important issue so we can leave no block of ice unturned.
> >
> > Dave  Pizer
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=13874