X-Message-Number: 13949
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 10:38:19 -0600
From: Mathew Sullivan <>
Subject: Re: The SINGLE Cause of Alcor's Membership Decline Identified
References: <>


I'm not sure if you have had a chance to take micro and macro economics in
college, but we are only looking at basic market forces taking place here.
If what you say is true, that most prospective customers are more
interested in price rather than quality; Then CI should have a couple
thousand members, not a couple hundred. Alcor has more members than all the
other organizations combined, and has done so without competing unfairly.

If Alcor were in a situation where we were making money hand over fist,
venture capitalists would be taking a very strong interest in what we do
and attempt to capture a share of the market.

If you honestly think you can deliver a competitive product at a better
price, maybe it is time for you to go out and start your own organization.


At 04:44 PM 06/13/2000 -0500, david pizer wrote:
>Ever since Saul Kent brought the grave matter of the decline of cryonics to
>our attention, I have been trying to find the main cause and how to present
>evidence that it was the cause.  I consider growth as the single most
>important thing we can do at this time to protect our present patients. 
>As most of us sometimes do, I had an "educated" hunch as to what the cause
>was.  My hunch was that the main cause of the slow down in cryonics growth
>was the implementation of the Alcor Suspension Pricing that was done in or
>around 1993. At that time I was on the board and I was the only director to
>vote against it, and for good reason.  The high costs Alcor would charge
>would cut into the volume so badly, that the loss of volume (even at lower
>prices) would cost Alcor more net money (money that is left for Alcor after
>expenses) than the higher prices (on what would become lower volume) would
>generate.  Not only would we lose potential members, not only would good
>people die and not get frozen, but Alcor would suffer in net finances.
>It was in a post from Mathew Sullivan that the revealing figures hit me
>that my hunch had been right! 
>Alcor was growing like crazy through 1992.  Then in 1993 about the time
>Alcor came up with this bad plan that growth came to a screaching halt!
>After that time, Alcor got into a situation where they were always tight on
>Here are Mathew's figures again, you be the judge:
>>Year/Members/Added/% Increase
>1993 Alcor implements its present pricing policy
>I think this should give some degree of proof that the pricing plan Alcor
>adopted in 1993 is the cause of the halt in growth. 
>In addition I will add, that if Alcor had *lowered* the costs in 1993
>instead of adopting this plan, perhaps we would be well on the way to the
>projected 4,000 members and 400 patients in just a few years that the board
>felt we were on track to hit back in 1993.
>It is not too late to recover.  All  Alcor has to do is adopt a more
>reasonable price plan and the business will follow.  This will make Alcor
>more net money in two proven ways: (1) The increased volume (even at much
>lower prices) will help to generate more net money at the end of each year;
>(2) The increased volume of members and suspensions will create an economy
>of scales that will lower Alcor's present costs.
>In addition to posting this on CryoNet for discussion, I will copy the
>Alcor Board so that they may consider this.  
>Dave  Pizer

Mathew Sullivan ()
Facility Operations Manager

Alcor Life Extension Foundation
Non-profit cryonic suspension services since 1972.
7895 E. Acoma Dr., Suite 110, Scottsdale AZ 85260-6916
Membership Information: (877) GO-ALCOR (462-5267)
Phone (480) 905-1906   FAX (480) 922-9027
 for general requests


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=13949