X-Message-Number: 30069
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 07:45:16 -0500
From: "Charles Platt" <>
Subject: Re: CryoNet #30064 - #30068
References: <>

Bob Ettinger writes:

We know which groups are better  recruitment prospects,
but that doesn't help us because the absolute numbers are  so small. Paid
advertising doesn't work, except the Web.

--

On the contrary, compared with the number of cryonicists, the number
of people in almost any relevant special interest group is large. The
subscriber base to REASON magazine, for instance: Pick up 2.5 percent
of them and I believe you'd almost double the number of cryonicists in
all organizations put together. Even 0.01 percent of their subscribers
(four people) would be worth having.

As for past advertising not working, there has been very little on
which to base this statement. But I believe Brian Wowk, one of the
more important contributors to cryonics in many ways, responded
initially to an ad.

Selling cryonics, in my opinion, has never been tried sensibly or
methodically via the most appropriate media: Print and personal
contact. Simply by asking existing members, as I did many years ago,
we can determine that personal referrals, followed by print sources,
have been far more important to bring people in than TV, radio, or
DVDs--yet cryonics organizations tend to be tempted by the first two,
and Alcor has spent money on the third.

No system to reward existing members for bringing in new members has
ever been tried, so far as I know.

The Web is now perhaps equally as important as print, but I do not
believe has displaced it. I believe the mix of web and print used so
effectively by Life Extension Foundation would be appropriate, and
indeed any cryonics organization could be successful by copying LEF
_in every detail._ No one has ever shown any interest in this. I would
have thought the obvious first step would be to copy something in a
very similar field that has worked sensationally well.

David Pascal vowed to "do it right" using direct mail to promote The
Cryonics Society, but never reported on his success or the lack
thereof. An itemized accounting of where he spent money, what he sent
out, and how much came back would be much more useful than any amount
of theorizing.

The single most effective piece of print remains, I believe, my
one-page column in Omni magazine titled "Why I am a Cryonicist." This
caused Saul Kent to note "the power of a testimonial," which is
correct. At this point however I am not sure how ethical I would feel
promoting cryonics, because I am far too intimately aware of its
weaknesses. CI's lack of a properly equipped lab in which to perform
perfusion, lack of a license to use M22, and lack of legal permission
to perform procedures in its own facility, are problems for me, even
while I greatly admire Ben Best for achieving as much as he has with
extremely limited resources and difficult circumstances. Alcor's
various internal problems, its lack of fundamental equipment (such as
ice baths), the uneven quality of its past standby-transport work, and
its lack of proven nationwide response (let alone international) are
also problems. I note that the response capability in California, in
terms of available personnel, is declining rather than improving right
now.

Cryonics does not have to be perfectly implemented before it can be
promoted, but anyone who promotes it should not to have to explain too
many shortcomings.

--Charles Platt
Speaking for myself, not for any organization.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=30069