X-Message-Number: 30077
From: 
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 15:23:30 EST
Subject: responses to Platt

I had said that paid advertising hasn't worked, and that knowing what kind  

of people are better prospects doesn't help (with respect to paid advertising)
because, if the absolute numbers are tiny, the relative numbers hardly 
matter.  Platt replied in part:
 
>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.


If I remember correctly, ads in Reason have been  tried, and also in computer 
magazines, another relatively fertile field, with no  result. Whether it 

would work better now, or with smarter or bigger ads, of  course I don't know, 
but 
I doubt it. If anyone wants to make an ear-marked  donation for this, or 
place ads himself, fine.
 
Also:
 
>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
 
Certainly. I don't think anybody disagrees with  that.
 
Also:
 
>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.
 
It failed. I don't remember if he told us the cost, but I  think it was 
substantial. I don't know exactly what the response was, but not  enough for 
continuance.
 
Also:
 
>The single most effective piece of print remains, I believe, my,  
>one-page column in Omni magazine titled "Why I am a Cryonicist."
 
That's fine, but what have you (or anybody else in this vein)  done for us 
lately? CI tried something similar a few years back with New  Scientist, a 

popular British popular science magazine not too different  from Omni, also with
a 
well advertised article and a contest.  Result zilch, as I recall.
 
Also:
 
>No system to reward existing members for bringing in new members  has
>ever been tried, so far as I know.


Yes, it has been tried at CI. We offered cash commissions  to approved 

members, with appropriate safeguards, who through their own  initiative brought 
in 
other members. Nothing.
 
Also:
 
>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._
 
 
Oh, boy. Even the founders of LEF, Kent and Faloon, have not  been able to 
duplicate this success in other areas. And they got their start in  a way not 
available to us, viz., they obtained mailing lists of buyers of a  big-selling 
book, the one on health supplements by Pearson and Shaw (if I  remember their 
names correctly). In any case, health supplements and cryonics  are vastly 
different in obvious ways. 
 
Still, Platt thinks LEF customers are good prospects for  cryonics. So why 

doesn't LEF donate Alcor advertising in its magazine, or why  doesn't Alcor buy
the advertising? I suspect two reasons--it's not likely to  work, and LEF is 
nervous about alienating customers.
 
Also, Platt mentions Kent's remark about "the power of a  testimonial." Sure, 
lots of vendors use testimonials, many of them phony, and  they obviously 

work in some degree at least, some of the time. We do use  testimonials a 
little, 
mostly in the form of statements that people feel better  having a relative 
frozen. Maybe we could do more along this line. (My  testimonial: I have three 
of my family frozen, and it helps. On the other hand,  in the cases of the 
ones who weren't frozen, maybe it makes things a bit  worse.)
 
Also:
 
>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, 
 
CI's use of mortuary premises for perfusion has not so far  been a handicap 
or impacted results adversely, as best we can determine. We  don't need M22. 
When we need larger perfusion premises we will have  them.
 
What I don't feel ethical about is the fact that CI to some  degree helps 

promote Suspended Animation, Platt's baby and Kent's, the  shortcomings of which
would take too much space to go into here.
 
Also:
 
>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.


I'll refrain from comment here, to avoid high blood  pressure.
 
Robert Ettinger







**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest 
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)


 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=30077