X-Message-Number: 30339
From: David Stodolsky <>
Subject: Time for an Industry Association? (was: Re: Avoiding Decompos...
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 10:31:53 +0100
References: <>

On 18 Jan 2008, at 02:24, david pizer wrote:

> Alcor had a huge lead on CI just 8 or 9 years ago


This appears to be an artifact of the starting conditions. Alcor  
membership growth took off in 1976. CI membership growth took off in  
1986, with 16 members that year. Alcor had 71 members at that point .  
So, Alcor had a head start in membership growth compared to CI.

Growth-rate increase changed in 1993-1994 (14 years ago) at Alcor.  
However, even before that time, growth-rate increase was 8% greater at  
CI. So, there appear to be two types of influences on growth-rate  
increase. The overall lower growth rate could be related to structural  
conditions (organizational structure, participant attitudes, etc.).  
The change could result from the same type of factors or from a change  
in Board or employee composition, etc. Without some historical or  
demographic information, it is not possible to draw any solid  
conclusions from this change.

It does appear, however, that CI was able to benefit from a Web  
presence. From 1998 on, growth seems much faster, with a doubling time  
closer to three years - 23 percent per year improvement in growth  
rate. While this is a change in just 6% in growth-rate increase, the  
earlier doubling time was about five years. So, small changes in the  
underlying factors can result in large changes over the long run.  
There is no evidence of a benefit to Alcor from a Web presence.  
However, this could be masked by the other instabilities which seem to  
affect Alcor.


These analyses are of underlying factors (growth-rate increases and  
stability in growth-rate increases). Alcor's growth rate is still  
increasing. It is just not increasing as fast as CI's. This means that  
numbers of members and patients will become greater at CI. However, it  
doesn't mean Alcor is heading toward dissolution.

What is probably worth comparing are the efforts being made at each  
organization to effect growth. If more resources are are being  
expended at Alcor, there is probably something that could be done  
better (the unknown here is possible differences in participant  
attitudes, etc. that could also be having an effect. For example, if  
Alcor's members were much more individualistic than CI's members and  
therefore had fewer colleagues, etc. and if word-of-mouth is the main  
way in which new members are recruited, then we could explain the  
differences by that type of factor. Currently, I have no solid data  
that could be used to explain the differences.)

There is also the difference in pricing structures between the two  
organizations. It could be that they are actually operating in  
different markets as a result. Alcor, with its higher prices, could be  
attracting the wealthy, who leave their large estates to Alcor when  
they deanimate, thus ensuring growth well beyond what could be  
expected from the above figures. On the other hand, these wealthy  
individuals may be putting their estates in trusts and leaving nothing  
to Alcor, thus putting Alcor in a worse position than CI. Without more  
comprehensive data, it is extremely difficult to reach any kind of  
conclusion about what the above figures mean, beyond their own domain,  
or to claim that a solution to the 'problems at Alcor' is needed.

At the moment, we have only a vague idea of why people sign up for  
suspension, what their demography is, and how they received  
information about bio-stasis. This, combined with the deficit in  
information about the organizations and their activities, makes it  
virtually impossible to conclude anything from the few statistics we  
do have. The result of this ignorance is suspicion, unwarranted  
attacks upon organizations, and an inability to undertake meaningful  
investments in the future of cryonics.

Much of the data needed for the type of analysis required for problem  
identification or for constructive suggestions could be considered  
confidential to either the members or their organizations. At the  
moment, organizations can be accused of being secretive, if they don't  
reveal such data. An impartial industry association is needed which  
could look at such data and give advice to the organizations based  
upon analysis. Such an organization could also provide marketing  
support and engage directly in public education. It would be more  
effective in this role than an organization actually providing  
services. Such a neutral body could also go a long way toward  
eliminating the destructive competition between organizations that has  
been seen over the years. Perhaps, it is time to revived this idea and  
get all cryonics and related service providers to support such an  
effort, with data and by subscribing to an industry Code of Conduct.  
This kind of body has proved essential for successful industrial  
groups, and could be a key to gaining credibility for cryonics in  
scientific and political circles, as well as among the general public.

About 10 years ago, we got the following statement:

http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/institution.html

"Organizational Evaluation, or the provision of objective consumer  
information is heretofore unknown in cryonics. And it is the most  
appropriate area for independent endeavor. Too bad there won't be  
enough of a market to support such an effort for some time. In the  
meanwhile, the would-be consumers of cryonic suspension services will  
have to fend for themselves by carefully reading each organization's  
literature, inspecting its facilities, and interviewing its personnel."


With the exponential growth the movement is seeing, this will not  
continue to be workable, unless the organizations' personnel are going  
to do little else but meet with prospective members. At the moment, we  
have information circulating the suggests at least two organizations  
have been wasting large sums, millions of dollars, in one case. If  
this is true, then an industry body that could put a stop to this  
would be a net saving, even if funded for a couple of full-time  
positions. If the information is false, then the rumors of corruption  
should be put to rest as soon as possible. If there is one thing that  
can destroy the forward momentum we currently see, it is publicity of  
corrupt practices that have become widespread. At this point, I would  
say the industry can't afford not to have an independent body that  
could get the problems resolved, whatever their cause.

Some years back, I was involved in an effort to establish an industry  
organization. There was inadequate support to get it going at that  
time. Establishment of a Code of Conduct seems essential. This first  
step would, at least, allow totally uninformed people to avoid  
charlatans, who appear from time to time and have the effect of  
discrediting the entire industry. One requirement of the Code would be  
to provide adequate information to the Industry Organization. This  
information would allow an impartial evaluation of the organization's  
capabilities, so an independent assessment could be made. One  
requirement would be that the claims made in the organization's  
literature corresponded to the actual capabilities. Further details  
would be reached by mutual agreement among all organizations involved  
during finalization of the agreement.



dss

David Stodolsky    Skype: davidstodolsky

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=30339