X-Message-Number: 31648
From: David Stodolsky <>
Subject: Re: Membership Growth: Alcor and the Cryonics Institute
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 22:59:00 +0200
References: <>

On 28 Apr 2009, at 11:00 AM, CryoNet wrote:

>   Alcor annual Membership growth prior to 1983 was
> in the single digits, and the same can be said for
> CI annual Membership growth prior to 1994. Alcor's
> Membership growth had a huge spurt in the early
> 1990s. With 84 new Members, 1991 is by far the
> best year for growth in Alcor history.

It appears we are using the term "Membership growth" in different  
ways. Typical usage is based upon calculations that use the total  
membership for estimation. Here the term is to mean "growth in new  
members," perhaps taking into account losses? In any case, numbers are  
best given for total populations, since that is the basic raw data and  
it is what a stat. package will expect. Ten new members would be a  
dramatic increase when there are only ten members already, but if  
current membership is 10,000 then ten new members has a totally  
different implication.


>   Although linear annual Membership growth
> for Alcor and CI is not as good as what we
> would like to see,

Linear growth in new members per year can look like exponential growth  
in the overall population. We can't compare the above statements with  
my earlier analyses.


> it would be naive to
> imagine that the recent past is a guide
> to the future. Publicity and key events of
> various kinds will substantially affect
> growth rate. Scientific breakthroughs
> could also significantly affect annual
> Membership growth.

For these types of estimates, the only thing we have is the past.  
Publicity and similar events may have either temporary or long term  
effects, that is, they could be either 'signal' or 'noise'. Detailed  
local knowledge will be more accurate in the short term than a  
statistical estimate, but this is unlikely to be true for the long  
term. Reanalysis of the Bager data suggests that scientific  
breakthroughs in suspension technology will have little or no effect.  
On the other hand, it suggests that repackaging of cryonics could lead  
to dramatic changes in growth. That is, we face a social not a bio- 
technical challenge, when promoting growth.

It would be possible to estimate whether further investments in  
publicity would payoff, if we had more detailed data. If we have  
monthly data, then time of year effects can be identified. We should  
collect all statistics that are likely to be useful. The following  
come to mind and we should try to achieve agreement among all  
organizations to collect these on a monthly basis:

Total number of inquires, broken down by surface mail, email,  
telephone, etc. An inquiry will either be private, news organization,  
or school, etc.

Number of info packages sent out (again could be broken down according  
to private vs. news org., etc.)

Signups, broken down by different levels of membership, if any.

For best results, every stage in the processing should be recorded.  
Such as, request for info, for enrollment package, sign-up stages,  
payment stages, payment failures, dropping of membership, etc.

Total suspendees and categories (tissue, pet, head, whole body, etc.)

Publicity or other events likely to impact the above numbers.


This is my first guess of what data is needed to improve growth rates  
at minimum expense. We would get the best effect, if all the  
organizations agree on a single data collection strategy and if we  
refine the List above to be as complete as possible at this time. If  
organizations are will to send me this info, I will set up an analysis  
routine that compiles them and publishes them on the cryonics.info  
site or only back to the organization.


dss

David Stodolsky
  Skype: davidstodolsky

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=31648