X-Message-Number: 3573
From: Peter Merel <>
Subject: CRYONICS marketing
Date: Mon, 2 Jan 1995 17:02:27 +1100 (EST)

Robert Ettinger writes,

>I certainly don't deny that new blood, new phrases, and new conditions might
>bring success to previously failed tactics, including targeting of prominent
>people and media-shapers. But where are the specifics for improvement?
>Exactly what--within our means--should we be doing that we are not doing? 

Good question. If you actually intend to follow up on the idea of contacting
and canvassing opinion-makers, then I think your only option is personally
approaching these people. In the case of Hollywood, this might first entail 
interviews with agents and managers; in the case of technical luminaries this 
might first entail direct email or conference-chasing. Not everyone you might
like to contact will make themselves available.

I should expect that a large number of the people you do contact will dismiss 
you out of hand as a crackpot - if they didn't then we wouldn't have a problem
in the first place. However there will be a number who will hear you out, and 
a smaller number who will actually permit suspension arrangements to be made. 
Of these, a smaller number again will permit themselves to be publically 
associated with you.

However, as previously suggested, this handful should be sufficiently
influential to sway a large number of people. Draw up a list of the popular
visionaries, icons, scientists and businessmen, and think about how to
reach them; if you can find a salesman or two who are willing to help with
this, maybe on commission, then you might find that it consumes few resources.

>Mr Merel wants millions of recruits instead of dozens; sure, billions would be
>nice too, but HOW?  

Apart from direct-marketing opinion-makers, you might try sitting down with
insurers, undertakers, hospices, telemarketing people, new-agers and even 
Dr Stodolsky's AIDS activists, and see if there aren't strategic partnerships 
to be had and services to be traded. It may well be that you have already 
done this, and I'm teaching grandma to suck eggs - if so, I'll happily shut 
up. If not, I think all of these are worth a try.

>but this does not seem a realistic prescription for a magical breaththrough. 
>And how does he suggest we pay for that hopefully magical week
>on prime time TV?

If I had a magical breakthrough up my sleeve, I'd certainly share it. I
have no idea what sources of funding you draw on, or what potential
sources you have ignored; my business is not related to cryonics. If a
week at prime time is well beyond what you've allocated to marketing,
try a couple of spots late at night on some regional stations - if that
gets you nowhere then at least you'll be able to say the avenue was
investigated. If it pans out then it should give you sufficient funds to
continue and expand it.

As to the scientist/engineer thing, I feel that you're unlikely to consider
the point I was trying to make; I doubt that further discussion of it will 
be fruitful and I'm happy to let it drop.


Internet:           |         Accept Everything.            |

http://www.usyd.edu.au/~pete           |         Reject Nothing.               |

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=3573