X-Message-Number: 13904 From: "Scott Badger" <> References: <> Subject: Pizer's Pricing Argument Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 12:48:13 -0500 In Message #13879 david pizer <> wrote: > a more logical explanation seems that the demand does exist for > cryonics because Alcor reports getting thousands of calls from prospects > every year. These are people that want cryonics. They wouldn't call if > they didn't want cryonics. But they don't join up. Isn't it at least > possible that most are not buying because the price is just too high. In hopes that it might serve to inform the pricing argument, I've enclosed a recap of the results of my cryonics survey below. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ SUMMARY In the Quiz Section, survey participants greatly overestimated the number of people frozen and those signed up for cryonics. They also greatly overestimated the cost of cryonics. These results suggest that the affordability of cryonics through life insurance policies is a message that is failing to reach the general public. In the Attitudes Section, the average participant was moderately positive toward life extension and toward cryonics as a means to that end. [author's note: upon re-examination, I no longer agree with "and toward cryonics as a means to that end."] They were mildly agreeable with the remaining statements associated with positive and optimistic attitudes toward the promise of future developments in anti-aging and other technological advances. When given a chance to respond to statements representing negative attitudes, results indicated that participants were most negative about the perceived cost of cryonics. They also had mildly negative attitudes toward the idea of becoming alienated from their family and friends as a result of signing up for and being frozen. Though it is often cited as an important reason why people resist considering cryonics, participants most strongly disagreed with the idea that they are uncomfortable thinking about their own mortality. Survey participants indicated overall that the successful revival of a cryonically frozen human being would be the most persuasive factor of those considered. The next most persuasive factor was lowered costs. Although many have suggested that membership rates would likely increase if more celebrities would sign up for cryonics, results demonstrate that this statement was more strongly disagreed with than any other. In terms of differences along demographic variables, a number of statistically significant results were uncovered. Men perceived themselves as more familiar with cryonics and had, for the most part, more positive attitudes toward cryonics than women. With respect to age, it appears that individuals between the ages of 25 and 34 and those older than 65 are most strongly opposed to the idea of cryonics while those younger than 24 express the greatest amount of interest. This finding fails to support those who hypothesize that the young lack interest in cryonics for one reason or another. It became clear when examining group differences between religious groups that Agnostics and Atheists were consistently more favorably disposed toward cryonics than were Christians. No other group differences were found based on religion. Married individuals were more concerned about family issues related to cryonics than were single individuals, but there was no difference in overall interest in cryonics between married and single individuals. Those with no more than a high school education were more uncomfortable thinking about death in general and more concerned with family issues than those with more education. Individuals making more than $100K were generally more favorably disposed toward cryonics while those making from $25K - $49K appeared to be the least favorably disposed income group. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ So Saul Kent appears to be correct when he suggests that people don't buy because they don't think cryonics will work, and they'll start buying when we can demonstrate that it will. I like Bryan Hall's idea of a professionally produced video that can be sent to those expressing interest in cryonics. We may not be able to demonstrate that cryonics works, but we can say something about advances that have been made and advances that we anticipate. It doesn't make sense to quit trying to sell people on cryonics just because we haven't perfected it yet. But the results of my survey suggest that people's perceptions of the feasibility of cryonics need to be targeted and modified. The second significant result related to pricing. Though not discussed in the article, the following responses were obtained from 517 people to the question: Q7. How much do you believe it costs to have your body cryonically preserved? $ 5,000 - 22 - 4.3% $ 10,000 - 78 - 15.1% $ 15,000 - 14 - 2.7% $ 20,000 - 34 - 6.6% $ 25,000 - 33 - 6.4% $ 30,000 - 11 - 2.1% $ 50,000 - 69 - 13.3% $ 75,000 - 5 - 1.0% $ 100,000 - 80 - 15.5% $ 150,000 - 6 - 1.2% $ 200,000 - 9 - 1.7% $ 250,000 - 19 - 3.7% $ 500,000 - 16 - 3.1% $1,000,000 - 49 - 9.5% Total 445 86.2% of sample This means that a bit more than 49% of the sample believes that cryonics costs $50,000 or more even though CI's price is only around $30K. Then again a bit more than 22% thought the cost was $15,000 or less. About 20% believe that it costs $150,000 or more While Alcor's whole-body suspension is around $120,000. After removing about 30 outliers (e.g. $100, $100,000,000), the following statistics were obtained: Mean 184,745 Median 50,000 Mode 100,000 As most of you know, the Mean is the mathematical average, the Median is the mid-point of all the data points, and the Mode is the most frequently observed data point. Don't place too much emphasis on the mode however. Notice that $10,000 missed being the mode by only two people. The median also has limited interpretive value. I believe the mean is the most helpful statistic of the three. BTW, the standard deviation of the mean is 305,082. This indicates a large degree of variability in the sample. Best regards, Scott Badger "vita perpetuem" Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=13904