X-Message-Number: 9629
Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 02:57:48 -0400
From: Saul Kent <>
Subject: "Do The Research And They Will Come" Theory
After reading Tim Freeman's (9619)
characterization of my theory that research
leading to improved cryonics methods and more
credibililty for cryonics will lead to increased sales,
as the "do the research and they will come" theory,
I'd like to clarify my theory.
I do not now, nor have I ever believed,
that improved cryonics methods will automatically
lead to significantly greater sales for cryonics,
although I think some rise in sales with improved
methods is inevitable, provided there are viable,
competent cryonics companies offering these
services.
For cryonics sales to rise *greatly* after
our product is significantly improved, and especially
*before* it is perfected, we'll have to engage in a,
major marketing campaign to sell our improved
product (and well-funded research program). This
would be necessary for virtually *any* product; it
is especially necessary when selling a complex,
costly product such as cryonics that has so much
emotional bagage attached to it.
My strategy is to refrain from spending big
bucks on marketing *now* because of how poor our
product is, and because it has little or no credibility in
society. However, I strongly believe that, when our product
becomes good enough (according to objective scientific
criteria and greater acceptance in society), we should not
only spend time, effort and money marketing cryonics,
but we should do so in a far better way than we've ever done
before. Right now, I don't think it's justified to do that kind of
marketing, or else I'd be putting some of my own money into
it, but, in a few years, depending upon how fast our research
can deliver the goods, I believe that such a marketing effort
will pay off in spades!
If we're properly prepared when our product justifies
a major marketing campaign, we'll only need a very tiny fraction
of the potential market (everyone) to build a large, powerful
and highly profitable industry. Cryonics is a big ticket item. It's
costly and should be even more costly when done on a last
minute basis. Moreover, cryonics is a business that attracts
roughly 10 times more customers who sign up in advance of
their need for the service than those who sign up when they're
about to die. Cryonics is a business where some customers
invest their money in cryonics research and services, while
others donate much of their money to cryonics organizations
or put it in trusts or foundations for themselves and loved ones.
If we offer clinical, financial and other services in a professional,
cost effective manner, we can build a very big industry with only
a very small fraction of the potential market.
In this context, I offer the following comments about
Tim Freeman's use of calorie restriction (CR) as an example of
a practice that has failed to become popular in spite of evidence
that it may slow aging and extend lifespan, as well as his com-
parison of CR with cryonics:
1) First of all, CR suffers, in part, from the same problem
as cryonics: it hasn't been proven to work in humans. While there
is hard evidence that CR works in rodents, there is as yet only
suggestive evidence that it works in monkeys and humans. I think
it's likely that CR *will* be proven to work in humans, just as I think it =
is likely that unperfected cryonics will be proven to work (at least in
some cases), but the proof isn't there yet.
2) Second, it's only in recent years that there has been
widespread publicity about the effects of CR on aging and lifespan,
even though the research in rodents goes back to the 1930s. In
contrast, there has been widespread publicity about cryonics
since the mid '60s.
3) Third, there aren't many people in society today who
understand the link between slowed aging and the extension of
maximum lifespan. Most people are unaware that CR is the only
proven method (in rodents) to slow aging. Claims for a wide variety
of products that allegedly "slow aging" and "extend lifespan"
confuse the issue.
4) Fourth, even those few who *do* understand the
potential benefits of CR, and who wish to practice it, find it hard to
do so because it's very hard to deprive oneself of food on a chronic
basis. This is because we have to eat constantly to stay alive and
healthy; because eating is very enjoyable for most people; because
we are constantly tempted by food and advertisements for food at
home, on TV, in other people's houses and in restaurants; and finally
because many people become addicted to fatty and surgary foods
that are not good for them. A good example of the difficullty of
practicing CR can be found in Ben Best's article--"Can Calorie
Restriction Work In Humans?" in the June 1998 issue of Life
Extenson Magazine, which is available from The Life Extension
Foundation - 1-800-841-5433 (www.lef.org).
5) Five is the fact that no one has yet tried to sell CR to
the public, either directly, or through doctors. Major sales growth
requires an indentifyable product, a company (or companies) selling
the product, and a marketing campaign to sell the product. None of
this yet exists for CR.
I would like to point out that, in fact, millions of people *have*
bought a product which is, in effect a type of CR, although it's not sold
for the purpose of slowing aging. The product I'm referring to is weight-
loss diets/programs that feature a balanced diet high in nutrients, but
low in calories. This is pretty much what CR is.
At one point or another, every person who wants to lose
weight probably tries this approach, which is endorsed by the medical
establishment. The problem is that few people can use CR to lose
weight over the long haul because they simply can't stay on such a
diet long enough to do so...for the reasons given above.
To sum up, I do not believe CR is an example of a product
whole sales are poor in spite of evidence that it works, and, as I pointed =
out earlier, I am *not* an advocate of the "do the research and they will =
come" theory. You might say, I believe in the "do the research and sell
the product" theory, as well as the "*perfect* the product and cause a
revolution" theory.
---Saul Kent, CEO
21st Century Medicine
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=9629