While it might be a bad pitch to say, "We spent $100,000 so you should pay us X dollars," it's very common for people and businesses to say, "Let me explain why what we are doing requires so much money."
If you are raising money for a child on life support, part of your pitch is probably going to be, "This is so expensive that the family can't afford to pay for it without help from donations."
Or if you are selling a luxury good, you will likely say, "This item is made from a rare wood that requires a team of 10 people trekking into the wilderness for 9 months to harvest it and bring it back to civilization."
Gov. Scott Walker Reportedly Planning Financial Martial Law In Wisconsin - Rick Ungar - The Policy Page - Forbes: "Walker’s plan would resemble-if not directly mirror- the legislation signed into law by Gov. Snyder of Michigan which gives Snyder extraordinary powers to take over municipalities when he determines them to be in financial trouble, further permitting him to actually fire locally elected public officials when he deems it desirable."
I'm reading the Times as much as always, but my page views may still be going down, as far as measurement is concerned. I usually see NY Times articles I like via Twitter, so I shouldn't run into the paywall. Yet I found that I was hitting the 20 article limit within a day or two of the month. Here's what I think happened and my response.
I usually read the article and if I want to save it for myself, I hit print, copy it, and then send myself a copy. Evidently hitting print triggers the paywall in a way that just reading the article as separate pages does not. So now I still read the article, but don't set it as a single page or a print copy. That eliminates 1/3 of all reading I was doing because I don't get to do those actions.
In other words, I am still reading as many NY Times articles online as always, but I am not taking the additional steps to view the article in print version or as a single page. If there are many readers like me, there will be a drop in page views without a corresponding drop in readership.
Are we making a distinction between lobbying and becoming involved in the political process?
I am hoping Silicon Valley does get involved politics. I'd like a perspective other than that coming from the groups supported by the Kochs. I'm not sure I'd like to see the Tea Party become the dominant political force in the US.
Here's an example of something that has the support of members of VC community: The Startup Visa. How many other groups are going to bat in support of opening up immigration?
Another area that comes to mind is clean tech. Do we want policy influenced by the oil and coal industries without input from clean tech entrepreneurs?
I'm all for getting corporate money entirely out of the political process, but until that happens, I'm not sure I want policy set and voters influenced by one side without input from anyone else.
"While this has been a great experiment, let’s be honest, we want to make the Cosmonaut, and we want you to have it! It would be a shame to sit here for 21 more days, begging the $1 backers to raise their pledges. When it comes down to it, we think making this project a reality is more important than our pricing model....
So, we have decided to add two more tiers, which are both unlimited. One for $25, which will get you a Cosmonaut, and another for $50, which will get you 2. You are of course more than welcome to switch to either of those tiers if you so choose, but there is no need to. All current backers will be getting Cosmonauts. The advantage you all gained by being one of the first backers is you could set your own price, and will still be able to do so up until the campaign ends."
This was posted about 2 hours ago in the comments section: "Well, that's a wrap. 3015 backers so far - 15 opted to not receive the item and simply back the project. Total average pledge at this point is $14.77 per backer. Now let's watch and see the total increases from $44,531 without the number of backers increasing (indicating people raising their existing pledges), or if the total number of backers increases (indicating more people supporting the project without wanting to receive a Cosmonaut)."
Now (9PM MDT 3/29) the amount is up to $44,724 as some people go back and add more to their bids. So for the initial round, 3000 people didn't pledge the necessary average amount. This project still has 21 days to go so I would imagine more people will kick in a bit extra until it hits $50,000.
Based on the latest numbers, the remaining slots need to average $18.38 to meet the goal.
But if everyone can go back and increase they pledge, then if it appears the project is falling short of its goal, perhaps those who are pledging considerably less than $16.67 will increase their pledges
Sometimes people leave early and forget to pay. And yes, sometimes people don't add everything up right. It's definitely happened more than once where the total comes up short.
What they probably need is a system like people have when they are trying to decide what to chip in for a group dinner at a restaurant. Everyone contributes their share of the bill and tip, and if the final total is still short, then you go around the table again in hopes that either those who underpaid figure out what they still owe, or that various people chip in some extra to cover the shortfall.
With the current payment system for this project, it automatically falls to the final group of slot takers to make up the difference if the project is falling short of the goal.
Dividing $50,000 by $3000 means the average price for each pledge needs to be $16.67. So for each $1 pledge, you need another pledge for $32.33 to make the numbers work. That means as 3000 slots fill up, and if the total average per pledge isn't $16.67, then the later pledges have to go higher and higher to make up the deficit. So it isn't just going to be a matter of pledging what you think is fair. You may need to pledge what is necessary, even if it isn't fair.
For example, what if there are only 10 slots left, and yet the project is $2000 short? Will the last 10 people be willing to pay extra to cover the necessary funds?
But so far so good. Dividing the amount raised by the number of pledges, the current average is $15.65 per unit, which isn't too far off the goal.
Re: DCA: A CHEAP cancer treatment the FDA process has majorly affected
If it is relatively inexpensive and no one wants to patent it, couldn't there be a cottage industry making and providing it? If no one wants to fund the research, there wouldn't be scientific proof that it works, but if it does no harm and does work, then people could self-medicate or go to practitioners who obtain a supply and experiment with it.
I'm guessing that some of the corporate execs hoping to benefit from this have also supported a decrease in government regulations that get in their way.
I've found very few people who actually want less government. All they are really debating is what government gets to regulate. As long as the laws help them, they like the laws. Whenever the laws cost them money, then they don't like them.
It's nice to see the Senators, Sherrod Brown and Amy Klobuchar, stepping up to express their concern about this, but if they really wanted to make a difference, they shouldn't just be investigating KV. After all, KV is playing by the rules that the US government set up. What they should really be exploring is why we give monopolies on important life saving drugs that create problems like this in the first place?
Tackling this particular company for this particular price hike is a definable way to show why our health care costs are out of control.
I think if the senators tried to change the entire system, the whole thing would get bogged down and nothing would get done. So perhaps incremental steps, and a way to get average citizens outraged, is the most politically effective way to deal with this.
To get laws changed, you need to address the politics. And to address the politics, you need to consider the economic underpinnings.
Seems to me that one of the results of innovation is rapid change. But we don't necessarily have a society built to accommodate rapid change. Consider home ownership, for example. By encouraging home ownership, we are suggesting there is value in remaining in one location. But responsiveness to change, particularly if companies and countries are constantly attempting to outdo each other, may require a very mobile and nimble workforce. That may require moving from city to city and even from country to country in pursuit of opportunities. And it will likely require constant educational and skill upgrades. We not really anywhere close to providing for those lifestyles.
On the post: Key Economics Lessons For The Digital Era
Costs can be a selling point though
If you are raising money for a child on life support, part of your pitch is probably going to be, "This is so expensive that the family can't afford to pay for it without help from donations."
Or if you are selling a luxury good, you will likely say, "This item is made from a rare wood that requires a team of 10 people trekking into the wilderness for 9 months to harvest it and bring it back to civilization."
On the post: Why Do We Let Those Who Benefit Most From Monopolies Write The Laws That Grant Them?
Re: Re: Re: Why is this any different than any other law?
Sounds good to me.
On the post: Why Do We Let Those Who Benefit Most From Monopolies Write The Laws That Grant Them?
Re: Why is this any different than any other law?
How about we (average voters) organize to change campaign finance laws and lobbying laws to level the playing field a bit?
On the post: Wisconsin County That 'Found' Lost Votes Apparently Has Major Voting Irregularities For Years...
Re: Solution is simple...
Gov. Scott Walker Reportedly Planning Financial Martial Law In Wisconsin - Rick Ungar - The Policy Page - Forbes: "Walker’s plan would resemble-if not directly mirror- the legislation signed into law by Gov. Snyder of Michigan which gives Snyder extraordinary powers to take over municipalities when he determines them to be in financial trouble, further permitting him to actually fire locally elected public officials when he deems it desirable."
On the post: Even With A Very Leaky Paywall, Noticeable Decline In NY Times Traffic
My own experience
I usually read the article and if I want to save it for myself, I hit print, copy it, and then send myself a copy. Evidently hitting print triggers the paywall in a way that just reading the article as separate pages does not. So now I still read the article, but don't set it as a single page or a print copy. That eliminates 1/3 of all reading I was doing because I don't get to do those actions.
In other words, I am still reading as many NY Times articles online as always, but I am not taking the additional steps to view the article in print version or as a single page. If there are many readers like me, there will be a drop in page views without a corresponding drop in readership.
On the post: Does It Really Make Sense For Silicon Valley Companies To Make Friends In DC?
Some good research showing the link between money and policy
On the post: Does It Really Make Sense For Silicon Valley Companies To Make Friends In DC?
Lobbying, Politics, and the Kochs
I am hoping Silicon Valley does get involved politics. I'd like a perspective other than that coming from the groups supported by the Kochs. I'm not sure I'd like to see the Tea Party become the dominant political force in the US.
Here's an example of something that has the support of members of VC community: The Startup Visa. How many other groups are going to bat in support of opening up immigration?
Another area that comes to mind is clean tech. Do we want policy influenced by the oil and coal industries without input from clean tech entrepreneurs?
I'm all for getting corporate money entirely out of the political process, but until that happens, I'm not sure I want policy set and voters influenced by one side without input from anyone else.
On the post: Can Pay What You Want Work For Tangible Goods? Perhaps With Kickstarter...
The pay-what-you-want part is now over
"While this has been a great experiment, let’s be honest, we want to make the Cosmonaut, and we want you to have it! It would be a shame to sit here for 21 more days, begging the $1 backers to raise their pledges. When it comes down to it, we think making this project a reality is more important than our pricing model....
So, we have decided to add two more tiers, which are both unlimited. One for $25, which will get you a Cosmonaut, and another for $50, which will get you 2. You are of course more than welcome to switch to either of those tiers if you so choose, but there is no need to. All current backers will be getting Cosmonauts. The advantage you all gained by being one of the first backers is you could set your own price, and will still be able to do so up until the campaign ends."
On the post: Can Pay What You Want Work For Tangible Goods? Perhaps With Kickstarter...
Re: The latest results
3,024 Backers
$44,925 pledged
On the post: Can Pay What You Want Work For Tangible Goods? Perhaps With Kickstarter...
The latest results
This was posted about 2 hours ago in the comments section: "Well, that's a wrap. 3015 backers so far - 15 opted to not receive the item and simply back the project. Total average pledge at this point is $14.77 per backer. Now let's watch and see the total increases from $44,531 without the number of backers increasing (indicating people raising their existing pledges), or if the total number of backers increases (indicating more people supporting the project without wanting to receive a Cosmonaut)."
Now (9PM MDT 3/29) the amount is up to $44,724 as some people go back and add more to their bids. So for the initial round, 3000 people didn't pledge the necessary average amount. This project still has 21 days to go so I would imagine more people will kick in a bit extra until it hits $50,000.
On the post: Can Pay What You Want Work For Tangible Goods? Perhaps With Kickstarter...
Re: Average price
But if everyone can go back and increase they pledge, then if it appears the project is falling short of its goal, perhaps those who are pledging considerably less than $16.67 will increase their pledges
On the post: Can Pay What You Want Work For Tangible Goods? Perhaps With Kickstarter...
Re: Re: Re: Average price
On the post: Can Pay What You Want Work For Tangible Goods? Perhaps With Kickstarter...
Re: Average price
With the current payment system for this project, it automatically falls to the final group of slot takers to make up the difference if the project is falling short of the goal.
On the post: Can Pay What You Want Work For Tangible Goods? Perhaps With Kickstarter...
Average price
For example, what if there are only 10 slots left, and yet the project is $2000 short? Will the last 10 people be willing to pay extra to cover the necessary funds?
But so far so good. Dividing the amount raised by the number of pledges, the current average is $15.65 per unit, which isn't too far off the goal.
On the post: FDA Suddenly Bans Drugs That Have Been On The Market For Decades
Re: DCA: A CHEAP cancer treatment the FDA process has majorly affected
On the post: FDA Suddenly Bans Drugs That Have Been On The Market For Decades
Can we use this to point to political hypocrisy?
I've found very few people who actually want less government. All they are really debating is what government gets to regulate. As long as the laws help them, they like the laws. Whenever the laws cost them money, then they don't like them.
On the post: Senators Want Investigation On Massive Increase In Drug Prices... But Will They Really Seek A Solution?
One step at a time
Tackling this particular company for this particular price hike is a definable way to show why our health care costs are out of control.
I think if the senators tried to change the entire system, the whole thing would get bogged down and nothing would get done. So perhaps incremental steps, and a way to get average citizens outraged, is the most politically effective way to deal with this.
On the post: Lady Gaga Claiming Ownership Of 'Gaga'? Threatens Baby Gaga Ice Cream
Re: Here's another discussion point
Photographers Respond to Lady Gaga's New Copyright Demands | Rolling Stone Music
On the post: Lady Gaga Claiming Ownership Of 'Gaga'? Threatens Baby Gaga Ice Cream
Here's another discussion point
On the post: Chinese Researcher Points Out How Patents Can Hinder Innovation
Need a big picture approach
Seems to me that one of the results of innovation is rapid change. But we don't necessarily have a society built to accommodate rapid change. Consider home ownership, for example. By encouraging home ownership, we are suggesting there is value in remaining in one location. But responsiveness to change, particularly if companies and countries are constantly attempting to outdo each other, may require a very mobile and nimble workforce. That may require moving from city to city and even from country to country in pursuit of opportunities. And it will likely require constant educational and skill upgrades. We not really anywhere close to providing for those lifestyles.
Next >>