The marketing problem of life extension technologies
Posted by attilacsordas on July 28, 2008
If “Science has a really serious marketing problem” as Larry Page observed, then life extension technologies face even bigger marketing problems. I am definitely not a marketing expert but realized the problem early on when thinking about the lag-phase period of a robust life extension technology. So I made a short email interview with Dave Gobel, the marketing and business mind/strategist behind the Methuselah Foundation (official title: Chief Executive Officer) following our meeting and chat at the SENS3 conference in Cambridge, UK, 2007.
1. What is the biggest marketing problem of any future (or present) healthy life extension technology?
The biggest marketing problem today is the time it takes for a beneficial effect to present itself. For instance, a product such as resveratrol may take months to present beneficial results, or it may never show up clinically. People who are scientifically sophisticated can appreciate the value of reduced circulating fats or glucose, but to the typical individual, there are much sexier things to spend money on that give immediate gratification and clear utility. The proof of this is illustrated by a counter example – how ridiculously easy it would be to sell a product that biologically reversed grey hair. The effect might be seen gradually but incontrovertably by all and in the mirror directly.
It seems to me that the best way to proceed from a business standpoint therefore is from the outside in. Create legitimate products that improve a person’s visual image and therefore social standing and they will flock for the result. Try to engineer those products to have globally beneficial effects, and marketing becomes easy.
So, for the present, the problem is delayed, and difficult to pinpoint results in exchange for expensive pills/treatments and never ending taking of pills. What about the future? The problem of marketing will evaporate as tissue engineering provides an immediate benefit by eliminating hip, knee and similar pains while restoring or even improving base functionality. When biologically matched teeth can be implanted and grown anew in gums, marketing will be easy.
2. How to market life extension for different generations (teenagers, college students, young adults, mature adults, grandpas and grandmas) and what are the main differences here?
Probably the most efficient way to market would be to go to the Internet savvy first since accessing this group is least expensive and most targeted. Further, they have the education and flexible social mindset such that the longevity meme can have a chance to germinate. In fact, this is the Methuselah Foundation’s current strategy. The next segment would be perhaps the grandmas and grandpas. These can be approached inexpensively now via late night cable TV in target demos/geographics. The message here is “support LE for your grandchildren – give them the gift of robust life without limit”. I think this will resonate because promoting the welfare of one’s grandchildren has powerful biological underpinnings. By allying with children/teenagers and grandparents, then you could gradually work towards the middle in a “marketing flanking maneuver”
3. What is the story of your life extension commitment?
My commitment is about prevention and curing of diseases and reversing the internal physiological conditions that allow diseases to arise in the first place. If you examine the track history of cures since the civil war in the US, you’ll find that the greatest number of true cures have come from military research. I’m not speaking of treatments or therapies – I’m speaking of cures. The reason for this in my opinion is that the resources of the military are quite large, and the mission of the military (winning and keeping veteran care costs as low as possible) is quite different from commercial concerns whose key concern is to have a product requiring chronic dosing that creates trackable earnings for wall st and their investors. So, in short, the incentives currently in the system do not produce cures. It’s literally too expensive for a company to cure anything. The pill to cover the cost of research, development and marketing would have to cost 6 figures each if you only needed to take one – ever.
So, that’s why I love the prize model. You put up the money and tell competitors what they need to do. The larger the prize, the more competitors. It’s like an inexpensive way of being able to put chips on every single spot on a roulette table. The best way to find a solution to unknown problems is to generate high motivation among the greatest number of thinkers/actors without too much regard to reputation of the competitors – let the best outcome win – I don’t care how they dress
In addition to the Mprize, I also very much like the SENS approach since it by definition, is an engineering approach to repair/reverse the damage of aging at the molecular level. I very much feel that surgery is another great success story in medicine, and I think of SENS as enzymatic or molecular surgery…or more colloquially “cutting the crap out”
6 Responses to “The marketing problem of life extension technologies”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.