--- In [email protected], new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In [email protected], Vaj <vajranatha@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Nov 17, 2006, at 2:26 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote:
> >
> > > I wasn't thinking. My apologies to all of those
> > > whose daily cheap thrill comes from FFL. :-)
> > >
> > >
> > > And what is so bad about a cheap thrill?
> >
> > In TM there is no such thing as a cheap thrill, it's all pricey.
I
> > strongly suspect cheap thrills may therefore be a violation of
> > natural law.
> >
> > If you don't pay a lot for it, you'll never appreciate it fully!
If
> > you can't appreciate it fully how can you ever expect to live
life 200%?
> >
> > It's your karma dude! ;-)
> >
> > -TB Vaj
> >
> The view (somewhat) inhernet in comments like yours, and views more
> manifest in other recent posts, appear a bit stuck some past TMO
> strategies, and reveals a limited view of the TMO's current
> organizational objectives and its resulting well considered and
> appropriate business and pricing strategies to meet those
objectives.
>
> Some appear to assume (not you explcity here) that, recasting their
> views in the language of economics and business strategy
disciplines,
> all organizations should and must follow a profit maximization
> objective, and that the only appropriate business strategy is to be
> the low cost producer. And to price accordingly, price must be
> minimized. That is a wonderful strategy for for some organizations.
> But hardly the totality of possibilities. Depending on the
> organizations objectives, and the "competitive" and economic
landscape
> it faces -- there are many other business and pricing strategies
that
> may be appropriate.
>
> The TMO has changed its objectives from being a mass market service
> (60's and 70's), where in that era it priced aggresssively and
> appropriately for that objective, to currently focusing on a
specific
> much smaller market niche. They have abondoned the mass market, and
> its sole focus is on the top 1% or so of education, career, income,
> influence and wealth parameters. This group is quite price
inelastic.
> If they want something, they will obtain it -- and that demand is
> fairly constant whether priced at $500 or $2500. (Quite distinct
from
> the mass market.)
>
> And despite the false assumptions of some, the organizational
> objectives of the TMO have never been "profit" maximization (which
in
> a "non-profit" org has a somewhat different slant than a for profit
> business, but still focusses on similar parallel parameters.). In
the
> the earlier days, the TM's organization objectives were somewhat
> parallel to a for profit's market-share maximization objective.
> Maximize the number of meditators. And support strucure: teachers,
> centers, etc.
>
> Now the organizational objective is to mazimize the number of YF in
> peace palaces and domes, and the number of pundits in such regional
> centers. Quite different objectives from the past. Calling for
quite
> different strategies. You may not care for the current objectives,
> that though in no way diminishes them as valid objectives. With
this
> objective, the TMO approppriately is purusuing a high
> "differentiation" business strategy, and pricing quite
approriately to
> fuel the high costs of that differentiation strategy -- and pricing
> appropriately to the highly inelastic (price insensitive) demand of
> its target market.
>
> As a note of clarification, the above strategy applies to new
> meditators and YFs via its envisioned best-of-breed, world class
peace
> palace facilities. Filling the domes, right now, is a parallel
effort,
> with its own distinct strategy, based on the "residual" customers
from
> the TMO's "old market". Thus, during its transition of
organizational
> objectives, the TMO is expansively supporting the old market via
> generous price supports and incentives to participate in the domes.
>
Good points. I agree that the goal of the TMO is no longer to
provide cheap meditation for everyone, but more in line of what you
mention, like it or not.
