Comments in red below..... > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 21:33:45 +0100 > Subject: Re: [Stoves] What is poor? > > Hello, > > I do believe in mass production. Local production of a local stove based on > local factors, constraints, and cooking habits has of course proven > efficient. It seems to be the most efficient model so far. But we need a > faster spreading, a worldwide spreading of stoves. It has been going too > slow. How many improved stoves have been disseminated in the world over the > last 40 years? Does someone have any statistics? > Marc talked about Coca-Cola. That's funny because I often make that > comparison, and think : how can we sell stoves like Coca-Cola bottles? > When I see how Chinese are able to sell very tiny and short-span electric > torches to the price of 25 cents of dollars (!!) on African markets, I'm > amazed at the result of what mass production and good distribution network > can achieve. > > As Paul says, centralized production has its advantages, and I agree with > him on the following points: > - "coming up with some of the best designs of cook stoves for particular > forms of biomass" > Agree, we need to build upon lessons learnt, and on solid foundations. > > - "that we look for countries uniquely positioned to fabricate at the most > competitive prices" > These countries could supply the regional market. For example China for > South-East Asia, Nigeria for Western Africa, etc. Each factory could produce > a design adapted to the regional market (rice husks TLUDs in Asia, charcoal > stove in Western Africa ...). Jikos demonstrated they could be sold more or > less anywhere in Africa. > > - "that we employ some of the most advanced mass production techniques" > Yes, bring down costs and prices should be our obsession. > > - "that we buy in large quantities to further reduce price" > Yes, see above. That will be an investment. > > - "that we operate with total transparency in making known our fabrication > costs" > Yes, so people can replicate the experience. > > > But I do not agree on the points below: > > - "that we sell at cost, or perhaps below cost, to the poor" Many people do > not want welfare, and giving away something often equals a lack of care for > an item > We should never do that, unless we want the project to stop quickly. I think > stoves should always make at least a tiny bit of profit. Otherwise we will > never find investors, people willing to run stove businesses. Never. I've > seen projects stop because of that. What if your product encounters great > success? That means great loss of money. Making profit is not a shameful > thing, it is the basis of a sound and long-lasting project. I think making > stoves should always be business oriented. > > > - "we ask the rich to voluntarily pay more to subsidize the sale to the > poor." There could be a method of selling at full retail to markets which > support price in order to subsidize in markets which do not > If it is mass-marketed, how can we differentiate customers? I bet coca cola > does have different pricing in different areas. an buy a coke for $.50 in one > place and $2.00 in another o The Coca-Cola> bottle is sold at the same price > to everyone. > > > -"that we use the highest quality materials in our fabrication" > I think that is not compatible with our objective of bringing down price. We > need a stove for everyone, ready-to-use. I want to make quality > institutional stoves, because the purchase price is high, and the product is > seen like a big investment, like a part of the kitchen. And institutions are > ready to pay a little more, and have the ability. > It is not the same logic with domestic stoves in my opinion. If we have a > quality all stainless steel stove, it will necessarily be expensive. As > Cecil pointed out, crappy stoves sell like crazy, because they are so cheap. > Let's go on the same road. Perhaps I'm being cynical, but I'm okay if the > stove dies after 1 year use. I prefer that a lot of people buy cheap 1 year > lasting stoves than a few people buy life-long stoves. But what of the > "overall cost" say to the environment we wish to protect. This thinking does > not consider the rise in materials and the energy to manufacture and > distribute (shipping, etc) I think that the end price of a better built unit > is better "overall" as planned obsolescence costs the environment far more > than dollars > That means over the course of one year, they will save way more money with > fuel savings than they spend each time they rebuy the stove. > We must pay utmost attention to fuel savings and clean combustion, but > > We need to : > - understand the target market > - make a highly valued stove for this target market (what is "cool" for the > target market ? we barely started to dig the question) > - bring down the price, with Paul propositions. When done, make it a bit > cheaper again :) Really, it has to be cheap. > > For example, we should have designers working with stove engineers! The > product should look gorgeous! Most of the stoves look way too practical! > Look closely at them, frankly, few are beautiful. Remember it must be an > object of high status. Everyone recognizes the Coca-Cola glass bottle around > the world. Everyone can picture it in his/her head. It is just the greatest > and simplest invention one could find, or almost. No words are needed, > Coca-Cola marketing never uses long speeches. > Wikipedia says: > " The equally famous Coca-Cola bottle, called the "contour bottle" within > the company, but known to some as the "hobble skirt" bottle, was created by > bottle designer Earl R. Dean. In 1915, the Coca-Cola Company launched a > competition among its bottle suppliers to create a new bottle for their > beverage that would distinguish it from other beverage bottles, "a bottle > which a person could recognize even if they felt it in the dark, and so > shaped that, even if broken, a person could tell at a glance what it was." > How to make the stove look attractive, without increasing price and lowering > its cooking qualities? That is an interesting challenge. > > I'm asking the people on the Stovelist in charge of big companies, of > factories... How in the future do they think prices of the stove can be > brought down? What are the options in the future to bring a lot of cheap > stoves to poor people? And what will these people want from these > stoves.........My friend was involved in a project in Guatemala where > thousands of stoves were distributed as an attempt to get cleaner indoor air > quality. The project failed as the recipients "needed" the smoke to keep out > the rats. Once again all those materials and time spent went to the dump. > Maybe an incense tray on top of the stove to burn some sage ( some varieties > are known to repel vermin) as well as the spiritual aspect which many South > American folks are really into, would have greatly reduced the indoor air > pollution while providing both vermin protection and a spiritual aspect many > westerners do not understand.......Roger Lehet. > > Best, > > Xavier > > > _______________________________________________ > Stoves mailing list > > to Send a Message to the list, use the email address > [email protected] > > to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page > http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org > > for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site: > http://www.bioenergylists.org/ >
_______________________________________________ Stoves mailing list
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address [email protected] to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site: http://www.bioenergylists.org/
