I keep going beck to this part, because this is what could make this so successful.
″… they get the same product, at the same price, but profits benefit charities rather than shareholders. Essentially, it is a no-brainer… the consumer can do good without losing money or changing habits… A movement that enables everyday people to help charities...”
Because at the end of the day, people can be pretty lazy (Including myself).
Newman’s Own is an example of this. You’re gonna buy pasta sauce anyway, might as well go with Newman’s.
Even if it just gets the ball rolling, once you know companies who do good, it’s easier to know what to look for and where to look.
Yeah. I think that there are several sets of target customer bases.
One would be the super conscious set of consumers that would be seeking out the opportunity to do good through purchases and would be very excited to learn about Guided Consumption. This set of is analogous to “early adopters” in other contexts. They would value purchasing through Guiding Companies significantly, and would purchase such products even if they had to pay a slight premium. Given that some of the early forays into Guided Consumption will not necessarily be able to exploit economies of scale such “early adopters” would be especially helpful in the early stages.
However, the set of consumers who place a non-zero weight is the vast majority of all consumers: non-psychopaths. Consequently, once the Guiding Companies have the economies of scale to be price-competitive with multinational firms, they should have an advantage with every consumer (the “no-brainer”). Given that advantages with other participants in the economy could allow for costs even below competitors, it seems Guiding Producers in a developed Guiding Economy should tend to monopolize their sectors.
What’s rather intriguing is to consider contexts in which Guiding Producers can be super competitive even without huge investments. For instance, you could pay a realtor or life insurance salesperson a salary in exchange for their commissions and then commit those commissions to effective charities and advertise this to prospective clients. I would think such Guiding commission-based employees could be a compelling example of early Guiding Producers.
I keep going beck to this part, because this is what could make this so successful.
″… they get the same product, at the same price, but profits benefit charities rather than shareholders. Essentially, it is a no-brainer… the consumer can do good without losing money or changing habits… A movement that enables everyday people to help charities...”
Because at the end of the day, people can be pretty lazy (Including myself).
Newman’s Own is an example of this. You’re gonna buy pasta sauce anyway, might as well go with Newman’s.
Even if it just gets the ball rolling, once you know companies who do good, it’s easier to know what to look for and where to look.
Hey Gee.
Yeah. I think that there are several sets of target customer bases.
One would be the super conscious set of consumers that would be seeking out the opportunity to do good through purchases and would be very excited to learn about Guided Consumption. This set of is analogous to “early adopters” in other contexts. They would value purchasing through Guiding Companies significantly, and would purchase such products even if they had to pay a slight premium. Given that some of the early forays into Guided Consumption will not necessarily be able to exploit economies of scale such “early adopters” would be especially helpful in the early stages.
However, the set of consumers who place a non-zero weight is the vast majority of all consumers: non-psychopaths. Consequently, once the Guiding Companies have the economies of scale to be price-competitive with multinational firms, they should have an advantage with every consumer (the “no-brainer”). Given that advantages with other participants in the economy could allow for costs even below competitors, it seems Guiding Producers in a developed Guiding Economy should tend to monopolize their sectors.
What’s rather intriguing is to consider contexts in which Guiding Producers can be super competitive even without huge investments. For instance, you could pay a realtor or life insurance salesperson a salary in exchange for their commissions and then commit those commissions to effective charities and advertise this to prospective clients. I would think such Guiding commission-based employees could be a compelling example of early Guiding Producers.