I agree with your rationale because of an experience in a kind of analogous situation.
A scientist at the company I worked for (a multinational) invented a highly effective and scalable water-purification kit, which was ideal for developing countries with clean-water problems. At first, the company donated these kits. But then we realised that it would be far more effective to sell them (low price, but not free) - because that way, the people who really needed them would get them and use them, and they would not be wasted. Furthermore, we found that local entrepreneurs were able to set up businesses selling and distributing them, which was an added bonus. And, with the same net cost, the company was able to provide far more kits for far more people.
And yet, this was highly counterintuitive for most people, and there were questions about “why can’t we just give them for free?” from people who hadn’t thought through the full scenario.
Another great, provocative post. Thank you!
I agree with your rationale because of an experience in a kind of analogous situation.
A scientist at the company I worked for (a multinational) invented a highly effective and scalable water-purification kit, which was ideal for developing countries with clean-water problems. At first, the company donated these kits. But then we realised that it would be far more effective to sell them (low price, but not free) - because that way, the people who really needed them would get them and use them, and they would not be wasted. Furthermore, we found that local entrepreneurs were able to set up businesses selling and distributing them, which was an added bonus. And, with the same net cost, the company was able to provide far more kits for far more people.
And yet, this was highly counterintuitive for most people, and there were questions about “why can’t we just give them for free?” from people who hadn’t thought through the full scenario.