[Stoves] Marketing and using charcoal stoves (formerly " non memberenquiry")
cornelio torrijos
cctorrijos at gmail.com
Thu Jan 1 10:35:55 CST 2009
Hi All,
Happy new year. I enjoy and read many of the not so technical threads.
I believe that first and foremost, people in the Philippines use what seems
most convenient to cook with.
No one enjoys inhaling smoke from wood fuel.
So if charcoal is available and less expensive than LPG, they will use
charcoal.
Charcoal is "cleaner" (someone else took the smoke away).
But in a tropical climate, it is easy to cook outdoors in what we call a
"dirty kitchen"
Cornelio
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 6:53 AM, Kevin Chisholm <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>wrote:
> Dear Ron
>
> I found a note from you that I missed previously. Sorry for the delay in
> replying. I think it is worth replying in detail, in that the approach could
> be helpful to people wishing to make and sell stoves...
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ron Larson
> To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2008 11:19 AM
> Subject: [Stoves] Marketing and using charcoal stoves (formerly " non
> memberenquiry")
>
>
> List:
> Apologies in advance for some length and for keeping three previous
> messages rather than cutting or shortening them, as I usually do. Mostly
> below I defend my plea that the world get rid of charcoal-using stoves.
> Four parts below.
>
> A. On how to market improved stoves: Kevin proposes (in the first
> repeated message below, dated the 20th) starting off with promoting sales
> of charcoal-using stoves and graduating to sales of better ones.
>
> * When introducing a new product, we have various barriers to overcome.
> Assuming the potential Customer is a willing Buyer who wants the product and
> has the money to pay for it, there are basically two reasons why he will buy
> the product:
> 1: The price is lower than comparable alternatives
> 2: The price is similar but the features are better than similar
> alternatives.
>
> If the Customer can judge the product and compare it to another with which
> he is familiar, he can then make a rational decision that what he is
> proposing to buy will work, and that it will be a product that suits his
> needs. He can then rationally conclude the Purchase.
>
> If the Manufacturer is new, and if he is offering a different product, and
> if its price is higher than the "standard" product, the Customer has a much
> more difficult decision to make. The new Manufacturer has little or no
> credibility, either technically, or as a Seller that the Customer can trust.
> If the Seller is claiming a "superior" product, his claims are discounted,
> because in the mind of the Customer, "every Seller says his product is the
> best." If the new product has technology or features that the Customer
> cannot easily understand and appreciate, then they are discounted from the
> justification to buy. The Customer will be reluctant to purchase at the
> stated price, because he will have difficulty connecting the extra price he
> is being asked to pay with extra value. Closing a Sale with such a Customer
> is more difficult.
>
> On teh other hand, if the Manufacturer is already in Business, selling a
> stove that the Customer understands, presentation of a new stove that has
> more features and is more expensive is very much easier. The Customer knows
> the Maqnufacturer is good because he sees that he sells a stove that he can
> understand, and he can consider the new stove as an option, rather than an
> "only choice." The Salesman can "sell by comparison", which is far easier
> than selling a different and technically advanced product in an abstract
> manner. With comparison selling, it is much easier for the Seller to show
> the value of the extra features or the improvements, and conclude teh sale
> of the higher priced product. However, if the Customer is still not sold on
> the newer advanced stove, the Seller can almost certainly end up selling the
> Customer a conventional stove.
>
> A further advantage of the "two product approach" is that the Sales People
> get a much better understanding of what is important to the Customer.
>
>
> I ask anyone for examples where this proposed sales approach has
> succeeded. Was this approach used by Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, Steve Jobs,
> Bill Gates?
>
> * I believe all tehse people got into business with one product, and tehn
> built upon their credibility and infrastructure to introduce tehir "big
> money maker." Bill Gates is notorious for relying on previously earned
> credibility to rush a slipshod "improved" product to Market, and then pick
> up the pieces later. Without the previously earned credibility, few people
> would try his "new and improved" products."
>
> Can we have a textbook or journal citation of why this is the best way?
> Someone in the stoves business who has found this successful?
>
> * Regrettably, I cannot give you a specific URL detailing teh process, but
> I am sure that if you did a search along the lines of "how to bring a new
> proiduct to market", you would find general confirmation of my suggested
> approach, and probably a whole lot more helpful points.
>
> I have been been working some with Nathaniel Mulcahey on his (highly
> technical, more costly) World stove - and believe Kevin's proposed approach
> would doom Nat's marketing efforts.
>
> * Why do you feel that having two products would doom him?
>
> Like Kevin I would propose that Nat show the world's best/cheapest
> charcoal-using stove (not very likely to come from Jarrell's group). But I
> would show how bad (not good) it is - in every respect - savings, cooking
> performance, health, climate, forest preservation, etc. I see no advantage
> to Nat in having some of his main competition for sale.
>
> * The secret to sales is "Give People what they want." It is wrong to give
> him climate and forest presetvation when he wants saving and cooking
> performance.
>
> I look forward to more on stove marketing theory, as I know very little on
> the topic. See also my inserts in Kevin's message below.
>
> B. Climate. My message (second below - dated the 19th) was intended to
> condemn charcoal-using stoves (and especially their promotion on this list)
> for their high negative impact on the environment.
>
> * The Stove Manufacturer should be sure what Business he wants to get
> into: Does he want to sell stoves or does he want to save the climate? It is
> much easier to sell stoves. :-)
>
> I would welcome the opportunity to expand on this - especially as I know
> Kevin (from several off-list dialogs arising from the sister "biochar" list)
> to be at least a climate-doubter. I suspect Kevin has entered this dialog
> because I used the term "climate".
>
> * I entered the dialogue to be helpful to the Stove Manufacturer. I think
> hischances of success will be greater if he has two products, rather than
> one new stove. I don't know his Customers, but I am guessing they want
> stoves that will save money and perform better, and that they are not
> especially interested in climate change or forest management. I see no need
> to bring climate change and forest management issues into the selling
> process. However, if his Customers want these features, then teh
> Manufacturer could expand his offering to elaborate on advantages to those
> issues.
>
> However, no comments in response to climate are inserted (hopefully
> coming through in bold font) in his message below - but I think this stoves
> list needs to talk more on the topic.
>
> * Tom set up another List to deal with Climate Change Issues. I would
> suggest that such issues be discussed there to avoid dilution of "stove
> specific issues."
>
> I will not do so here, as there is plenty of literature out there on
> charcoal-making (and charcoal-using) and the climate, especially from
> UC-Berkeley folk) - even in the "modern" industrial charcoal kilns in
> Brazil. Of course this is no problem at all if you think climate concerns
> are a hoax (referring to our famous Senator Inhofe).
>
> * I would not be so certain about climate change not being a hoax. It
> might be better to keep an open mind on the matter, and proceed in a manner
> where the merits of biochar are explored on their own merits. You probably
> already have references supporting Climatge Change. Here are a few that show
> the other views:
>
> http://www.urgentagenda.com/PERMALINKS%20IV/DECEMBER%2008/22.P.WARMING.html
> http://www.landshape.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=introduction
> http://icecap.us/images/uploads/WHY_CLIMATE_MODELS_FAIL.pdf
> http://icecap.us/
>
> C. Environmental and other (non-climate) reasons for outlawing
> charcoal-using stoves. I have been spending most of my time recently not
> on stoves but on biochar (see the companion list biochar at yahoo.com and for
> IBI at www.biochar-international.org). As an independent (not as a
> representative of IBI), I am in a fight with several groups that have
> denounced biochar as a biofuel (or "agrofuel") - which it is not. To better
> defend biochar, I have been reading a lot of the biochar-opposition
> arguments against biofuels (and they are NOT talking charcoal-using stoves).
> Their arguments have much merit as they relate to biofuels - but not when
> relating to biochar. I am contending to this list in this message that
> charcoal-using stoves now are in the same category as biofuels (meaning
> mostly bioethanol and biodiesel - from mostly palm oil and soy oil
> plantations). Such charcoal-using stoves had some merit when we had
> plentiful forests and a limited global population. Now having outgrown our
> planet, we have to reverse course. IBI has a major sub-project to promote
> charcoal-using stoves for that reason. I hope Jarrell will take note of that
> alternative in Nigeria, as Nigeria has some of the world's most serious
> forest degradation going on right now - as discussed below.
>
> * There is a problem with terminology: a "biofuel" is simply a biomass
> material that is used as a fuel. Wood, agricultural waste, biomass salvaged
> from Municipal Waste, forest trash, grasses, charcoal, ethanol, dung, etc.
> are all "biofuels" in that they come from the biosphere and are carbon
> neutral. All fossil fuels add an additional carbon load on the biosphere.
> Any biofuel that does not have as much fossil fuel involved in its
> processing as the end product delivers in energy is beneficial to those
> having climate change concerns. Charcoal as a fuel is NOT a problem, in that
> it is carbon neutral, and adds infinitely less carbon to the biosphere than
> does any fossil fuel.
>
> There is a nice summary of nine issues related to forest destruction
> given at http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/docs/agrofuels_reality_check.pdf .
> The five topics they talk about of pertinence here in addition to climate
> change are GE crops and biosafety, biodiversity, food security, rural
> development and jobs, and human rights violations. (The word "nine" occurs
> because they also discuss problems with proposed second-generation
> solutions, the power of large corporations, and the lack of representation
> by the impacted in international deliberations.)
>
> * I feel that Report is very inappropriate to teh issue at hand. They
> point out the evils of massive mechanization, factory farming,
> Westernization, Chemicalization, etc, and then conclude that ALL forms of
> biofuels are bad. It is a "Strawman Report", in that they set up the report
> based on "agrifuels" that are produced by such faulted systems. The report
> is irrelevant to forest stands that are managed in a sustainable manner.
>
> I contend that charcoal use in stoves is complicit in many if not all
> these six or nine areas. I also contend that charcoal-making stoves
> (biochar) helps in each. I say so from several years of living in Africa -
> and especially Sudan - where huge swaths of the landside have been denuded
> for one and only one reason - charcoal-using stoves.
>
> * The fault here is NOT with the stoves, but rather with deplorable forest
> management practises. If they were using wood stoves, they would still have
> had the same basic problem. If you wishes to outlaw charcoal stoves, then by
> the same reasoning, it would be equally logical to outlaw wood stoves.
> Charcoal making stoves are only slightly better, in that with unsustainable
> forest management practises, the land would be still be denuded of forests,
> but at a slightly slower rate.
>
> I hope Kevin or Crispin or Jeff or someone will present the good side
> of charcoal-using stoves.
>
> * Stoves don't denude the land of forests... unsustainable forestry
> management practised do. Regardless of how they are burned, any biofuel is
> carbon neutral and adds no carbon burden to the biosphere. Biofuel is good,
> Fossil fuel is bad. :-)
>
> I grant they have been slightly better on health issues than the
> three-stone fire - but this list has never promoted that approach either.
> Improved wood-burning stoves that we mostly discuss on this list are a good
> step - but they are not the only or best step.
>
> * Wood stoves fueled with wood from "over-harvested forests" will be just
> as bad as charcoal stoves fueled by charcoal made from wood from
> overharvested forests.
>
> When the list started, no one (apologies if I am wrong) on this list knew
> that charcoal-making stoves could be part of a climate solution (we were
> thinking about forests, health, etc). Charcoal-making stoves are not the
> only cost-effective part of achieving carbon-negativity - but larger scale
> versions will be very similar to the many simple charcoal-making designs we
> have discussed on this list.
>
> D. Other/Wrapup -
>
> The problems lisatged below are the result of poor forest management
> practises, NOT charcoal or wood stoves.
> Best wishes,
>
> Kevin
>
> I googled for "Nigeria charcoal" and was amazed. Many dozens of
> Nigerian companies are anxious to export their charcoal to anyone on this
> list. My guess is that very few could be called sustainable companies. But
> way down the google list (and adding the word "deforestation") I found what
> I was looking for - material like this:
>
> http://allafrica.com/stories/200809160457.html ; Talks about thriving
> trade in Nigeria, with final paragaph: "However, the impacts of charcoal
> activity, which cut across economic and environmental spheres, are as
> numerous as they are devastating. The activity has led to loss of many
> forests where now the attention of producers is shifting to less explored
> areas. The prices of wood -based products have skyrocketed due to scarcity
> of wood. Coupled with that, the able bodied people who are supposed to be in
> the farm have joined the trade there by reducing farming manpower.
> Environmental degradation is one other problem as well as illegal
> encroachment on people's land in order to cut wood for charcoal- making,
> which sometimes leads to inevitable clashes."
>
>
>
> http://www.wrm.org.uy/bulletin/106/Nigeria.html "As a result of the
> rapidly spreading nature of the cooking technology and the concomitant
> impacts on the environment, there is an urgent need for governments
> (Federal, State and Local) and the Non Governmental Organisations (NGOs) to
> intervene. Governments should come up with appropriate legislation to stop
> the use of Abacha Coal-Pots and charcoal business. For this legislation to
> work, governments should make kerosene and cooking gas affordable. NGOs and
> governments should provide households and other users of Abacha Coal-Pots
> with kerosene stoves and empower them to use them. Alternative means of
> livelihoods should also be provided for those that depend on the charcoal
> business especially the forest dwellers who produce or sell their trees to
> producers. More importantly, the degraded f orests should be restored. The
> time to act is now! The devastating flames of Abacha Coal-Pots must be
> quenched to save the people's forests. "
>
> Also on Nigeria:
> http://www.africanconservation.org/content/view/658/406/
> On charcoal cooking use in Somalia (wow!!)
> http://www.mbali.info/doc335.htm
> On charcoal cooking use in Haiti (double wow!!):
> http://www.ijdh.org/pdf/RoundupJuly17-312007.pdf
> On charcoal and forests in general:
> http://www.ksla.se/sv/retrieve_file.asp?n=738
>
> I warn Jarrell that one or more of the above assert that
> charcoal-making is already illegal in Nigeria. Unfortunate that no one is
> enforcing the law - must be something like the Nigerian business of sending
> me e-mail messages on money I can get easily out of Nigeria.
>
> I look forward to seeing a few citations (with references I can look
> up please) that defends charcoal-stove use. I have never seen one.
>
> Ron (few added notes in next message)
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kevin Chisholm" <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
> To: "Discussion of biomass cooking stoves" <stoves at listserv.repp.org>
> Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2008 6:29 AM
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] [SPAM]Re: non member enquiry
>
>
> Dear Ron
>
> Outlawing charcoal as a cooking fuel in the Third World to cure climate
> problems caused by the First World does not seem to be a good way to go. To
> be fair about it, all fossil fuels and electricity should first be made
> illegal for cooking in all First World Countries, then make fossil fuels
> illegal in Third World Countries. Then worry about biomass fuels and their
> impact on the climate.
> [RWL: I contend that it is probably better to do the exact
> reverse - use fossil fuels instead of charcoal. The wisest person on this
> topic that I know is Kirk Smith, who has made that exact suggestion (with
> which I don't agree as charcoal-making stoves look vastly superior). The
> problem is that the charcoal production in the bush is wasting about 2/3 of
> the available energy - and much of what goes into the atmosphere is much
> worse than CO2. When anyone is talking about charcoal-using stoves being
> somewhat cleaner (with exceptions), they are ignoring most of the problem.]
>
> Furthermore, I would suggest that Cliff starts off by making a charcoal
> stove similar to, but better than, the one the Customers presently use. This
> way he attains "Market Credibility". THEN, he would introduce the charcoal
> making stove. That is the easy way to go.
> [RWL: See my earlier comments - in my mind, it is the ability to
> control a desired power level in charcoal-making stoves that should be the
> main selling point. But there are many more, as alluded to elsewhere here.]
>
> It is difficult to sell a charcoal making stove if ones approach is: "I'm
> the new kid on the block. What you are doing now is wrong. Buy my stove and
> save the environment."
> [RWL: I have not suggested that the environment should be the
> main sales pitch. It would be incorrect to suggest that most charcoal-stove
> users are not aware of deforestation around them.]
>
> Much easier is the approach: "You know how well our charcoal stove works.
> We have a stove that is even better... it makes charcoal! You burn the smoke
> to cook your food and you can sell the charcoal to your neighbours. Bring
> your own wood to our store, we will show you how to cook a meal on our
> Charcoal Making Stove, using wood. You keep the charcoal and sell it. You
> cook your food for nothing."
> [RWL: Maybe it is easier, but I doubt this approach could be
> effective. I am also afraid that you have still not caught on to the fact
> that this prospective buyer will be better off placing the char in his own
> ground, while (hopefully in the very near future) receiving climate credits
> and using crop and forestry residues - not "wood". ]
>
> (no more inserted comments anywhere below (these just included to
> give background) - Ron]
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Kevin
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ron Larson
> To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> Sent: Friday, December 19, 2008 6:29 PM
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] [SPAM]Re: non member enquiry
>
>
> Crispin, Andrew, Cliff Jarrell:
>
> This is to hope that my good friend Crispin meant to say
> "charcoal-making stove" rather than "charcoal stove}. The latter should
> be
> outlawed - especially for climate protection reasons. With the former,
> the
> users will have a much better cooking experience and will save if not
> make
> money.
>
> Ron
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <crispinpigott at gmail.com>
> To: "Stoves" <stoves at listserv.repp.org>
> Sent: Friday, December 19, 2008 2:43 PM
> Subject: [SPAM]Re: [Stoves] non member enquiry
>
>
> > Thanks Andrew
> >
> > What I learned about business in the past 35 years is largely what not
> to
> > do and how not to do it with a smattering of this might work on a
> sunny
> > day.
> >
> > I think the idea of 30 orphans learning the practical skills of stove
> > fabrication from an early age could lead to a whole business empire.
> > Perhaps a compact transportable charcoal stove would have a viable
> market
> > large enough to support 15 workers. Interesting eneough to try it.
> >
> > If he is in a rural area where people are not struggling for wood it
> will
> > be difficult to develop much of. Marke.
> >
> > Regards
> > Crispin
> > Sent from my BlackBerry device
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: andrew heggie <list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk>
> >
> > Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 21:32:01
> > To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves<stoves at listserv.repp.org>
> > Subject: Re: [Stoves] non member enquiry
> >
> >
> > On Friday 19 December 2008 21:21:12 crispinpigott at gmail.com wrote:
> >> Dear Andrew
> >>
> >> Can you perhaps ask if he knows what sort of fuel will be used in the
> >> stoves he might sell? They may sell chrcoal stoves even though they
> use
> >> wood themselves.
> >>
> >> The point is to make a viable enterprise, not necessarily to make
> wood
> >> stoves.
> >>
> >> If there is a regional market for good charcoall stoves and a local
> >> market
> >> for wood stoves, they might develop a good business plan covering
> both.
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> Crispin
> >
> > I hope he reads the list but have sent an e-mail as well as an
> invitation
> > to
> > subscribe. I'm hesitant about subscribing people directly because I
> see
> > quite
> > a few bounces from people when their mailboxes get over full.
> >
> > You're right about the enterprise bit, which is why I thought of the
> > briquette
> > making system but I'm the last person to advise about business acumen
> :-(
> >
> > AJH
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
> Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_listserv.repp.org
> http://stoves.bioenergylists.org
> http://info.bioenergylists.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
> Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_listserv.repp.org
> http://stoves.bioenergylists.org
> http://info.bioenergylists.org
>
More information about the Stoves
mailing list