[Stoves] What is poor?

Fireside Hearth firesidehearthvashon at hotmail.com
Mon Nov 21 16:32:10 CST 2011


Comments in red below.....

> From: xvr.brandao at gmail.com
> To: stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> 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
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> 
> 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/
> 
 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20111121/b084233a/attachment.html>


More information about the Stoves mailing list