A couple of posts by readers on this thread caught my attention as they bring up a subject that I’ve thought about quite a bit. Assuming the E-Cat and the remote control system both work as described by Andrea Rossi, what is the likelihood of industrial companies signing up to use it?
Vinney wrote this:
Rossi has been very clever in his marketing plans, the distribution costs are bourne by Leonardo Corporation, so to the customer the adoption costs are the same whether you are in America or Europe, and thus practically nil.
There are virtually no reasons not to try Rossi’s E-cat in some portion of your manufacturing enterprise.
The maintenance costs are also nil to the customer.
The cost of heat (like the cost of power) are 100% deductible as a business expense.
This is an extremely difficult model to compete against.
Causal observer replied with this:
Reasons why people might not give the E-Cat a try:
> might fail, causing a lot of wasted time
> people might cast aspersions
> board members own carbon energy stock
> cost of hookup in parallel with existing systems (who pays?)
> general overhead cost of doing the contract and managing the customer part of the install
> too busy to stop and talk about it
> don’t want to be laughed at if it fails
> subordinate managers and employees express concerns about radiation
> someone starts a negative PR campaign about Rossi (although they’d better be ready to receive letters from Rossi’s lawyers on that!)
> general resistance to changeThe trick in sales is not to focus on your product’s virtues, but to think about the customers’ resistance.
My guess is that Rossi already his early customers lined up via C-level contacts who have already brushed all of the above considerations aside. Class chasm problem, though.
I think both posters have valid points. On the face of it, signing on for cheaper, cleaner energy without any upfront investment would seem like a no-brainer. But there is a tension between both embracing and rejecting it which I think rests upon whether you are willing to take a chance on trying out a brand new, as-yet unaccepted technology, or if you are afraid of being wrong.
I think many decision makers in business worry about looking foolish and running the risk of being ridiculed if things go wrong. In business, many executives worry about investors/partners/press/public think. If you make a big misstep, you could be fired, if you’re a public company you company could lose market value on the stock market, you could be the laughing stock of the business or scientific press, you could be trashed on social media.
Then there are those who are willing to take a risk, to try something news in order to be on the cutting edge. With the E-Cat, as Vinney writes, Leonardo’s business model puts all the financial risk on Leonardo and not on the customer, so if the E-Cat doesn’t work, you haven’t lost out financially. If it works, you stand to gain a lot in saved energy costs.
Keeping your involvement with Leonardo secret makes sense for early adopters. If you try it and it doesn’t work, then few people will know about it, and you save face. If you try it and it does work, then you save money and become more competitive without your competitors figuring out how you are able to do so.
For Rossi and Leonardo, the best situation to be in is to have satisfied customers with good reputations publicly stating they are using the E-Cat with good results. That is the best form of advertisingm and I think Leonardo might be able to persuade some early adopters to go public if they offer the reduced costs of energy in return for them publicizing their use of the E-Cat
I think the hardest lifting will be at the beginning. If the E-Cat plants work well, and satisfied customers start talking, it will become less risky for people to give Leonardo a chance.
