Vladislaw,

First, I want to say that you do make a valid point here, but I was keeping the issue simple, in order to communicate a very important point.

Second, let me quibble a little with your statement “EFFECTIVE sales is marketing.”

VLADISLAW: You said the community needs to learn how “to market” and you say “this means figuring out what the customer wants”
actually that is NOT marketing. Marketing is HAVING an EXISTING product and deciding on the methods you are going to use to SELL it.

Figuring out what the customer WANTS is actually R&D, research and development.

I respectfully disagree. Business development is part of marketing — more accurately “EFFECTIVE business development is marketing”.

Effectively managed, R&D is also tied to marketing. Compared to the past, R&D departments these days must justify their long-term investments based on the how this might address a long-term need or problem off a customer. Company R&D divisions are doing much less basic research than they used to do.

VLADISLAW: The first rule of sales is “Sell the Sizzle NOT the steak”.

This assumes you know what the customer thinks the sizzle is. Making assumptions without testing can get you into trouble real fast. Fortunately, there is quick and easy way to prevent this error. To find out “what the sizzle is” you need to ask your customers “What is the sizzle for you?” (Doh.)

Asking the customer questions about “the sizzle”, really listening to their answers, quantifying those answers, and using those answers to set strategic priorities, is marketing.

Using a 60-day internal study to justify down-selecting to what you had already made your mind up to do — without any real outside input — and then spending the next 4 years trying to figure out a way to convince people to buy what you have already made up your mind to do — is selling.

– Al

“Politics is not rocket science, which is why rocket scientists do not understand politics.”

This community needs to learn how “TO MARKET”. This means figuring out what the customer wants (in this case the American people) and then figuring out how to give them what they want. ”

Sales IS marketing. You said the community needs to learn how “to market” and you say “this means figuring out what the customer wants”
actually that is NOT marketing. Marketing is HAVING an EXISTING product and deciding on the methods you are going to use to SELL it.

Figuring out what the customer WANTS is actually R&D, research and development.

The first rule of sales is “Sell the Sizzle NOT the steak”.

Sell the idea of a spaceship in every garage, not the spaceprogram.
“Here is what you can have TODAY Mister Jones if ONLY your congressman would do this”
If it is NOT seen as an individual BENIFIT to the individual they will never be interested in funding it. You might as well try selling them how to save the red colored smug worms that only live under limestone rocks in a granite guarry.

Perry,

Are you suggesting that the NRA, the Federalist Society, and “various environmental organizations” don’t squabble over details like prioritization of various “gun control” or “environmental” issues?

This is quite obviously false. They fight like cats & dogs.

Or are you suggesting that space organizations don’t collaborate?

This too, is quite obviously false. Collaboration is what the SEA is all about. A separate consensus coalition came together a couple months ago to promote space solar power. The various space advocacy organizations know how to work together.

I suggest, instead, that the issue is whether all this “effort” is “effective”. (e.g., I agree with anonymous)

The most valid way to measure effectiveness is to measure outputs, or results (not effort, which is an input). In that context, it would be useful for the SEA to publish — before hand — what their specific measurable goals are; and how they intend to measure wether they are effective. Just the act of thinking about this might solve some of the issues that anonymous mentions.

RAND RESPONDED TO PERRY: If they had a good product to sell, they wouldn’t have to be good shillssalesmen.

Rand — I totally agree.

Th space advocacy community does NOT need to learn how “to sell” better. We can all double down on our “efforts”, and we can all study on how to be better at “sales”, but it is highly unlikely to produce improved results.

This community needs to learn how “TO MARKET”. This means figuring out what the customer wants (in this case the American people) and then figuring out how to give them what they want.

– Al

“Politics is not rocket science, which is why rocket scientists don’t understand politics.”

This, of course, is very good advice, but easier said than done. Our squabbles do have real physical consequences and do affect whether a project can actually be done. As Anonymous has pointed out (and I partially agree), we might have been better off had there been a bit more “squabbling” prior to settling on ESAS as the way forward.

— Donald

If they had a good product to sell, they wouldn’t have to be good shillssalesmen. Spending a hundred billion dollars to redo Apollo is a waste of money, even if they succeed, which seems doubtful. What they should be lobbying for is a complete overhaul of the space policy apparatus, and restructuring of NASA and the rest of the federal space establishment.

Democratic White House hopeful Sen. Hillary Clinton (N.Y.) has pledged to pursue “a successful and speedy transition” from the soon-to-be retired U.S. space shuttle fleet to “a next-generation space transportation system that can take us back to the Moon and beyond.”

The statement, provided by Clinton campaign staff in response to a query from Space News, is the presidential candidate’s first specific mention of NASA’s planned human lunar expeditions.

Clinton was silent on NASA’s lunar ambitions when she delivered a science policy speech Oct. 4 that promised, among other things, “an ambitious 21st century space exploration program.”

Lori Garver, a former NASA associate administrator for policy and plans who is advising the Clinton campaign on space matters, said the revised statement was produced in response to media accounts that focused on Clinton’s Moon omission. Howard McCurdy, an American University public policy professor, said Clinton “seemed to wander away from the Moon-Mars initiative” in her Oct. 4 speech. The revised statement, he said, “at least allows her to consider the initiative if and when she is elected.”

But, McCurdy added, “If elected, I would expect her to shift NASA a bit back toward science and Earth applications.” Clinton’s statement also pledges more money for aeronautics research and development, better space program management, increased international cooperation and a robust Earth science agenda focused on climate change.

“She believes that these nearer-term goals not only strengthen NASA’s current missions, but also complement and advance the worthy ambition of sending human expeditions to Mars,” the statement reads. “We cannot effectively achieve our long-term goals — in space exploration or otherwise — without putting NASA on a sound footing today.”

They “apppaud” her “comprehensive space policy” that DIDN”T seem to include ANY mention of manned, lunar, mars missions. I think they should check webster’s for the meaning of comprehensive BEFORE they start applauding.

” The Space Exploration Alliance (SEA) is planning an annual “legislative blitz” in February, bringing together to people to meet Congressional staffers on space policy issues.”

Instead of blitzing staffers they should be blitzing REPORTERS demanding they start questioning politicans IN DEPTH! DEMAND NAG DEMAND NAG reporters just keep up a constant telephone and ELECTRONIC BARRAGE!

“why haven’t you asked presidential candidate XYZ this?” just keep sending millions of questions to reporters so it gets air time. Blitz radio and television call in shows and all the talking head commentators MAKE it an issue. Tell the reports to ask them which launch system do they think is safest, keep hammering reporters to DEMAND to know from them which systems they favor to protect AMERICANS from DEATH in space… the fear card always works and gets air time.