4 ms·

Good luck. I think the business model could indeed be proven ethical - The main issue with advertising/marketing is not that it exists, but that it is not regu

Good luck. I think the business model could indeed be proven ethical - The main issue with advertising/marketing is not that it exists, but that it is not regulated enough (by the state or any other party) and is (in Western markets) biased/deceptive - So I feel that your organization will need a rigorous ethics board (and a strict 'customer fit' step in your Customer>lead process) that holds itself to a higher standard than state legislation allows for. For example, you will need a blacklist of things to advertise (e.g. won't accept hate groups buying ad space) and a level of demonstratable proof of what claims are made on the adverts (attempt to refuse hyperbolic product promises). I can't quite figure out how the business model can be proven profitable though - Are advertisers really going to be able to subsidize the full cost of the entire business operations and supply chain? I imagine the product pricing model will be a 'per unit' type - Perhaps a mix of cost-per-click/impression and traditional advertising-space hiring. But imagining arbitrary rev and costs here: Are you really going to be able to produce a unit for $1 (inc fixed costs), and sell the advertising space & data on that unit for $1.50+?. I hope it is indeed possible - The free market could massively benefit from a lower tier (i.e. your offerings) and a higher tier (paid-for offerings without advertising or data collection). Re: Inks - I cannot provide exact advice for inks to print onto hemp, but in general I believe there are three categories of eco-friendly inks that are worth investigating: UV inks, soy/vegetable based inks, and water-based inks. These seem to be the areas currently achieving the smallest ecological impact /the fewest trade-offs/externalities. Ink is, unfortunately, a horribly messy product to satisfy in terms of ethical considerations. There are so many moving parts and components in the supply chain, so many compromises, and such particular requirements to fulfill (the material to print onto etc.)

FreeWater 8y ago
Thanks, you're absolutely right. We created an advertiser guidelines that doesn't allow hate, deception, or fake news. If they screw up we will have their creditcard on file! We are also going to tax the news, politics, religion, tobacco, alcohol,and gambling platforms if they want to advertise with us. We're not going to let there be any news, politics, or religion on side one because nobody will want their least favorite politacal figure or reigion staring them in the face as they're rehydrating. Once we have purchased the Tetra Pak filling line, the cost per unit is less than a penny per carton. More like an 1/8 of a penny. And we are going to build a decentralized network of micro-factories which is going to cut our carbon footprint and save us millions on shipping too. We aren't going to charge per click either... Initially, it will be cheaper to advertise with us than to create a color print flyer and to distribute it yourself. However, nobody is going to toss this flyer away until they've drank all the water. So our advertiser's message will literally be in our customer's faces. Furthermore, we're not giving away our water, we're going to pay you to drink it. Our water will be free AND we are going to give 50% of our profits away. 25% to charity and the rest to our customers and investors. We're so confident that we could give away 90% of the profit, but then it would be much harder to grow and to find funding. Once we've established this model with water, we're going to expand into just about anything you could find at a supermarket or department store. So, our vision is a media company, selling platform, and social media platform that are all tied together by our medium which will be a universal income. We're creating the world's first highly profitable universal income. If people don't want to take it because they don't like commercials it's fine. But, we should all have the option. I understand that this idea is very weird. Technically, we would be utilizing a totally new economic platform we are calling Consumer First Economics. However, what is the alternative? Look where our current system has led us! We've created a dying world where nearly a billion people don't have food or water while the rest of us are tossing hundreds of billions of goods in the trash... When we are successful, our competitors are going to have to do the same or better than free + 50% profit-sharing. And this is the type of competition we're trying to establish. A "consumer first" mentality to see who can do more for the customer, the local community, and the environment opposed to seeing how much a company can dick everyone over. I created this model out of desperation. In the past, I founded two non-porfits and there is nothing worse than begging people for donations. So, this model will force people to give to charity wether they want to or not. I applied my startup to YC, but I'm not sure if they will choose us because I mest up a few simple questions on the application because I've been so over-worked. Regardless, I'm traveling to Silicon Valley in a few weeks and I'm not leaving until I find the right investors. If you live in San Francisco we can meet up for a coffee and discuss things in greater detail. If not, you can always reach me here or directly at josh@freeboxedwater.com.
- ethiclub 8y ago
  >We are also going to tax the news, politics, religion, tobacco, alcohol,and gambling platforms I strongly recommend barring these industries altogether and just not 'bothering with them'. Let's say you are donating to a health charity, and it's coming from tobacco advertising. There may be a net cost to society's health. See here for similar example: http://time.com/3967567/skydiving-for-charity/ http://time.com/3967567/skydiving-for-charity/ Is it profitable to allow tobacco et al into your customer base? Now you have: - More externalities to map, and more intricate, delicate issues to traverse - More negative impact to your brand - More cognitive dissonance in the impact to the world (Is this company really doing 'good'?) - More complaints, adversaries, protesting against your alliance with those industries - Less legitimacy as a for-good enterprise - More resource expenditure on your ethics/review board / policing your product - Potential lost business from more ethical industries that refuse to partner alongside tobacco / gambling etc. - Need for change over time (Public opinion on tobacco & gambling will only get worse. Therefore these industries being customers means that there is more trouble lined up in the future, and an inevitable transition to a different client base once public opinion cripples those industries further and further). At the very least, the opportunity costs make this a poor choice of business model. >I understand that this idea is very weird. Technically, we would be utilizing a totally new economic platform we are calling Consumer First Economics. However, what is the alternative? Look where our current system has led us! I think it makes absolute sense - There are benefits in (much of) the free market swinging even further to a distinct Freemium model - I.e at least two tiers: - Free (subsidized by advertising or higher tiers) - Paid Both tiers need to map externalities, minimize negative impact, then offset any remaining issues (e.g. charity dontions). Both tiers will inevitably need to become more distinct - At the moment, many paid tiers supplement rev with data sales & advertising (e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18277411 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18277411). Hopefully, consumer demand will mature and split these two tiers apart - I.e. we will see less of a hybrid model, and more siloing of advertising & data collection. Consumers would choose between a cheaper car (advertising, data collection) or select the higher tier (a more pricey car, with guarantees by the manufacturer as to anonymity, pure experience, high quality content, no spamming). This does mean that big business is currently digging itself a hole - Many orgs are cementing their reputation. This will be hard to undo in the future if they want to position themselves as high quality/premium. It will be interesting to watch. >If you live in San Francisco we can meet up for a coffee and discuss things in greater detail. If not, you can always reach me here or directly at josh@freeboxedwater.com. Ta, emailed. I'm trying to tackle the 'premium' tier while you are working on the 'free' tier.

FreeWater 8y ago

Thanks, you're absolutely right. We created an advertiser guidelines that doesn't allow hate, deception, or fake news. If they screw up we will have their creditcard on file! We are also going to tax the news, politics, religion, tobacco, alcohol,and gambling platforms if they want to advertise with us. We're not going to let there be any news, politics, or religion on side one because nobody will want their least favorite politacal figure or reigion staring them in the face as they're rehydrating. Once we have purchased the Tetra Pak filling line, the cost per unit is less than a penny per carton. More like an 1/8 of a penny. And we are going to build a decentralized network of micro-factories which is going to cut our carbon footprint and save us millions on shipping too. We aren't going to charge per click either... Initially, it will be cheaper to advertise with us than to create a color print flyer and to distribute it yourself. However, nobody is going to toss this flyer away until they've drank all the water. So our advertiser's message will literally be in our customer's faces. Furthermore, we're not giving away our water, we're going to pay you to drink it. Our water will be free AND we are going to give 50% of our profits away. 25% to charity and the rest to our customers and investors. We're so confident that we could give away 90% of the profit, but then it would be much harder to grow and to find funding. Once we've established this model with water, we're going to expand into just about anything you could find at a supermarket or department store. So, our vision is a media company, selling platform, and social media platform that are all tied together by our medium which will be a universal income. We're creating the world's first highly profitable universal income. If people don't want to take it because they don't like commercials it's fine. But, we should all have the option. I understand that this idea is very weird. Technically, we would be utilizing a totally new economic platform we are calling Consumer First Economics. However, what is the alternative? Look where our current system has led us! We've created a dying world where nearly a billion people don't have food or water while the rest of us are tossing hundreds of billions of goods in the trash... When we are successful, our competitors are going to have to do the same or better than free + 50% profit-sharing. And this is the type of competition we're trying to establish. A "consumer first" mentality to see who can do more for the customer, the local community, and the environment opposed to seeing how much a company can dick everyone over. I created this model out of desperation. In the past, I founded two non-porfits and there is nothing worse than begging people for donations. So, this model will force people to give to charity wether they want to or not. I applied my startup to YC, but I'm not sure if they will choose us because I mest up a few simple questions on the application because I've been so over-worked. Regardless, I'm traveling to Silicon Valley in a few weeks and I'm not leaving until I find the right investors. If you live in San Francisco we can meet up for a coffee and discuss things in greater detail. If not, you can always reach me here or directly at josh@freeboxedwater.com.

ethiclub 8y ago
>We are also going to tax the news, politics, religion, tobacco, alcohol,and gambling platforms I strongly recommend barring these industries altogether and just not 'bothering with them'. Let's say you are donating to a health charity, and it's coming from tobacco advertising. There may be a net cost to society's health. See here for similar example: http://time.com/3967567/skydiving-for-charity/ http://time.com/3967567/skydiving-for-charity/ Is it profitable to allow tobacco et al into your customer base? Now you have: - More externalities to map, and more intricate, delicate issues to traverse - More negative impact to your brand - More cognitive dissonance in the impact to the world (Is this company really doing 'good'?) - More complaints, adversaries, protesting against your alliance with those industries - Less legitimacy as a for-good enterprise - More resource expenditure on your ethics/review board / policing your product - Potential lost business from more ethical industries that refuse to partner alongside tobacco / gambling etc. - Need for change over time (Public opinion on tobacco & gambling will only get worse. Therefore these industries being customers means that there is more trouble lined up in the future, and an inevitable transition to a different client base once public opinion cripples those industries further and further). At the very least, the opportunity costs make this a poor choice of business model. >I understand that this idea is very weird. Technically, we would be utilizing a totally new economic platform we are calling Consumer First Economics. However, what is the alternative? Look where our current system has led us! I think it makes absolute sense - There are benefits in (much of) the free market swinging even further to a distinct Freemium model - I.e at least two tiers: - Free (subsidized by advertising or higher tiers) - Paid Both tiers need to map externalities, minimize negative impact, then offset any remaining issues (e.g. charity dontions). Both tiers will inevitably need to become more distinct - At the moment, many paid tiers supplement rev with data sales & advertising (e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18277411 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18277411). Hopefully, consumer demand will mature and split these two tiers apart - I.e. we will see less of a hybrid model, and more siloing of advertising & data collection. Consumers would choose between a cheaper car (advertising, data collection) or select the higher tier (a more pricey car, with guarantees by the manufacturer as to anonymity, pure experience, high quality content, no spamming). This does mean that big business is currently digging itself a hole - Many orgs are cementing their reputation. This will be hard to undo in the future if they want to position themselves as high quality/premium. It will be interesting to watch. >If you live in San Francisco we can meet up for a coffee and discuss things in greater detail. If not, you can always reach me here or directly at josh@freeboxedwater.com. Ta, emailed. I'm trying to tackle the 'premium' tier while you are working on the 'free' tier.