3 ms·

Or self fund since it sounds to be a profitable idea. His plan is bad because he creates yet another cause to give money to. With a business, he gets the same

Or self fund since it sounds to be a profitable idea. His plan is bad because he creates yet another cause to give money to. With a business, he gets the same outcome and doesn't need help. It's a win-win-win!

slurgfest 15y ago
If the point is to make money, then he should sell the napkins just below the price of the competitors, keeping a healthy margin for himself. Of course, this defeats the stated purpose of encouraging usage by poor Indian women, but if the point is to make money...
- solutionyogi 15y ago
  Nope, the point is not to make money. Let's start from the scratch. The goal is this: Create affordable sanitary napkins for women in India. To achieve this goal, he worked hard to master the first step i.e. to be able to manufacture the napkins at low cost. Great. Now there are two approaches: 1. Sell machines to different NGOs so that they can create their own napkins. As I mentioned it requires hefty investment of 1,200$. Also, I think it's easy to underestimate how much effort is required to reach different parts of India and selling the concept of these machines. 2. Create machines on his own (using outside investment if needed) and create cheap napkins afforded by economies of scale. He can use the money from the sales and extend it create a better process, better machine and drive prices even lower. He can now rely on an existing vast distributor network to spread these products all over India [I refer you to my shampoo sachet example in this comment: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3370219 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3370219]. Heck, he can now even export it to other developing countries. If the goal is to make napkins available to more women in India (and everywhere else), I think that 2nd approach is vastly superior than first. What do you think?
  - onemoreact 15y ago
    A centralized factory is going to need to pay for shipping across India which would increase cost. Rather than dealing with such issues himself he can get people to create franchises and supply the first machine and then sell them more after things start to scale. The end result is to create a domestic industry which will then continue to drive costs down and promote adoption though advertising etc. PS: If there is a viable market, I suspect some of those groups will start to grow and you may end up with the type of large company you want him to build.
  - whatusername 15y ago
    Advertising, support, distribution. Much much easy when you have a distributed production/sales force.
jackityquack 15y ago
It's better to help the poor become rich than it is to give the poor a bobble and have them stay poor. It's essentially teach a man to fish, except with business. He can reinvest, grow the country, then they can all afford the doodle. It's a win for India, and the world! Maybe he sells to North America, and is able to make more money for his country than would ever have been saved by the poor using his cheaper napkin. (I mix doodles and napkins, but it's all the same). It's economics.

slurgfest 15y ago

If the point is to make money, then he should sell the napkins just below the price of the competitors, keeping a healthy margin for himself. Of course, this defeats the stated purpose of encouraging usage by poor Indian women, but if the point is to make money...

solutionyogi 15y ago
Nope, the point is not to make money. Let's start from the scratch. The goal is this: Create affordable sanitary napkins for women in India. To achieve this goal, he worked hard to master the first step i.e. to be able to manufacture the napkins at low cost. Great. Now there are two approaches: 1. Sell machines to different NGOs so that they can create their own napkins. As I mentioned it requires hefty investment of 1,200$. Also, I think it's easy to underestimate how much effort is required to reach different parts of India and selling the concept of these machines. 2. Create machines on his own (using outside investment if needed) and create cheap napkins afforded by economies of scale. He can use the money from the sales and extend it create a better process, better machine and drive prices even lower. He can now rely on an existing vast distributor network to spread these products all over India [I refer you to my shampoo sachet example in this comment: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3370219 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3370219]. Heck, he can now even export it to other developing countries. If the goal is to make napkins available to more women in India (and everywhere else), I think that 2nd approach is vastly superior than first. What do you think?
- onemoreact 15y ago
  A centralized factory is going to need to pay for shipping across India which would increase cost. Rather than dealing with such issues himself he can get people to create franchises and supply the first machine and then sell them more after things start to scale. The end result is to create a domestic industry which will then continue to drive costs down and promote adoption though advertising etc. PS: If there is a viable market, I suspect some of those groups will start to grow and you may end up with the type of large company you want him to build.
- whatusername 15y ago
  Advertising, support, distribution. Much much easy when you have a distributed production/sales force.

jackityquack 15y ago

It's better to help the poor become rich than it is to give the poor a bobble and have them stay poor. It's essentially teach a man to fish, except with business. He can reinvest, grow the country, then they can all afford the doodle. It's a win for India, and the world! Maybe he sells to North America, and is able to make more money for his country than would ever have been saved by the poor using his cheaper napkin. (I mix doodles and napkins, but it's all the same). It's economics.