RE:RE:RE:RE:cancelledTinley could go for the alcohol option too but beverage alcohol is already there! THC and CBD are almost identical chemically and both share the problem of nasty taste that Tinley has overcome, so subbing CBD for THC or other popular new cannabinoids that are finding their way into products as their properties become better known.
Probably creates more licensing problems and whether we are licensed for cbd production in Cali is not clear to me.
I believe that rapid expansion with co-bottlers is going to break us out of cap on revenue from co-bottling which I come by from what we are told about our production capability. With all three lines going all the time, we are capable of 30 million skus per year and we have been told that we can get .50c per unit so $15 million.
Tinley's seems to be able to command premium pricing, at least in Canada where numbers are available through OCS and other government stores which bodes well for the quality and flavour of our offerings but it all depends on repeat sales and most of the infused beverage products have hit shelves with premium pricing but come down probably because of market forces such that the better ones will be able to maintain high price margins and the less desirable ones will drop trou and move them out before they staledate.
Our team seems to have lost enthusiasm for our branded products in favour of the steady money from co-bottling our own competition.
I don't think our LB facility was built large enough which is probably why Pabst Labs has built their own facility which is rumoured to be bigger and at least as good as our line, so competition, and that brings price drops, so our .50c may be reduced. $15 million total revenue from LB facility is imho, enough to buy the ingredients, put them together, package them and pay the labour to do that. Add in the fat cat renumeration and we could net out at zero for shareholders.
If we really are the Italian sportscar of bottling lines in California and can do unique, highly technical skus for others, we might be able to up our revenue a little for the more effort products much like a boutique bottler.
Tinley's was our hope to break out of that financial projection, as being a superior and in demand product which we haven't seen in our hands, given that we have highly qualified sales people and I don't know what is wrong that we can't get our skus distributed after several attempts with different outfits that deliver beverage products.
It seems that back in our two van days that we could have handled our current volume on our own with a good soft drink merchandiser. One of the big two cola bottlers that I worked for handled the Vancouver BC market with 7 trucks and we are talking major cola supplier!
If co-bottling is so lucrative we should be building bottling facilities in the legal States and hanging our shingle but it did seem to take an extrordinarily long time to get one going in Cali so there's that, that suggests maybe we aren't the ones to pull this off.
If Tinley's emulates how the big cola guys expanded and increased volumes with the use of local co-bottlers and distributors, that could make us successful. Make concentrated syrups that can be shipped to co-bottlers that are capable, re-tool them as necessary and inspect them to ensure quality and build sales with our award winners and keep looking for or formulating our own products to be/stay in the winner's circle.
I've noticed that Blaze news has gone quiet, probably back to "legal" to figure out a way to live up to the deal they announced which I don't think they can do without a vote from shareholders. Maybe that is why we are stagnated and held down, so they can frustrate shareholders out of enough shares to pull this off, which would essentially make us a private company again with a couple of stock listings.
I guess there is also US legalization that could give us a pop but I'm not sure if Tinley's would benefit from it because of the mis-handling of our company.
4 days 'til the CSE Monthly report and not sure when they will finally step up with the financials which I can't imagine, not being improved for what we have supposedly done by way of co-packing and Tinley's sku sales, I am not expecting much from.
The Canadian effort seems to be moving at the speed of Tinley's LB facility, unfortunately!
glta and dyodd
sneakysneaky wrote: Adding Hemp derived CBD to Beckett's likely wouldn't be as easy and lucrative as adding alcohol.
Either option is needed to keep the brand alive at this pace, especially after the debacle with Todd the fraud.
It's extremely annoying watching this company flailing around like a fish on land.
So much potential but the lack of innovation leads me to believe the company is catering to co-packers and potential acquirers, basically throwing in the towel....
Too many excuses for this that and the third.
geodcan wrote: Yea I agree. Tinley is half aszing it on getting our brands onto shelves or so it seems. I hope they haven't given up on our high return skus that help us past that $15 million co-bottling revenue.
That's just enough to pay the costs and for a couple of fatcats for their efforts unless they get back to the original plan of hooking up with co-bottlers in other States by supplying non THC syrup that the contractors can add their States THC to, legally.
I think the Becketts is a wash, at least in our hands. We ain't no Lyres and I don't know how much room there is for competition.
Take those Becketts and put some CBD in them and go with that. I'll give ya odds that they will sell better and be more profitable than the no use, no fun option that Becketts is currently.
We need somebody who is in for the longhaul and want to make this a Monster or RedBull.