RE:TedActions and non-actions sometimes say more than words.
I know all about EAT aka Nutritional High. I believe they put a lot of effort into EAT to tank it, slim it down, put a new dress on it and rename it, to run her around the block again. EAT and TNY shared an office in Toronto and their nrs could be written by the same bullshyter, eloquent and devious.
Tinley could be seen as taking the same path, especially if you are out money on the current shareprice, but cannabinoid beverages are the sku of the future and they are gathering a formidable following with some big players coming to the same conclusion about their growing marketshare that promises to cannibalize a portion of beverage alcohol and become a major revenue source instead of smokables and such.
Socializing with a beverage is a huge part of life and having a thc or cbd beverage option at the bar or dispensary is a healthier option that formulators have stumbled into.
If we can just get the legal framework established to bolster our new vice sku and level the playing field with alcohol, this should advance quickly.
1% marketshare in the US and 2% in Canada who had the headstart for beverages like a good testing ground.
Canadain formulators of infused beverages rushed to get on shelves and it showed in their nasty flavored drinks that are getting better with time.
Tinley has a couple of infused beverages that were notable enough to win awards but aren't putting much effort into them but our team believes that co-bottling is easy money.
The problem I have with backing away from our own beverage line is that we are losing our wild card for profiting from a marketshare winning product and are setting ourselves up to be capped at whatever we can generate from co-bottling.
Will there be enough profit for shareholders from our facility after we pay overhead and management?
I am really banking on the reputation and sincerity of our threesome that they will put shareholders first.
glta and dyodd