RE:RE:RVX - Managing PerceptionsSanFran. Thanks for the review and perspective.
Yes, they did
recover somewhat...
but it was a recovery as opposed to a media managed event.
I recognize that what happened is water under the bridge...it can't be changed. However, the value of looking back is to learn from their mistakes and manage communications into the future.
I'm
not at all convinced that:
- There is understanding of controlling the communications agenda to the media.
- That there are pre-emptive communications strategies in place - strategies that have thought through the market's reactions to every outcome scenario in order to maximize the good news and not have to be in a position of 8 months or more of recovery. This worries me as we move to RE-MACE
- That they know how to establish RE-MACE success targets not on a single, specific target BUT to position success on a series of targets of success and their related probabilities. For example, the ASSURE results could have been established and communicated to the market based on degrees of success such as regressions of .3% points, .4% pts, .5% pts, .6% pts, ,7%pts, etc with each of the associated probability levels (statistical significance levels). For example, most weather forecasts are now presented with related probabilities. The public and more importantly, investors, are becoming familiar with this reality. Science is not exact.
- That, given the incredible positive results from the post hoc analysis, that they understand that it is time to establish rvx-208 and Resverlogix as a brand and manage it in this way. Their (RVX) culture does not understand the importance of this. It is critical to their negotiating leverage.
The events of last June are the
absolute worst position for a company to
put themselves in. The trauma of this event has alienated thousands of investors. The reactionary responses (which were absolutely necessary) in any of these situations, no matter what the sector or company, are always viewed with far less credibility and integrity than if the perceptions had been managed (even with the same results e.g. -0.4% pt. plaque regression). Hence the very low share price at this stage due to current and former shareholder alienation. This must be managed in the future. A disaster like this is not necessary given the positive performance of rvx-208.
Another perception that I have of Resverlogix is that they are a "communications fortress". This makes me suspicious and I'm sure others feel the same. I've tried to communicate with them through email. Some have not been answered and for those that were answered the responses were "vanilla". This is not unusual. In the age of the Internet many Canadian companies have created barriers to communicating with them. However, for Resverlogix,
in terms of investor relations, they must not be a fortress (unless they really do have things to hide).
I'm being very critical here but I'm trying to shift part of their thinking framework. There is a big hole here.
I'm a mathematician and statistition and I've spent my life in the area of consumer and corporate perceptions and brand positioning and realize it's power. My friends are engineers, actuaries, doctors, etc and they don't give a dam about brand image. My dad was a veternarian and he really didn't care about managing his "brand" image.
- What I'm trying to say is that I think I understand some of the RVX culture and why they ended up re-acting as opposed to pro-actively managing the shareholder perceptions.
I still have a very positive attitude about RVX and Don based on what you have said about him. Also, having reviewed the bios of the board, management team and advisory boards in combination with the positive post hoc results I remain very positive.
However, they better address stakeholder and shareholder communication issues as well as brand positioning.
I'll try not to be redundant in the future.
Toinv