RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:T.weed destroying aphria!I agree completely, and you've actually brought up another point that makes the comparison even harder. Weeds main focus is Rec, Aphs main focus is Med. Two very, very different markets. Aph doesn't care as much about brand awareness as Weed because Medical is brandless when the middle-man is a pharmacist.
TimMcCracken wrote:
Fair points,
but what is the opportunity cost of non operational diversification (indoor/ greenhouse), non product diversification (ever growing selection), non geographical diversification (domestically and internationally) and limited brand awareness.
Will the long term benefits outweigh the current short term losses? who knows.
Will focusing on short term profits turn out to hinder long term growth? who knows.
I do not know if either strategy will turn out to be a poor one.
However, I do know that when recreational sales go live, I want to be with whoever can get the most product to market as I feel demand will strongly outweigh supply in the short term.
I want the best products with the best brand awareness. In my honest opinion I have never liked the name "Aphria" and people I talk to do not even know how to pronounce it correctly ... I think they should consider a new name. Tweed is more appealing and will have lasting affects on new/ returning customers ... sometimes it is just as simple as that.
Just like the stay at home economy ... They all have the best of breed brands and that's why they dominate their respective industry's ... and the majority of those growth giants did not make money in their early existence, they focused on market share and building brands people love.
As per usual just my opinion.
Regards,
Tim