|
|
|
|
||
Re: Can someone tell me what this means?There is too much wrong with that "letter" to discuss it all. But I will comment on some of it. At least they seem to put the words about beauty ahead of the words about conscientious. But that is only a slight improvement, of a still bad strategy. Talk about leading a revolution ? Nonsense. The revolution is that there is a new best fine jewel (BFL+D+W), not that it is ethical or socially responsible. The latter are just worn out generic marketing ideas that are being used everywhere for everything......not revolutionary. (Even in the jewel market, DeBeers is talking about it.) <<< Millennials’ buying behaviors are completely different than their predecessors. .....
Not different behavior. Just different tools. Before the (mainstream) internet, people researched via catalogs, and selected and purchased by mail order. Same behavior. The time scale was different, but everything was slower back then (snail mail versus email....). So, modern tech allows the behavior to be more productive and fast.....and so naturally it will be done more often. But it is not different behavior. They could argue it will become a greater percentage (already has) of shopping than catalogs were (at least in years just prior to internet). But it is still the minority of shopping, and will be for a while. Even for millennials. <<<
Yeah......and are still way behind B&M sales. Way behind. It makes no sense to ignore (or work against) what is still the vast majority of the retail space. And investors don't want to hear about a future many years away (when online sales maybe pass B&M sales).......we want to hear about NOW and the VERY NEAR future......and the majority of that is B&M. (And the B&M retail partners we NEED and should have, also cover the online channel. We wouldn't be ignoring online by partnering with B&M retailers.) <<<
That is a misleading statement if I ever saw one. One survey ? That means nothing. Very well could be skewed purposely. And I am pretty sure C&C is using it to skew thinking. Don't base a business on one survey. And that survey is not even about jewelry specifically. For sure, social-responsibility makes a bigger difference in buying soap than forever jewelry. And C&C does not have enough resources or capability to leverage social media to spread enough awareness or generate enough demand to make a measurable difference. We need our jewel in the jewelry industry retailers (B&M and online), and let them do what they are capable of doing. <<<
The jewelry INDUSTRY needs to, and is doing that. But C&C cannot pull that off effectively itself. It needs to get our jewel into that jewelry industry, which has the resources and talent to make it happen. <<< 87%of millennials are more willing to purchase a product that has social or environmental benefit.1 Of course, IF it first is a product that they want for the inherent product reasons. They won't buy a fine jewel until they first know it is a fine jewel, and they generally want the BEST fine jewel. Secondary reasons are secondary. And by the way, that statement is three years old. I would not be surprised if the number is lower now......the whole ethical marketing concept is stale, and is losing (or will lose) steam at some point. And I GUARANTEE that the number is lower for fine jewel/jewelry purchases, especially forever items. Probably MUCH lower. <<< Charles & Colvard’s historic role in the industry was as a manufacturer of lab-created moissanite gemstones That is not just history. That is what investors invested in. A wholesale supplier of the best fine jewel. Period. Start (get back to) pursuing the opportunity the shareholders (especially those whose cash went directly into the company.....IPO and secondary buyers) invested in. Stop using OUR resources to chase other businesses. We did NOT invest in a jewelRY business. NOT. You have a fiduciary responsibility to use our resources to pursue the business we invested in. (I am not a legal expert.) <<< re-launching Charles & Colvard as a global jewelry brand and bringing forward a direct-to-consumer e-commerce presence. Game on. C&C has ZERO chance to be successful as a jewelRY company, or pursuing its own e-commerce presence. ZERO. (Success = large PPS gains over the historic high. Anything else is failure.) Not "Game on." More like "lights OUT." <<< With seven quarters under our new approach in the books, we Yeah.....FAILURE. Sales still at pathetic tiny levels. Well below the historic high of sales numbers, and even those were pathetically low. <<< we have successfully built on Charles & Colvard’s position as the leading worldwide moissanite provider – increasing awareness on social media, expanding through new channels, and differentiating our productquality and service offering globally. Really ? If so, then why isn't anybody buying anything ? How can you make that statement, when the sales numbers (after 7 quarters) still shout that awareness is non-existent, and nobody is using (or knows about) the new channels (or old) ? <<< From a financial perspective, organic revenue growth has beendriven by strong online sales growth, If you think that is STRONG growth, you are delusional. And please stop ignoring overall sales (DOWN) so you can emphasize the one channel where the tiny numbers are up a tiny bit (in absolute numbers). That is the channel where all your focus is.....the result is those numbers are up a tiny amount (at least for now), while other channel numbers are DOWN.....net result, lower sales. <<< our Fiscal Year 2019 will be focused on execution. WTF were they focussed on before ? Just spending money ? Because that is all they have accomplished. And IMHO, it was mostly all misdirected. <<< The jewelry industry is buzzing with the recent entry of a prominent mined diamond manufacturer into fashion jewelry using lab-grown diamonds. We feel this is great validation of the growing market demand for lab-created gemstones Yeah, a buzz for lab-grown DIAMONDS. You ain't gonna beat that with arguments about lab-grown, created, ethically sourced, conscientious, etc. To beat that, you have to strongly emphasize that C&C is THE BEST FINE JEWEL based on inherent jewel properties. Otherwise, consumers will choose created D....and accept a smaller lab D for same dollars. You have to be sure that the main thought in consumers minds is that C&CM is a BETTER FINE JEWEL (BFL+D+W). Better, bigger jewel for same dollars...........but the same as lab D in terms of sourcing (which is a secondary factor anyway). <<< We’re proud of our well-established position – You have NO established position. You are unknown. If anything was established with even the tiny number of folks who love and bought C&CM, it is that they were choosing a BETTER FINE JEWEL. But very few people were/are aware. <<< Driving organic revenue growth in the U.S. and maintaining attractive margins In other words..........sales will remain tiny, largely because they are ignoring the (B&M) industry, and trying to be a jewelRY company themselves. They may grow the tiny online segment by a tiny (absolute value) amount. And maybe maintain the decent (but not as large as they should be) gross margins.......while struggling to actually post profits on the bottom line. Because they are chasing the bad decision to become a retail jewelRY company (a hugely competitive business) instead of being a wholesale jewel supplier (a potentially HUGE market, HUGE margins, and low competition if we have the best M). <<< Our team’s ability to execute on these strategic initiatives is related to shareholder value. Duh...yeah....it is related. The team's ability to execute is THE reason why the shares have almost no value. (Down over 95%, from what was a low value then, considering the opportunity of the M jewel). <<<
If they say "roughly half", that probably means somewhat less than half, so they can't actually say even half, let alone more than half, or a majority. Only half ? You are targeting them almost exclusively, and still half are other age groups ? Either your message is reaching nobody, or it is not resonating with the public. If the message was having any effect, 1) the current customer base would be MUCH MUCH larger than it is, and 2) it would be way more than half millennials. <<<
Which is pathetic. 40% is a pathetic percentage growth, when the absolute numbers are so tiny. Growth companies early on, produce hundreds or thousands percent growth. If you are only producing 40% growth on these tiny numbers, what growth percentages can you produce when (if) the numbers ever get to meaningful sizes ??? At this stage, 40% is NOT good, it is NOT acceptable, it is pathetic, it is failing. <<<
You can spend money, and make offerings available globally. But how are you going to generate awareness globally, when you can't even generate awareness in the USA ? <<< an experienced and motivated team, and operational expertise and infrastructure positioned to scale, Been there. Heard that. We have been told that before. By another team that didn't actually have expertise. History repeating itself ? <<< Investor Relations Advisory Solutions Another bad contractor choice ? More wasted money ? Did they come up with this nonsense ? Or why did they not tell suzanne that it is crap, and she needs to re-think it all ? Just taking their fees, and spitting out whatever pleases the CEO ? How is that "advisory" ? I sure hope we didn't spend much on that "letter". The money was wasted. Even counter-productive. As always, all JMHO. |
return to message board, top of board |