Member Info for ace2326

Jam, this is still if buts and maybes

The long term for the company has to be in products that don’t rely on the pandemic sustaining and while they should keep facility to capitalise on that, it shouldn’t be the bread and butter

Love your positive vibes Jamrock.

Going on track record, the delay in products last year didn’t really feel as though it was for any reason you could say was in better preparation nor did it pay off. Re the email marketing, and Amazon listings it all felt underwhelming.

I will be very interested to see how the cov19 testing has held up, but they’ve kept back info on the sales of the new products effectively since they’ve launched.

I do wonder if the silence is delaying telling us all they haven’t sold well, but here’s X more new products to go with them. Followed by a bit of a spiel on vague new leads to stock them.

We tend to write RNS very well, it’s all very positive. But somehow good news never creates rerate. I was really hoping along with a track record of sales, this doesn’t become another small cap science stock with promises of Jam tomorrow. (Excusing the coincidental username pun lol)

All that said. It’s very cheap to buy here. I wish I had some top up funds spare to bring avg down that little bit more

Why so Alamo? Out of interest

I think the share price is outrageous, and totally blame the BOD for their laissez-faire attitude towards share holder value.

The chain of news, albeit always well written, and on paper positive, is not regular and transparent enough to play any part in raising and stabilising the share price.

The way the company has gone about the release of the new products, has been absolutely abysmal. Not one social media advert, not one deal with a reputable outlet. Sending a couple of mail chimp emails? Are we having a laugh?

All this meets at the head of a giant boil on the @rse, whereby underperforming SP meets radio silence, meets inferior marketing strategies to my local Domino’s, meets careless delays in promises of new products and winter updates.

This is not acceptable. The share price where it’s at now, after a calendar year ago seeing 1.50-1.60, is totally unacceptable.

We want acquisitions. We want sales. We want news. We want release of products. We want to be professionally marketed. We want the cash the company has generated, to in turn reflect in the share price by impressing the market with plan and vision.

Mail chimp emails and pray does not cut it.

57% male website visitors, not quite what Penny was targeting!

I imagine it’s somewhere in between the two.

Boots and Lloyds are aware of the quality of the products and service by. MHC well aware of the value they both bring in terms of brand presence and awareness, and both parties negotiating who deserves what from bringing both together.

What MHC can offer will be surely of interest, especially with shops like Randox popping up. It would enable Boots and Lloyds a foothold in that market, with only the sales aspect to worry about. But equally I’m sure they have a firm eye on MHC’s ability to advertise and market these independently, and are using the time passed to gather data on why they justify a big piece of the pie.

@Jamrock, again I feel really convinced and reassured from
what I’ve read. This company knocks out good RNS after good RNS and appears to be in good hands. Off the back of far better revenue and cash position than most of us were probably expecting, you would hope we could push on from here in terms of SP.

portfolio of further wellness products ready for launch in Q4 2022, which have been market validated using quantitative customer insights.

July 2022 was a record-breaking month with revenue of £6.8m (unaudited) after the delivery of over 5.5m COVID LFTs into the market in that month alone.

It’s completely unrelated to Mhc?

I like your bullish confidence and agree with you all the time Jam, but we’ve had nothing but good news in and around periods of awful radio silence, we’ve had director buying, the products are launched, covid products still selling well, cash in the bank.

We just can’t seem to go beyond 2.5p and dang well stay there. I don’t know what we have to do to go on and become a 3,5,7,10p share.

The company goes from no cash to half the MCAP, sales eclipse expectations, brand awareness grows, directors back it, new products get launched, and somehow it’s valued less than half what it was when this was all but a whiff of what it is now.

It’s mightily frustrating

Marketing emails and products sitting on Amazon all well and good, but there still isn’t enough mentioned about the big differences between the cheaper Randox tests and other tests priced in the £100 range to show £54 is actually well priced.

Also feel a product push needs a lot more than a few easily deleted or unsubscribed emails, and a position on Amazon that are only really appearing with relatively specific search terms.

Feels like these sort of non essential, non legally required products needed retail partnerships even more than what the company has made their healthy cash position with in the first place.

Barnet, I’d rather our tests weren’t on sale on eBay lol

Gotta say that review looks written by a PI

Another suggestion to add alongside detailed Competitor comparisons would be:

Trust Pilot - can trust pilot reviews be filtered by product by web developers - so that each test has its specific reviews displayed.

This would be a great feature, separating the Covid tests, and Wellness tests so pondering potential clients can hone in at the varied feedback before making a purchase.

@cuvio “ Costs £139 and the results take up to 3 times longer than ours.
It does screen 2 more genetic markers than ours - but is that worth the much higher price?”

I haven’t looked into comparing this and Randox with ours, but if this is true, MHC need to illustrate this on the site. Similar to tick boxes when comparisons are made on product or service features.

It is in MHC’s best interest to underline and highlight this information to ensure potential clients can be as informed as possible. It totally changes the angle of “is £54 worth it with rising living costs” argument, which isn’t the target market anyway as the product isn’t aimed at people living on supermarket branded energy drinks and a 20 pack of space invaders.

How best do we ensure as shareholders, that MHC know the importance of selling this comparison with the £139 tests and the difference to the £45 test.

I think this displayed on the site and in any marketing campaigns is absolutely imperative.

Cuvio this is an interesting angle on it.

I just hope people that take an interest in products like this are as informed by the time they make a decision as you are.

As most people I’ve heard have leaned towards £45 and £54 as the most notable differences between the tests

In your opinion Culvio do you think average end user knows this?

imagined* (should say expected)

I will try and bag another 50-100k and get myself to 1m shares if so. Keep moving closer and closer slowly to that 2p avg.

GLA