The best recollection of Oregon costing for pesticide testing was around 300$ per - it’s the biggest revenue driver of the tests as it uses the most expensive equipment. Canada’s recent announcement of compulsory third party testing had like 90 different pesticides to be tested for vs a lot less than that in Oregon. So I think it’s safe to start at 300$ as the revenue generated from a test. And go up from there. But I’m with you overall. Evio needs to start putting out press releases with forecasts and details that shareholders can deep dive in. This constant referencing in every PR “arc view cannabis consultants say the market will be this big/ according to green ventures etc - every PR seems to do it. Three years in and evio management must have a better sense of their own marketplace and need to cease dropping these outside groups in for data.
The way it’s written now is so wrong in so many ways. As you pointed out if it’s 10 bucks who cares - and even at your 100$ I’m very unimpressed - as that’s the “goal” - they operate 8 hours a day 5 days a week - they aren’t open weekends. So let’s call it 260 working days a year. Using the 100$ model the “goal” is $520,000 annual revenue. Which is pathetic. At the $300 I pulled from the Oregon experience - $1,560,000 annual revs are the “goal” which is another grotesquely low number. As an “end goal” for testing the cannabis for an entire country of 38 million people.
Looking at it from a shareholders perspective the absolute highest price would be the best. When the PR says 20 is their goal - and they spent 1.1 million on equipment upgrades less than 60 days ago. I’d like to hope the price to “test a sample” is pushing $900-$1200 or more
That would see a “goal” of $4,680,000 - $6,240,000 in Canada testing revenues (goal = 20 tests a day)
We are left to wonder. The problem lays in the interpretation of this oversight of data or intel in the PR - a cynical person could say that the number is low. And the company wants to avoid dealing with the fallout so they don’t put out a number. Or. The cynic might say that whoever put together the PR completely blanked on realizing that putting $ context into the PR was key to it reading well. And without it it kinda looks like a nothing burger.
They could have included the dollar number. They could have walked us through a quick block of the processs. Provided context to how many tests today. What are those challenges exactly to reaching your goal of 20. Or 40. Engage us.
The way it’s written now provides no context - it’s just another puff piece in a way when you drill down.
Raises more questions than it answers - which is an insta-fail in a corporate press release.
