ATM - A2 Milk Corporation Limited

[drcjp]

Wow, another big volume day...almost 4mln shares traded so far. Something is up, I think. At least price is up couple of cents...

Maybe those interested in investing in milk (and its IP) have seen Fonterra's continuing ability to annoy farmers, the Govt. and humanity in general for what it is, and now see A2M as a viable alternative?

Or, are NZFC still practicing their counting?

[JohnnyTheHorse]

Just like clockwork, a bounce off 49 cent support. It's range bound from 49-58, so play to it (that's a 20% move!). Some aggressive buying today, largely dominated by the NZX side of things. Where will it go tomorrow?

[Harrie]

ABC "The checkout" program last night rubbishes a2 Milk. We have all heard it before but to the uninitiated its pretty negative. Plays heavily on the fact that there is no conclusive scientific evidence. More debate = more sales? Satirical presentations like this are very powerful, unfortunately most will take it at face value.
Be interested to see if a2mc responds to it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tP1XGmr26Mo

[skid]

Apparently milk solid sales are only bringing in half what they were last year so must be tough on farmers and Fonterra--Im not sure how this all plays out for A2 but its something to think about

[NT001]

ABC "The checkout" program last night rubbishes a2 Milk. We have all heard it before but to the uninitiated its pretty negative. Plays heavily on the fact that there is no conclusive scientific evidence. More debate = more sales? Satirical presentations like this are very powerful, unfortunately most will take it at face value.
Be interested to see if a2mc responds to it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tP1XGmr26Mo

I agree with Harrie that this programme will be damaging. But it is not a fact that "there is no conclusive scientific evidence" for the A2 proposition. Some guy made that statement in this program and it's been taken as correct. That's the Dairy Australia line and I think he was a spokesman for Big Dairy - the clip looks familiar.

There is now plenty of conclusive scientific evidence, fully backed up by peer-reviewed research round the world, that A1 milk generates a dangerous peptide (BCM-7) in the digestive system. And that BCM-7 can escape through the gut wall and get into the bloodstream of some consumers, and get from there into the brain where it plays havoc in a variety of ways.

There are also dozens of recent studies that link BCM-7 with conditions such as autism, SIDS, schizophrenia and of course digestive discomfort. Some are based on the observed and measured results of A1 consumption involvingy human subjects. They are not studies that have been paid for or supported by a2MC. They have been published in reputable scientific journals, whose review panels require very high standards of proof. The presenter of this programme does not dispute them, she simply mocks them as if they're unbelievable. She uses inference and BS rather than fact.

The research showing that A1 milk is hazardous to some consumers is rock solid. There is no research that disputes it. Big Dairy, with its own armies of highly qualified scientists, doesn't dispute it, which it obviously would if it could. The Australian Dietitians Society which is quoted in the programme is not a scientific research organisation. It is an organisation of dietitians who understandably do not want the A2 controversy to scare people away from drinking cows' milk altogether and switching to less nutritious alternatives such as soy.

There will be new clinical trial results before long (including trials using human subjects) that will further answer the doubts that are often raised. But it'll be a slow process. And unfortunately I think a2MC will have to continue supporting some research, even though critics who can't actually dispute the science itself use this fact to debunk it . The reason for a2MC support is that governments and universities in Australia and NZ are scared by the power of Big Dairy and they do not want to commit funding for such research. They also do not want to create doubts about the safety of their huge dairy export industries. But the review panels of science journals have very adequate protocols for ensuring that the financial or personal involvement of interested parties in research projects has not influenced the findings.

As Fonterra is aware, there is potential that it could be sued in due course for knowingly selling a potentially hazardous product. It actually held patents at one stage based on the links between A1 and certain medical conditions, but such a position could obviously be self incriminating and it now has a policy of trying to maintain a position of plausible ignorance.

I would say a2MC very likely has a good case for suing the makers and broadcasters of this programme for defamation. It is damaging and it contains numerous untruths and examples of insult by inference. It is undoubtedly malicious, and the defence argument that it's supposed to be "funny" wouldn't work in court. We'll see. Maybe the company will decide to leave it alone, and not divert resources from market-building to lining the pockets of lawyers.

[MAC]

Makes for good TV don't you think NT001, dramatizing and summarising all the perceived negatives and avoiding and ignoring all the pertinent perceived positives. Agree though it may have some temporary influence on the market as a sound bite segment can do.

Although, I'm not sure all those mum's using a2 infant formula because it's the closest thing one can buy to a2 human milk will be swayed. Offering the best and as close as you can get is very powerful psychology and marketing when it comes to putting products inside one's baby.

And I suspect all those facebook posting folk who have tried the product and convinced themselves of the benefits, regardless of which scientific camp said what and when, won't be swayed much either.

The company is very close to achieving their goal of a 10% market share.

Some of the other 90% of folk may well be swayed by entertaining checkout TV, but a2 milk seems to have a very high customer retention and loyalty level indeed, with some even regarding it as a medicinal necessity, it’s not just another brand of milk to them to chop and change about.

And there’s still very many folk amongst that 90% yet to try Australia’s fasted growing milk product for themselves.

[sb9]

In the meantime, almost another 2mln shares traded through...

[MAC]

Here you go NT001;

"What is The a2 Milk Company’s response to The Checkout episode which aired on April 30 on the ABC?"

“The a2 Milk Company was asked by the program’s producers to answer some specific questions before the episode went to air. We did so, and were disappointed that the producers have offered their viewers a less balanced view of the facts than were presented”

http://a2milk.com.au/wp-content/uplo...73331-0001.pdf

http://www.a2milk.com.au/qna/what-is...30-on-the-abc/

[MAC]

Oh yeah, and here is the ABC response;

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/thecheckout...k_response.pdf

I'm just considering whether it would be advantageous, from entirely and purely a marketing perspective, for a2MC to seek some form of legal action for defamation.

It would inflame and lubricate the debate somewhat, and there are still 90% of Australians yet to experience all that is good about a2 milk.

Certainly the Pura/Lion debacle benefited ATM's market share, perhaps this would also.

"Small innovative milk company singled out from dozens, beaten up and slandered by global TV network"

Debate ---> Awareness ---> Sales

[NT001]

Firstly I think the a2MC position has been pathetic right from the start. In its initial reply to questions from the Checkout researcher it should have taken a far more positive stance. It adopted a kind of cautionary stance as if it had something to hide and was on the defensive. It should for example have cited anecdotal reports, and also pointed out that there is quite a lot it would like to say about the science on behalf of A2 (and aganst A1) but it is quite restricted by the law in what it can say.

Nevertheless, it looks to have been ambushed, and the programme is clearly unbalanced, defamatory and commercially damaging. It is not sufficient as a defence to say "we wrote and asked some questions". I assume that if a2MC had known in advance that the intent of the programme was to openly brand A2 Milk as "bull****" it would have worded its responses somewhat differently.

I really can't see how a2MC can do other than sue. The problem is that if it doesn't, the branding of its product as "bull****" stands uncontested, not only in Australia but all round the world. The YouTube version will be constantly referred to everywhere. And if a2MC doesn't sue, its critics will note that it did not do so, presumably because didn't have a case for disputing the "bull****" tag . That in itself is very damaging to its reputation. There are times when you have to sue, even though the company's policy has been (quite sensibly) to try to avoid litigation.

It'll be interesting to see how sales in Australia are affected.

Meanwhile the Daily Mail's website, which I understand is the most widely read in the world or close to it, recommends to runners preparing for the London Marathon that they use A2 milk.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/fo...-Marathon.html