Anaconda Mining ANXGF / ANX.TO, provides an excellent "how not to" example, showing how putting out PR for PR sake... more when it is badly structured, badly timed, poorly written, and disconnected from investors interest and focus... can do more harm than good.
At the end of the year, they dropped news reporting on two projects:
First, on November 29, they dropped a sledge hammer on the toe of their "high interest" Newfoundland projects, with a badly written bit on three separate "potentials" that completely lacks context or focus. Investors hoping for news showing "value" found the opposite in money being spent on a resource update that shows the project lacks resources. Predictably, investors who were focused on and looking for them to develop the opportunity in Newfoundland into "more" were decidedly underwhelmed:
Anaconda Mining Files Updated Mineral Resource Estimate and Mineral Reserves for the Point Rousse Gold Project
And then, on December 16, whatever the truth of the thinking behind their approach, it appears they tried to make up for it by reporting on a "low interest" project in Nova Scotia. And, it seems, the million plus ounces they did find in Nova Scotia was less well received and had less impact vs the market's (correct, IMO) "WTF" response to the prior news...
Anaconda Mining Reports Positive Phase I Open Pit Feasibility Study for the Goldboro Gold Project
The chart (below) shows the results. Management might think... it's not our job to be "hand holding" investors when we're simply reporting the facts ? Yeah... I get that... hear it all the time... from low market IQ bad management teams. "The market" is not mostly made up of people who are following your projects that closely that you can ASSUME they are aware of context you wrongly assume they understand when dropping a PR ? Reality is... it's the same as in elections: it is never the die hard partisans you have to convince... because they're already convinced... and convincing them incrementally more [???] with partial information dropped entirely outside of meaningful context doesn't win you more votes ? In politics, its the unaware and undecided that SKILLFUL messaging has to address... with complete enough information that enables making quality decisions based on quality information... that doesn't misrepresent the picture because of how you painted it... or because you put it in a bad light ?
The "failure to communicate" is management's responsibility... and it has real costs. In this instance... lack of awareness of the market focus, and lack of awareness of how their communication would be interpreted... cost them 1/3 the market cap... for no other reason ? Given the resulting awareness that the management you have are low market IQ operators who think they're only reporting facts about rocks ?
Or, worse, if they knew what they were doing and did it on purpose, anyway ?
"Management, management, management"... implies "preferably without lobotomies"...
 |
