realistic fair value, page-44

Its not about fooling anyone, it IS about creating a lighthouse brand which is the goal of any successful organisation.

It IS about making all of the negative brand associations created by the Malaysian Green Oppositions lies redundant.

They even went so far as to try and attack any brand associated with Lynas. It was all about brand equity (negative) and they went that way because the Lynas branding was environmental and sustainable.

The minute you change the brand you create a new landscape and new brand associations and connections.

Try googling Lynas LAMP (the current brand identifiers) and see what is the top hit, see what I mean?

The negative brand spin will become instantaneously redundant and all the positives from here on in can all go towards creating a top of mind brand awareness globally for RE.

And global is the point...Lynas is a global organisation and should be seen as such.

It sources raw materials from the best points in the globe, sells to a global customer and it would be best seen as a global corporate citizen.

This is the transnational approach to business structure and it has many benefits.

We need a vision that puts us beyond an Australian or Malaysian based company, we need a brand identity to support that.

Lynas as a brand has allowed us a vehicle to come to this point where production is a reality however from here on in the company should proceed with a clear branding strategy to support its rightful place as a global supplier of rare earths.

The customer will be dealing with RED anyways I suspect which is why they have it locked in their brand stable.

Any BTW branding IS ALL about perception in the eye of the marketplace.

What do you honestly think the brand associations and perceptions of Lynas are right now?

Positive or negative and how much work do you think it will take to get the brand back on track.

And I think that the marketplace will reward a rebranded organisation in the case of Lynas / RED.

Lets get on with the job.