Thank you for your considered response (as usual) to my post.
You make some interesting points in separating incremental innovation from breakthrough innovation and I would like to focus on that distinction if I may. When I first came across OBJ many years ago I was impressed by their innovative technological breakthroughs in replacing chemical dependency with physical means (without the need for puncture) for delivery of substances through the skin. I regarded their technology as more promising and superior to many of the "nano" delivery projects offered by other ASX listed companies at that time (and there were lots!!). There seemed to be unlimited applications for the technology in serious medical environments. Never did I imagine that the first cab off the rank would be an eye wand for delivery of an eye cream to disperse wrinkles! However, I came to terms with the commercial realities of developing new technologies, the all-important time constraints of gaining FDA (and other regulatory) approvals and uncertainty of acceptance by professionals. Yes, partnering with P&G seemed like a better commercial pathway, certainly for the prospects of producing returns to long-suffering shareholders. But that decision also changed the impact of the innovation. The technology might still be classed as "breakthrough" but it's application developed by P&G has very little relevance when compared to medical "breakthrough innovation" such as a new cancer drug or an imaging tool, for example. It is also susceptible copycat products, hence the need for speed in rolling out the product.
Until recently I lived in Singapore and traveled widely in Asia/SE Asia and the sub-continent. In my travels for both business and pleasure it was glaringly obvious that if a product makes a quid then it will be copied and sold for at least half the price of the genuine article. You only have to stroll through Chinatown in Singapore (or any market in SE Asia) and it is impossible to ignore the fact that it is awash with cosmetics and perfumes bearing the marks of quality manufacturers, looking indistinguishable to the genuine, at a fraction of the cost. Never have I seen medical products claiming to be what they are not.
In China this copying extends to 4-wheel drives, bulldozers, handbags, TVs, etc, etc...There is little or no regard for patents or IP rights. So, in my opinion, establishing a market QUICKLY and reliably (ie guaranteed supply) is vitally important in gaining a solid, loyal customer base. After all, we are only talking about a small pot of cream and a "gimmicky" (I'm sorry, but despite the amazing technology it is truly gimmicky) wand in some fancy packaging. I believe Glyn has already warned one poster to buy the kit only from the official SKII website (sorry, I can't remember when this was stated but was a couple of weeks ago on HC). I can just imagine, as I type this post, a lab in Shanghai producing pallet loads of the wand kit to sell on the internet or send to markets in Bangkok and Kuala Lumpur along with other SKII products, Dior perfumes,etc, etc.
Had the technology been used in a medical product, with all the requisite approvals, then things would be different and your breakthrough innovation would be protected through professional recognition. Peer-reviewed efficacy, not speed would be the major consideration. So, I appreciate the point you are making but I think that it is not applicable to technology developed by P&G.
Finally, the reference I made to Glyn saying that the PDA was executed in record time was from a personal conversation I had with him so you can ignore that if you have doubts about my honesty. Point taken though. Cheers.
Voyeurx2, has this got enough relevance to Singapore? Cheers.
OBJ Price at posting:
7.7¢ Sentiment: Sell Disclosure: Not Held
(20min delay)