NET (ASX) Ann: EGM Management Presentation

Originally posted by Petey: ↑

1. Think of the VIN product line as a small business solution to mobile connectivity into a WAN.
2. Think of the VSN topology of products as an Enterprise level of scalable interconnectivity able to connect anything to anything.
Now think of the business case for where a company should spend its limited financial resources.

With VIN you have a product that is unscalable to Enterprise level and is targetted at small level business cases with limited functionality - its core product differentiator being 'virtual' invisibility. This 'virtual invisibility' would be attractive for certain user-specific cases but not particularly useful for large scale deployment nor particularly relevant to small businesses or particularly differentiated from existing solutions - as many self professed tech type commentators have been saying for a while on here.

With VSN you have scalability and connectivity at any level of implementation you care to imagine.

The company pivoted away from VIN a year ago - and in quick time paid for and put together what it has now - and started selling capability at the start of the calendar year.

This might put the first reference you sited written in 2019 - before the AGM announcement of go-forward strategy in context. I can't link to the second article you mention.

The company will either deliver the growth it has forecast or it won't. if it does deliver what it has indicated - the next question will be what next? and People will still refer to VIN sales in order to try and build a financial model - I don't think VIN sales explain the jump in revenue numbers - see my point 2.

Expand

Ok, good stuff Petey. Yes, targeting enterprise-level clients with VSN is definitely the more attractive business case. Clearly.

It perplexes me then, why we continues to market the VIN brand in promotional material. I get it's a sexy concept and may serve as instant clickbait..with words like "invisible"..etc, but you'd think we would be better off to leave that behind in our language no? And replace it with more sophisticated language that addresses the needs of the type of corporate and govt clients we're chasing in China?

Case in point..here...I have pasted the link to our promotional VIN article from 14th June 2020, this muddies the water me. (if the link doesn't work again, you can google "netlinkz *")

https://www.google.com/amp/s/**promotion blocked**/tech/how-netlinkz-built-the-virtual-invisible-network-for-the-global-data-economy/%3famp

Anyway, so, for yourself..what specifics are you carefully watching as a heads up that we are succeeding or not? Just the revenue actual vs forecast? Maybe there really is no lead indicator...and we're just left with watching the revenue numbers?

So, while our tech doesn't particularly excite you (aside from being fit for purpose), I know our strategy certainly does. You have spoken clearly about our awesome strategy for growth. But what about our people, you have yet to specifically refer to this point of the triangle of success..our people. Clearly we need the right skillset to win and retain the large enterpise-level business we're chasing, right?

Finally, tell me Petey, coz we're all impressed, I simply must know...what is your background? And how did you develop such a clear, in-depth and sophisticated understanding of our company?