Thanks Hrdwk for your comments and good to read yours and other's viewpoints.
Yes I too used to have the same thoughts as you in the early days on here at HC...I would think that it would be awesome to have a co. rep on here, we could simply ask any questions we like....but there are advantages and disadvantages, just some off the top of my head only from my perspective of course:
PROS
We can attempt to ask anything we like
We may get a better sense of why a company did what they did and say what they said
It's less speculation on our part, more fact
CONS
Just because we ask them anything, doesn't mean they can answer everything. The ASX takes a very dim view on any one group getting an inside or market edge...you know it happens, I know it happens but not officially...there has to be no crossing of the line from a sensitivity point of view. HC officially have endorsed co. reps...but no doubt they pay close attention to what is said and look out for policy breaches ...
Sometimes a company doesn't want to or simply can't answer something, yes of course it's their prerogative and I'm sure the RAC guy doesn't answer everything...but also the silence could also be frustrating and result in more questions and sensitivities? I'm not really qualified to say that using RAC as an example as I haven't read through all the posts there...so take that into consideration.
I think as a collective, Hrdwrk is right...we do have the collective nous...we have so many experts on here that are knowledgeable and our pooled resources is not to be sneezed at...from Chartists, Accountants, Docs...Patients...a company rep at least perhaps from PAR's point of view currently in my opinion doesn't have the bandwidth to cater for all areas and floods of q's all the time from HC and all other social media...don't forget multiple q's get asked over and over as new ppl join us or older posts are forgotten in terms of what was discussed and covered.
Don't get me wrong, I think PAR in spirit would entertain such a concept but definitely not at this stage in my view...I think at least at this stage we are better served with PAR staff focusing on the job at hand, and there are a LOT of jobs at hand! Perhaps as we get bigger there might in fact be a department or at least staff dedicated for such media channels and the catering of such at least to some extent?
Yes I think Beaza said it just before, these are two very different companies...it's interesting to note these differences, there are many many factors involved that lend themselves to how things are tackled, the history, the founders/management, even the drug plays a certain role (complexity, constitution, relationship with third parties etc and of course pathways and chosen media outlets), also the influence of advisors/brokers and Legal/Reg teams..the list goes on. One usually can't apply just a broad brush stroke to a group or set of companies even if they are in a similar industry and have a similar size and structure.
Don't forget I am guessing the role of Investor Relations would be busy NOW...just wait for another month...the level of inquiries WILL get dialed up...a lot...and you also have to realise these queries are going to come from Europe AND the USA along with other areas such as Japan, Brazil etc. They are going to be flat out just catering to the Instos...yes a few members of current staff from different current teams can handle some of the question workload...but THIS will be priority for them in the next x months...again, only my thoughts.
I for one can appreciate how much work PAR is currently doing...I do see the merits of having some really good and productive media channels being catered for but I think the time for this will be greater later on when we make it onto many more radars and have the resources to do justice to something like that?
(20min delay)