Disclaimer:  I may be highlighting my own naivete or ignorance here, so please take it easy on me…

But why would there be negative ratings (ie resistance/disapproval by people here) to LotusLand’s initiative to highlight the company?  It seems true to me that:

• Despite the company’s technical successes, they have produced woefully ineffective marketing (institutional and retail alike, both quantifiable).
• It shouldn’t be investors’ responsibility to mitigate the company’s ineffective marketing.
• If an investor(s) assists in this regard, and achieves quantifiable exposure, this is not a bad thing.

Further, one might hypothesize that ineffective marketing by the company could cause undue skepticism when weighed against a declining/stagnant share price.  Especially when the company’s marketing is adorned with (quarter-old now) phrasing like “prime time” and “inflection point” and definitional word-play ie. production, real, released-to etc. (this vernacular may be accurate in industry-speak but the messaging was crafted for public delivery, retail investors).  Is it not abundantly clear we need to unlock our investor outreach beyond the confines of “industry”?  Of course as the company in-tandem works towards orders and relationships within the confines of industry.

Can we non unanimously agree that Poet (and similarly us, collectively) benefits from heightened exposure?  What am I missing here!?