Home Uncategorized case response

Uncategorized

case response

Use only material I provide!1-2 paragraph

4. What further actions can Tetra take to ensure that it is positioned as a pharmaceutical to its target customers and other stakeholders? How can Tetra further clarify its value proposition to ensure that physicians will prescribe its drugs?

i1v2e5y5pubs

W20022

TETRA BIO-PHARMA: BRAND BUILDING IN THE CANNABINOID
PHARMACEUTICAL MARKET

Jake Girard, Peter Voyer and Gerry Kerr wrote this case solely to provide material for class discussion. The authors do not intend to
illustrate either effective or ineffective handling of a managerial situation. The authors may have disguised certain names and other
identifying information to protect confidentiality.

This publication may not be transmitted, photocopied, digitized, or otherwise reproduced in any form or by any means without the
permission of the copyright holder. Reproduction of this material is not covered under authorization by any reproduction rights
organization. To order copies or request permission to reproduce materials, contact Ivey Publishing, Ivey Business School, Western
University, London, Ontario, Canada, N6G 0N1; (t) 519.661.3208; (e) cases@ivey.ca; www.iveycases.com. Our goal is to publish
materials of the highest quality; submit any errata to publishcases@ivey.ca.

In November 2018, Guy Chamberland, chief executive officer (CEO) and chief scientific officer of Tetra
Bio-Pharma Inc. (Tetra) of Montreal, Canada, considered how his company had evolved from a fledgling
start-up to a high-potential venture through the development of therapeutic cannabinoid-derived drug
products. In October 2018, Canada had become the first G7 nation to legalize the recreational use of
marijuana (cannabis),1 which had then stimulated the establishment of a burgeoning cannabinoid-derived
drug industry. Chamberland was determined to make Tetra the “brand of choice” for cannabinoid-derived
pharmaceutical products, but he wondered what the next steps should be. How could the firm overcome the
prevailing controversy and any lingering social stigma associated with medicinal applications of marijuana?
How could brand awareness be built in Tetra’s target markets—healthcare providers and pharmaceutical
distributors—and how could that heightened awareness be leveraged to drive sales and stimulate investor
interest? Chamberland realized that he was facing a set of marketing problems centred on brand-building.

Chamberland and his management team knew that their portfolio of cannabinoid-derived pharmaceutical
products could help treat patients suffering from a variety of medical conditions, including chemotherapy-
induced symptoms (e.g., nausea, vomiting), chronic pain, ocular inflammation, anxiety, AIDS symptoms,
and many other ailments. The company’s products were also free of the harmful or unpleasant side-effects
that arose with many traditional pharmacological therapies, and they were developed through rigorous
scientific research. Chamberland realized that a critical aspect of his branding efforts would be how to
communicate to healthcare providers the advantages of future products in advance of their launches. This
added to the time pressure as the firm’s first drug PPP001 was expected to receive approval from Health
Canada by late 2019, with approvals in other countries to follow shortly after. Tetra needed to expedite a
plan for brand-building before the approval of PPP001, and time was quickly running out.

MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION IN CANADA: THE INCEPTION OF KEY MARKETS

The legal implications of pharmaceutical marijuana evolved alongside the legalization of recreational
marijuana. In Canada, recreational cannabis was legalized by federal law on October 17, 2018.2 Ultimately,
the country’s regulatory liberalization of medical applications of cannabis created the impetus for broad
legalization for recreational use. Canada then became the only G7 nation to legalize recreational use of
marijuana. The laws governing its use were complex and existed at both the federal and provincial levels.

For the exclusive use of X. Wu, 2021.

This document is authorized for use only by Xiaomiao Wu in Spring 2021 Marketing Management taught by Matt Fisher, San Francisco State University from Jan 2021 to Jul 2021.

mailto:publishcases@ivey.ca

www.iveycases.com

mailto:cases@ivey.ca

Page 2 9B20A003

The federal government was responsible for regulating the production of cannabis and its use for medical
purposes, and the provinces were primarily responsible for regulating recreational use.3 Associated
regulatory concerns included details on where cannabis could be consumed, what the required age for
purchasers would be, who could produce it, and how it could be distributed and sold.

Canada’s federally-controlled marijuana regulatory framework had undergone significant changes over the
past few decades with much debate and controversy along the way. Some political leaders had begun
pushing for legalization of recreational cannabis use as far back as the 1970s, when the Netherlands
decriminalized marijuana. By 2000, California had legalized medical cannabis, while in Canada the courts
ruled that citizens had a constitutional right to use cannabis for medical therapeutic purposes.4 The ruling,
supported by mounting medical and scientific evidence, laid the groundwork for Canada’s federal Access
to Cannabis for Medical Purposes Regulations (ACMPR). The legislation was enacted in 2016, and
established the legal framework for medical applications.5 By early 2018, cannabis was still a federally-
regulated drug in Canada under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA), which included a
penalty of up to five years in prison for illegal possession.6 Finally, on October 17, 2018, the ACMPR
regulations were replaced by the Cannabis Act, which also legalized recreational cannabis.7 By comparison,
in the United States, only nine states had legalized recreational marijuana and 21 permitted its use solely
for medical purposes.8

As Canada pursued marijuana legalization, several markets began to emerge. On the demand side, there were
two principal markets—one oriented to medical applications and the other to recreational use—and both markets
represented substantial business opportunities. However, on the supply side, a third business opportunity (with
associated unique regulatory requirements) was the pharmaceutical cannabis market. Therefore, the marijuana
industry consisted of three unique, identifiable markets: recreational, medical, and pharmaceutical.

Canadian producers of marijuana were required to be licensed by Health Canada. The process was long and
arduous and often took several years to achieve. A prospective licensed producer (LP) had to submit its
business plan, acquire security clearances, and provide detailed information related to inventory and
production practices. A sales licence required site inspections by Health Canada, which took additional
time.9 Importantly, efforts by any business or person to advertise marijuana to the general public were
heavily restricted, which presented difficulties in marketing and brand-building.10

Consumers who required cannabis for medical purposes were required to obtain a medical certificate from
a physician to substantiate that cannabis was an appropriate treatment for the patient’s medical condition.
The certificate allowed patients to access cannabis in one of three ways: 1) use the document to register
with an LP to purchase quality-controlled dried marijuana or cannabis oil; 2) employ it to register with
Health Canada to grow their own medical cannabis; or 3) use it to designate another person to produce
medical cannabis for them. Individual possession of medical cannabis had to be approved by the patient’s
physician and was limited to either a 30-day supply or 150 grams, or the equivalent amount in another form
such as oil.11

For firms, like Tetra, that sought to sell cannabis as an approved drug in Canada, a Drug Identification Number
(DIN) was required by law. A DIN was an eight-digit number that identified product characteristics, including
the manufacturer, the product name, the active ingredients and their strengths, and how the drug was to be
administered.12 The acquisition of a DIN was a major milestone in the drug product development process and it
generally meant that the drug was ready for public consumption. The process involved three phases of Health
Canada-approved clinical trials. When all clinical trials were completed and final approval of the drug was
attained from Health Canada, the firm could then apply for a DIN. If successful, the firm would be permitted to
market and sell its drug.13 Once a DIN was issued in Canada, the associated research could be used for
subsequent drug applications in other countries, expediting the international approval processes.

For the exclusive use of X. Wu, 2021.
This document is authorized for use only by Xiaomiao Wu in Spring 2021 Marketing Management taught by Matt Fisher, San Francisco State University from Jan 2021 to Jul 2021.

Page 3 9B20A003

Attaining Health Canada approval of a drug meant that it was approved only for certain conditions, based
on focused clinical trials. As a result, a pharmaceutical cannabis firm could promote its drug only for the
specific therapeutic application for which the drug had been developed and tested.14 For instance, clinical
trials for Tetra’s PPP001 were focused on the treatment of cancer pain; therefore, promoting the drug for
any other medical condition would necessitate further clinical studies, and another regulatory approval.

INDUSTRY OVERVIEW

The three major markets of the Canadian cannabis industry—recreational, medical, and pharmaceutical—
were each distinctly different. The recreational market included consumers of varying experience levels
with the drug, who used cannabis for personal enjoyment or pleasure. The medical market included patients
who had registered with Health Canada to use cannabis to treat a condition that had been diagnosed by a
physician. With over 100 LPs of recreational and medical cannabis in Canada, the two markets were
becoming increasingly saturated.15 The pharmaceutical cannabis market, however, was supplied by only a
few firms that were focused on developing sanctioned cannabinoid-derived drug products for hospitals and
pharmacies, for treating specific conditions.

Although firms in both the pharmaceutical and medical markets aimed to serve patients who suffered with
medical conditions, there were three major distinctions between them. First, pharmaceutical cannabis
products required extensive, time-consuming research and development (R&D) using scientifically-
rigorous, multi-year studies that resulted in Health Canada drug approval. Essentially, cannabis-derived
drugs required the same rigorous testing and government approval processes as other pharmacological
drugs. Firms that produced medical marijuana products, however, were not required to meet the same
rigorous standards. Due to a lack of available supporting scientific research, healthcare providers exercised
caution in formally recommending or prescribing medical cannabis, due to a lack of available supporting
scientific research.16

Tetra’s management sought to position the firm’s products and brand within the pharmaceutical market.
Tetra actively pursued clinical trials in order to contribute to the emerging research literature on
pharmaceutical marijuana. In so doing, executives believed that they could build trust and loyalty among
healthcare providers. Tetra’s management team and employees commonly used the phrase, “The doctors
want data; let them have data; we’ll give them plenty of data.” Similarly, insurance companies were
concerned about the lack of clinical evidence surrounding medical marijuana. From a patient perspective,
the cost of cannabis-derived drugs was disconcerting, and therefore health insurance companies that offered
drug cost coverage programs were important to them.17

The second major distinction between pharmaceutical and medical cannabis was cost reimbursement
through public and private insurance plans. One insurance company announced that it would be adding a
medical marijuana option to some of its group benefit plans, but reimbursement would be limited to a small
number of medical conditions. Other insurers did not believe that there was enough substantive evidence
on cannabis pharmaceutical drugs to warrant reimbursement. Typically, coverage was limited to $500 per
year for medical marijuana and was administered as part of coverage for alternative therapies, such as
chiropractic. In contrast, formal pharmaceutical drugs qualified for insurance coverage under public and
private drug plans. Patients who used pharmaceutical cannabis drugs could potentially receive as much as
$500 per month, which would be unavailable if they used medical cannabis. Pharmaceutical status was
critical for low-income patients suffering from illnesses that could be treated with cannabis. These concerns
directly affected Tetra’s marketing communication efforts.

Page 4 9B20A003

From a marketing perspective, Tetra’s management believed that the credibility and trust garnered by
satisfying the rigorous Health Canada pharmaceutical drug-approval processes would likely lead physicians
to prescribe their drugs instead of products offered by competitors (other LPs) in the medical marijuana
market. As a result, management felt that the acquisition of DINs for the products in the firm’s development
pipeline would yield a substantial competitive advantage over other LPs, and they knew that insurance
companies were more likely to cover the approved drugs.

The third major distinction was diversification into global markets. In expanding outside of Canada,
medical cannabis producers needed to navigate the perpetually-changing, unique, and diverse cannabis laws
that existed in every nation targeted for expansion. However, acquiring drug approval in Canada would
dramatically facilitate drug approvals in other global regions, such as the United States and Europe. To
allow a tight focus on its core competencies in cannabis drug R&D and in navigating the domestic and
international regulatory requirements for drug approval, Tetra’s management solicited drug distributors
with strong marketing capabilities and wide pharmaceutical distribution channels to get its drug products
into pharmacies. Management believed that its approach would enhance international expansion, especially
in the United States, where broad federal legalization was not expected in the near future.

At the same time, “big pharma” firms with access to substantial capital, distribution networks, and potential
advantages of economies in R&D had also begun to enter the global pharmaceutical cannabis market. For
example, Tilray, an LP from western Canada, partnered with Sandoz Canada, a subsidiary of Novartis (the
fourth-largest pharmaceutical firm in the world), to develop future cannabinoid-derived products in non-
smokeable forms.18 CannTrust, another Canadian LP, was linked with the large Canadian pharmaceutical firm
Apotex for the future development of a cannabinoid-derived pill.19 However, despite entrance of large
pharmaceutical firms, the medical conditions they sought to address were not clearly defined and, consequently,
their drug products would not likely reach markets until several years after Tetra’s PPP001 launch.

No substantial competitors existed for Tetra at the product-specific level of competition (i.e., the brand
level) but other similar pharmaceutical companies were engaged in related product development. The world
leader in the pharmaceutical cannabis market was the U.K.-based firm, GW Pharmaceuticals (GW), which
had developed cannabinoid-derived oral sprays for the treatment of multiple sclerosis symptoms. GW’s
first product was initially approved in Canada in 2005 and by 2018 had been approved in 30 countries,
including 21 European nations.20 GW did not market its product directly to consumers but marketed
primarily through other pharmaceutical firms such as Bayer, the multinational life sciences company.21

Additionally, InMed Pharmaceuticals (InMed), a Canadian firm, was preparing to launch clinical trials for
a cannabinoid-derived product that would help in treating certain skin conditions and eye disorders.22

InMed, however, was years behind Tetra, as PPP001 was already nearing the end of clinical trials.
Furthermore, even though new entrants were appearing, each cannabinoid-derived pharmaceutical
company to date had trialed its products for different medical conditions.

TETRA BIO-PHARMA: INCEPTION AND EVOLUTION

Over the course of its short life, Tetra experienced a tumultuous evolution characterized by numerous
mergers, partnerships, and subsidiaries. Tetra was established in 2014 to produce medical marijuana under
the name GrowPros Cannabis Ventures (GrowPros), following the merger of two smaller companies (see
Exhibit 1). After the merger, management strategically re-oriented the firm with a view to becoming a
cannabinoid-derived drug developer. Additionally, GrowPros provided consulting services to other LPs. In
2016, GrowPros announced the creation of a subsidiary, Phyto Pain Pharma (PPP), which focused on the
development of pharmaceuticals for the treatment of cancer pain and other terminal medical conditions.

Page 5 9B20A003

Chamberland became PPP’s chief scientific officer, bringing with him over 20 years’ experience with
clinical trials, drug development, and pharmaceutical regulatory involvement. Later, a firm that specialized
in natural health products and cosmetics was acquired as a subsidiary and named Agro-Tek. Through this
acquisition, GrowPros could develop cannabis-related natural health products for retail that could be sold
without a DIN.

GrowPros Cannabis Ventures changed its name to Tetra Bio-Pharma in 2016, in a move to enhance its
image in the pharmaceutical products market. Immediately thereafter, the firm began phase-one clinical
trials of its first product, PPP001, the world’s first smokeable dried cannabis drug product with guaranteed,
consistent patient dosages. Developed for terminal cancer patients, PPP001 had the potential to be highly
effective in pain relief and offered the added benefit that it was smokeable, a key attribute because many of
these patients were not able to ingest other comparable therapeutic pain treatments. Throughout 2017, Tetra
established several national and international partnerships with other pharmaceutical firms, distributors,
universities, and device manufacturers in order to advance global commercialization of PPP001 and other
products in its pipeline. Management deemed the partnerships necessary for advancing R&D for future
products (see Exhibit 2). Essentially, management decided to outsource operational aspects of its R&D,
including clinical trials.

In mid-2017, Tetra made a similar strategic decision to move away from the production of cannabis and
divested its GrowPros subsidiary in order to concentrate solely on pharmaceutical cannabis products and
capitalize on the growing demand from healthcare providers for an “evidence-based” approach to medical
cannabis and for more scientific data on patient safety. Chamberland believed that with this repositioning,
Tetra’s credibility could be enhanced and the company could be perceived as the premier pharmaceutical
cannabis brand and thus secure the physicians’ trust.

Several key R&D achievements occurred in 2017. Phase one of the PPP001 clinical trial was completed,
which brought the firm one step closer to achieving Health Canada drug approval. Importantly,
management realized that acceptance would open the market for the drug’s prescription to cancer patients
who could obtain insurance coverage and reimbursement. A related product, Tetra’s RxPrinceps, had begun
selling through the website of Aphria, one of Tetra’s partners and a major licensed producer of recreational
and medical cannabis. Throughout the year, Tetra had also announced the addition of four more products
to its pipeline for which it would seek additional Health Canada approvals (see Exhibit 3).

Tetra’s management aggressively sought the financial capital that was critical for completing the clinical
trials and enhancing its distribution networks. By 2018, Tetra had successfully acquired funding for
additional clinical trials, including the final trial phase for PPP001. A major investment banking firm,
Echelon Wealth Partners, raised $11.5 million, and $4.3 million was subsequently accumulated in a private
placement. Tetra’s financial situation was solid—the firm had raised over $15 million and had over $9
million in cash at the end of May 2018 (see Exhibit 4).

Despite R&D advancements, Chamberland remained concerned that Tetra was perceived by many potential
investors as just another marijuana production company. He realized that further work was needed—
particularly in brand building—if financial inflows were to continue. Current and potential stakeholders
needed to realize that Tetra was a company dedicated to bringing government-approved pharmaceutical
products to market and did not produce recreational and medical cannabis. Chamberland believed that
changing the perception of Tetra was essential to the firm’s brand-building efforts, and he thought this
approach should form the basis for the firm’s marketing communications efforts.

Page 6 9B20A003

TETRA’S STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATION

Chamberland, and Tetra’s management team generally, had limited experience in the marijuana industry.
Prior to his appointment as CEO, Chamberland was primarily responsible for the design, execution, and
management of all clinical trials for Tetra’s growing product pipeline. In his current role, Chamberland
oversaw management of all aspects of the firm including marketing and business development, which were
not his areas of expertise, and the Tetra management team filled the required business functions. The
managers’ areas of expertise included capital markets, new ventures, consumer product marketing, mergers,
health and food products, and pharmaceuticals (see Exhibit 5). The composition of the team was intentional,
as Tetra aimed to position itself as a pharmaceutical firm, not as a licensed marijuana producer.

Tetra had evolved into an organization comprised of three divisions, each defined by the markets it aimed
to serve: 1) Tetra Natural Health (formerly known as Agro-Tek), which produced cannabinoid-related
products that did not require a DIN; 2) Tetra Veterinary Health, which was intended to develop cannabis-
derived products for the pet product market; and 3) Tetra Bio-Pharma (formerly known as PhytoPain
Pharma (PPP), which was the pharmaceutical division that focused on drug products. The drug products
were named after the PPP division, such as PPP001, although each product would have to be formally
named and branded following final approval by Health Canada. Tetra Natural Health was responsible for
selling RxPrinceps as well as a hemp-derived energy drink and developing topical products for skin care.23

Tetra also became a licensed seller of Munchies-B-Gone chewing gum, which reduced the food cravings
often brought on by cannabis use. Management was also exploring opportunities for cannabinoid-derived
veterinary products, a bold, innovative move, well-suited to Tetra because several members of the
management team had extensive experience in veterinary medicine.

Tetra had developed many strategic partnerships that management believed were integral to the firm’s
business model and which were intended to enhance efficiency and facilitate product development,
production, and distribution. For example, the raw, dried cannabis for PPP001 was produced by Aphria,
and Ford’s Family Pharmacy processed and packaged the product under Tetra’s oversight (see Exhibit 2).

CONSUMER ATTITUDES

Despite legalization, social stigma still surrounded marijuana and its use. Related issues included road
safety regulations and laws that guided workplace testing for marijuana use. Many people believed that
cannabis was a substance that affected productivity, making users less motivated to contribute to society
and to their workplaces.24 The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police expressed concern regarding
impaired driving related to marijuana.25 In the United States, some politicians and government officials still
considered marijuana to be a “gateway” drug associated with subsequent use of harder drugs and
criminality. In speaking about potential marijuana legalization, former US Attorney General Jeff Sessions
captured the sentiment of many when he stated “. . . you’ll see cocaine and heroin increase more than it
would have, I think.”26 Others simply disliked the odour of marijuana smoke.

But even with the uncertainties, many Canadians supported broad recreational legalization. A study
conducted by Dalhousie University, a large Canadian institution, showed that nearly 70 per cent of adult
Canadians polled supported recreational legalization.27 Acceptance rates had shifted dramatically over
several decades. A 1969 Gallup poll reported that only 12 per cent of Americans were in favour of legalizing
marijuana. This figure increased to 53 per cent by 2015, according to a Pew Research Center survey, which
also reported that nearly half (49 per cent) of Americans claimed to have tried marijuana.28 According to a
2017 Gallup poll, 64 per cent of Americans supported marijuana legalization.29 However, consumer data
was still limited in terms of estimating how many people had a desire to use marijuana.

Page 7 9B20A003

Navigating the complex cannabis advertising regulatory environment was proving to be difficult and
expensive. As a result, advertising had a limited ability to combat any negative perceptions of cannabis use.
Canadian cannabis companies could not formally advertise their products, and the regulations that restricted
advertising left profound questions about how consumers and patients could be targeted in Tetra’s
marketing communications.30 By comparison, in Colorado, a state where recreational marijuana was legal
and few advertising restrictions existed, cannabis companies used lifestyle marketing techniques to portray
marijuana usage as an acceptable choice. The ads used imagery of adventurous, creative, or professional
individuals who were participating in everyday activities while simultaneously conveying them as
accepting and supporting cannabis products.31 The campaigns helped to combat the social stigma that
cannabis users were lazy, unmotivated “stoners.” However, in Canada, because of prohibitive and unclear
cannabis advertising laws, such advertising techniques were unavailable to Tetra.

MARKETING EFFORTS

Despite the challenges, Tetra was determined to be perceived as a pharmaceutical firm, different from firms
that operated in the medical and recreational markets. Tetra adopted the motto, “A global leader in
cannabinoid-derived drug development and discovery.” Tetra emphasized the extensive supporting
scientific validation and safety data required for inclusion in the pharmaceutical industry by government
regulators, physicians, and insurance companies. The brand had to be carefully and deliberately
communicated to the medical community, investors, and potential consumers. However, marketing was
allocated a modest budget, despite management’s stated intention to position the firm as a global
pharmaceutical leader. For instance, for the quarter ended February 28, 2018, Tetra had spent $80,246 on
marketing activities—an amount similar to most quarters.

Because cannabis advertising was currently heavily restricted, Tetra attempted to leverage the key
marketing communication mix components that were available—public relations (PR) and publicity. This
approach enabled the firm to engage wide audiences through local, national, or international news networks,
and to reach target audiences through cannabis-focused websites. Wherever possible, Chamberland
participated in radio and online interviews to showcase Tetra as a research-focused pharmaceutical
company and to discuss general topics in the cannabis industry.

Ultimately, with Health Canada’s approval, communicating Tetra’s products and their benefits was enabled.
Unlike cannabis-producing firms in the recreational market, pharmaceutical firms with approved
cannabinoid-derived drugs were permitted to advertise their products with numerous disclaimers and
restrictions.32 Globally, the regulatory body in each respective nation ultimately determined advertising
restrictions. Tetra’s chosen distributor in each market employed its knowledge to work within the regulatory
restrictions and to formulate appropriate messaging. Moreover, until clinical trials were completed and
Tetra was cleared to market and sell its drugs, executives could market the company and build the brand
only by focusing on investor awareness.

Potential financial investors were seen as instrumental in building brand awareness and as essential for
spreading information to many different stakeholders through word-of-mouth. For example, Tetra’s public
news releases appeared on the website of the Toronto Stock Exchange and other stock market-related
websites, but the firm also actively forwarded them through channels that were not focused solely on
investors. Tetra was also beginning to receive coverage from local media, although national and
international coverage was lacking. Steeve Neron and Bob Bechard managed the firm’s social media
platforms, where news releases and other, non-formal announcements were made.

Page 8 9B20A003

Tetra’s management team regularly attended industry conferences, which brought together pharmaceutical
firms from across the globe for potential partnership opportunities. Interest was also generated by clinical
trial research. Bechard made a strong effort to seek out and contact many leads, including possible
distributors and potential product development partners, through cold e-mailing them and setting up
meetings prior to conventions. In some cases, Tetra had 30 or more meetings set up in advance of
conventions. To facilitate these efforts, the firm generated marketing materials to be used when cold e-
mailing potential partners, including summary product sheets that contained details of all drug products in
Tetra’s pipeline. These efforts had already generated positive results—the company had reached an
agreement with Azevedos, a large pharmaceutical firm based in Portugal, for the distribution of PPP001
that began with a cold e-mail by Bechard. But much more work remained: Tetra had reached PPP001
distribution agreements with only two distributors—the one in Portugal and another in Israel—so the
upcoming conferences and conventions would be critical to the success of the company’s first drug product.

Chamberland also attempted to enhance Tetra’s brand aesthetically. A graphic design team was hired to create
a new logo that better captured its mission and vision. The new logo featured the company’s name in green
block text, along with a cross, the universal symbol for healthcare. The new version no longer featured green
leaves, which could easily be associated with marijuana growers (see Exhibit 6). The firm also developed and
shared several high-quality, professional photos and concepts related to their products and packaging on the
company’s website and its highly active social media sites on Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn.

Overall, Chamberland believed that Tetra’s marketing efforts were weak and in need of enhancement. Key
marketing shortcomings included a lack of general responsiveness and the limited dissemination of
marketing communications. Notably, there was a short period of time in early 2018 when phone lines
intended for investor relations had been inadvertently disconnected, causing confusion and concern among
some shareholders. Further, the firm had not done enough to communicate the benefits of PPP001 to the
medical community in advance of Health Canada approval.

MOVING FORWARD: THE DECISIONS

After only two years, Tetra had made good progress. Yet, Chamberland still wondered what the next steps
should be to ensure that PPP001 would be successful after the completion of the clinical trials. The future
growth of the firm depended heavily on the product’s acceptance by the doctors who would be prescribing
the product and on the willingness of distributors to market and sell it. And, despite Tetra’s best attempts
to communicate its value proposition—providing products backed by robust scientific data and insurance
coverage—the firm was still viewed as simply one more seller of a commodity product hoping to capitalize
on a relatively unknown and unpredictable market.

As Chamberland packed up on that November evening, he considered how best to build the Tetra Bio-
Pharma brand. He was struck by the importance and breadth of the decisions to be made. Chamberland
wondered how Tetra should communicate the superior benefits of its products over similar medical
cannabis products that, crucially, were not backed by such rigorous research. How could Tetra position
itself as a global leader in cannabinoid-derived pharmaceutical drug development and discovery, starting
in Canada? Ultimately, Chamberland realized that a focused marketing effort needed to be applied to these
problems, and he wondered if Tetra was on the right track. He knew that success hinged on building the
Tetra brand in addition to carefully managing a multitude of other critical business activities.

Page 9 9B20A003

EXHIBIT 1: TETRA BIO-PHARMA HISTORY TIMELINE

Date Event Description of Event
Dec. 2014 GrowPros Cannabis Ventures is

formed
Mazorro Resources and GrowPros MMP merge.

Jun. 2016 GrowPros creates Phyto Pain
Pharma subsidiary

Chamberland joins the organization with a 20% stake in
Phyto Pain Pharma.

Sep. 2016 GrowPros renamed “Tetra Bio-
Pharma”

Marked the beginning of the company’s pharma-based
approach to cannabis.

Dec. 2016 Aphria invests in Tetra Strategic investment of $1,000,000. Aphria also supplying
cannabis for PPP001 clinical trials.

Feb. 2017 PPP001 phase 1 clinical trials begin Marked the world’s first clinical trials on smokeable cannabis.
Nov. 2017 RxPrinceps sales commence Sales of RxPrinceps cannabis and RxPrinceps inhalation

device begin selling exclusively on Aphria’s website.
Dec. 2017 PPP005 clinical trials launched Cannabis oil clinical trials run in partnership with Santé

Cannabis.
Feb. 2018 PPP001 phase 3 trials begin 946 subjects enrolled in the clinical trials.
Apr. 2018 Chamberland named acting-CEO Replaced Bernard Fortier, who stepped down. Chamberland

also retained his role as CSO.
April/May
2018

Distribution agreements announced Two agreements with pharmaceutical firms for distribution of
PPP001 in Portugal and Israel. Agreement also reached with
Namaste Technologies for distribution of RxPrinceps.

Source: Created by the case authors based on company documents.

EXHIBIT 2: PARTNERSHIPS

Academic Research Partnerships
University of New
Brunswick

Tetra has provided $500,000 in cannabis research funding to UNB.
Tetra will be offered the intellectual property rights to any commercially-viable products.

Dr. Stan Kubow,
McGill University

Through an NSERC Engage Grant, Tetra has funded Dr. Kubow’s research on the plant cannabis
sativa and specific related extraction processes.
Tetra will have the right to develop intellectual property derived as a result of the research.

Product Development Partnerships
Ford’s Family
Pharmacy

Developed the RxPrinceps inhalation device, a titanium pipe to be used with RxPrinceps and
PPP001.
Responsible for manufacturing and packaging of RxPrinceps and PPP001 using Aphria’s dried
cannabis.

AES Analysis
Expertise Solution
Environment Inc.

Partnership to develop and commercialize products to ensure safety of caregivers of patients
utilizing PPP001 or medical cannabis.
Tetra hoped that this product would qualify as a medical device, which could be covered by public
and private insurance plans.

Neptune
Technologies &
Bioresources Inc.

Partnership for commercialization of cannabinoid-based oils for pain and inflammation relief in the
natural health products and veterinary markets.
The firm’s state-of-the-art facilities for extraction of ingredients for oil production could be a valuable
asset for development of cannabis oils.

Clinical Trial Partnerships
Algorithme Pharma Conducted PPP001 phase one clinical trials with PhytoPain Pharma.
IntelGenx Corp. Development partner for PPP002, which aims to treat anorexia and chemotherapy-induced pain.
Sante Cannabis Clinical trial partner for PPP001 phase three trials.

Quebec’s first medical clinic and resource centre specializing in cannabis.
The company planned to enrol 946 patients in PPP001 trials.

Panag Pharma Inc. Partner for PPP003 (ocular pain and inflammation) and PPP004 (nerve pain).
Through this partnership, Tetra would sell ocular and topical products in North America, with right
of first negotiation for outside territories.

Constance
Therapeutics

Partner for development and commercialization of standardized, patent-pending, medical cannabis
extract products as treatments for cancer.
Tetra and Constance focused on products with the potential to treat forms of brain, blood, bone,
and skin cancers.

Page 10 9B20A003

EXHIBIT 2 (CONTINUED)

Supply and Distribution Partnerships
Aphria Inc. Supplied the cannabis needed for phase three clinical trials of PPP001 and for RxPrinceps, which

was sold through Aphria’s website.
Aphria maintains strict standards exceeding those imposed by Health Canada and thus were
Tetra’s preferred supplier option.

Kamada Ltd. Agreement to market and distribute PPP001 in Israel, in exchange for royalty and milestone
payments to Tetra.

Azevedos Industria
Farmaceutica, S.A.

Agreement to market and distribute PPP001 in Portugal, in exchange for royalty and milestone
payments to Tetra.

Source: Created by the case authors based on company documents.

EXHIBIT 3: PRODUCT PIPELINE

Product Discovery Pre-
Clinical

CTA/IND Phase
1

Phase
2

Phase
3

Phase
4

Partner

Advanced
cancer pain PPP001

Chemotherapy-
induced (nausea
& vomiting)

PPP002 – Dronabinol XL

Intel Genx
Corp.

Chronic pain

PPP002 – Dronabinol XL
Intel Genx
Corp.

Treatment for
ocular pain &
inflammation

PPP003
Panag
Pharma Inc.

Cannabinoid-
based pipeline
R&D

SUPPLEMENT PIPELINE

Topical cream
treatment of
neuropathic pain

PPP004
Panag
Pharma Inc.

Oral cannabis of
oil capsules for
treatment of
chronic pain

PPP005 PPP005

Page 11 9B20A003

EXHIBIT 3 (CONTINUED)

Name Form Details
PPP001 Dried

cannabis
to be
smoked

Tetra’s lead pharmaceutical product.
For the treatment of late-stage moderate-to-severe cancer pain; 600,000 patients suffer from
cancer pain in the United States alone, a $5 billion market.
A formulation of three separate strains of cannabis, produced and supplied by Aphria, and
processed and packaged by Ford’s.
Could serve as a replacement for opioids, to which many patients do not respond.
Recommended to be smoked using Tetra’s proprietary RxPrinceps inhalation device.
Currently in phase three clinical trials
Approval in Canada would allow for streamlined approvals in other nations. Two distribution
agreements are already in place with pharmaceutical companies in Israel and Portugal in
anticipation of commercialization.
Would be the first smokeable cannabis product in the world to receive a Drug Identification
Number (DIN).
DIN expected in 2019; sales expected to commence in 2020.
The pre-DIN version, RxPrinceps, is sold online through Aphria.

PPP002 Tablet Uses IntelGenx’s Dronabinol AdVersa tablet, which can be ingested, and allows for a delayed
release of THC.
A similar product, Marinol, is already on the market, but it is synthetic, not natural. The sustained
release associated with PPP002, which uses natural THC, may result in reduced side effects.
Would be used to treat symptoms of anorexia, nausea, and vomiting caused by chemotherapy,
and chronic cancer pain.
Tetra anticipates applying for a DIN as early as Q1 2019.

PPP003 Eye drops For ocular pain and inflammation, including inflammation from medical operations.
Phase one trial planned for Q3 2019, with testing on dogs also anticipated.
$3 billion potential market.

PPP004 Topical
cream

For treatment of nerve pain ($2.9 billion market).
Anticipated start of phase one trial in Q1 2019.

PPP005 Cannabis
oil-derived
capsule

Will use Tetra’s formulation and Aphria’s dried cannabis.
Users of cannabis oil begin to feel the effects in a slightly longer amount of time (0–30 minutes
for smoked cannabis; 30 minutes–2 hours for ingested oil), but the effects last longer (0–1.5
hours for smoked cannabis and over 6 hours for ingested oil).
The first clinical trial using capsule-based cannabis oil in Canada.
Phase two trial conducted in partnership with Sante Cannabis.
Will be used to treat various forms of chronic pain.

Note: R&D = research and development, DIN = drug identification number, THC = Tetrahydrocannabinol.
Source: Created by the case authors based on company documents.

EXHIBIT 4: TETRA BIO-PHARMA FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CA$)

Balance Sheet August 31, 2018 November 30, 2017 November 30, 2016
Assets
Current assets
Cash 9,262,296 2,193,114 1,218,639
Sales tax receivable 573,384 194,157 62,703
Prepaid expenses 324,554 60,957 90,869
Inventory 274,560 44,542 –
Total current assets 10,434,794 2,492,770 1,372,211
Non-current assets
Intangible assets 8,642,290 8,645,890 216,000
Total assets 19,077,084 11,138,660 1,588,211
Liabilities
Current liabilities
Accounts payable 1,219,793 499,053 191,667
Shareholders’ equity
Total equity 17,857,291 10,639,607 1,396,544
Total liabilities and shareholders’ equity 19,077,084 11,138,660 1,588,211

Page 12 9B20A003

EXHIBIT 4 (CONTINUED)

Income Statement Nine Months Ended
August 31, 2018

Year Ended
November 30, 2017

Year Ended
November 30, 2016

Expenses
Research and development 3,522,663 2,060,059 263,544
Stock-based compensation 1,373,834 2,141,172 125,400
General and administrative expense 2,678,595 2,494,108 608,022
Disposal of GrowPros MMP (4,254,452) – –
Net loss 3,320,640 6,695,339 996,966

Source: Created by the authors based on company documents.

EXHIBIT 5: TETRA MANAGEMENT TEAM

Name Title Background
Guy
Chamberland,
MSc, PhD

CEO & Chief
Scientific
Officer

Served as VP of clinical & regulatory affairs at Victhom Laboratory and as VP of
regulatory affairs & clinical development at Angiogene Inc. Also worked for CATO
Research Ltd and MDS Pharma Services specializing in regulatory affairs in areas
of drugs, biologics, medical devices, combination products, and botanicals.

Bob Bechard EVP,
Corporate
Development
& BD

12-year term at RBC as a senior venture capitalist, made numerous investments,
sat on the board of more than 25 life science companies, and was actively involved
in the negotiation of numerous strategic alliances, partnerships, and outright sales
to both pharmaceutical and biotech companies.

Bernard
Lessard, MBA,
CPA, CMA.

CFO Considerable experience as c-suite executive in life sciences sector in start-ups.
Experienced CFO in risk management and governance. Was involved with
numerous financings, venture capital funds, and M&A transactions.
Strong political connections to Quebec government.

Richard
Giguere

CEO, Tetra
Natural
Health

Over 20 years of experience in sales and marketing in the pharmaceutical industry
from coast to coast for various pharmaceutical companies in sectors such as
generics, branded products, and medical devices. Launched several new
products on the Canadian market.

Steeve Neron VP,
Marketing

Over 32 years of experience in sales, brand management, and marketing in the
pharmaceutical industry. Developed and managed multiple marketing and brand
strategies.

Denis
Courchesne

VP, Sales Over 25 years sales and management experience in the retail environment;
significant experience in pharmacy and health food channels where he held
positions as national sales manager.

Note: CEO = chief executive officer, EVP = executive vice president, CFO = chief financial officer, BD = business development,
VP = Vice President.
Source: Created by the case authors based on company documents.

EXHIBIT 6: TETRA BIO-PHARMA LOGOS, AND RXPRINCEPS PACKAGING

Old logo: used until October 2017. New logo: used October 2017
to present.

Rx Princeps dried cannabis
packaging

Source: Company documents.

Page 13 9B20A003

ENDNOTES

1 Selena Ross, “All Eyes on Canada as First G7 Nation Prepares to Make Marijuana Legal,” The Guardian, June 6, 2018,
accessed July 21, 2019, www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/06/all-eyes-on-canada-as-first-g7-nation-prepares-to-make-
marijuana-legal.
2 Sonja Puzic, “Cannabis Report Card: How’s the Legal Pot Regime Working for Canadians?,” CTV News, December 17,
2018, accessed October 20, 2018, www.ctvnews.ca/canada/cannabis-report-card-how-s-the-legal-pot-regime-working-for-
canadians-1.4215526.
3 “Cannabis for Medical Purposes under the Cannabis Act: Information and Improvements,” Government of Canada, October
17, 2018, accessed October 29, 2018, www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-medication/cannabis/medical-use-
cannabis.html; “Cannabis in the Provinces and Territories,” Government of Canada, October 22, 2018, updated June 14,
2019, accessed October 29, 2018, www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-medication/cannabis/laws-
regulations/provinces-territories.html.
4 “Marijuana: Key Dates in the Evolution of Canadian Attitudes, Laws,” CTV News, March 31, 2014, accessed October 10,
2018, www.ctvnews.ca/politics/marijuana-key-dates-in-the-evolution-of-canadian-attitudes-laws-1.1753702.
5 “Understanding the New Access to Cannabis for Medical Purposes Regulations,” Government of Canada, August, 2016, accessed
October 1, 2018, www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/publications/drugs-health-products/understanding-new-access-
to-cannabis-for-medical-purposes-regulations.html.
6 “Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996 c. 19 (archived),” Government of Canada: Justice Laws Website, June 20, 1996,
accessed January 06, 2019 , https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-38.8/20171227/P1TT3xt3.html.
7 Emblem Corp., “Emblem Establishes Temporary ‘Patient Access Investment Fund’ to Partially Cover Medical Cannabis
Excise Tax,” Cision: News, October 16, 2018, accessed October 21, 2018, www.newswire.ca/news-releases/emblem-
establishes-temporary-patient-access-investment-fund-to-partially-cover-medical-cannabis-excise-tax-697662461.html.
8 Ryan Struyk, “Marijuana Legalization by the Numbers,” CNN Politics, March 30, 2018, accessed August 31, 2018,
www.cnn.com/2018/01/04/politics/marijuana-legalization-by-the-numbers/index.html.
9 “Applying for a Licence under the Cannabis Act and Regulations,” Government of Canada, May 25, 2017, updated September
4, 2019, accessed October 12, 2018, www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-medication/cannabis/industry-
licensees-applicants/applying-licence.html.
10 Meredith MacLeod, “Why You Won’t Be Seeing Cannabis Ads Everywhere,” CTV News: Canada, October 17, 2018,
accessed October 20, 2018, www.ctvnews.ca/canada/why-you-won-t-be-seeing-cannabis-ads-everywhere-1.4138061.
11 “Accessing Cannabis for Medical Purposes from a Licensed Producer,” Government of Canada, January 5, 2017, accessed
October 5, 2018, www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/getting-cannabis-from-licensed-producer/accessing-from-
licensed-producer.html.
12 “Drug Identification Number (DIN),” Government of Canada, January 8, 2018, accessed October 5, 2018,
www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/drug-products/fact-sheets/drug-identification-number.html.
13 “Clinical Trials and Drug Safety,” Government of Canada, May 29, 2013, accessed October 5, 2018,
www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/healthy-living/your-health/medical-information/clinical-trials-drug-safety.html.
14 Kim Siddall, “Canada’s Off-Label Drug Problem,” Benefits Canada, February 21, 2014, accessed September 8, 2018,
www.benefitscanada.com/benefits/health-benefits/canada%E2%80%99s-off-label-drug-problem-49786.
15 “Licensed Cultivators, Processors and Sellers of Cannabis under the Cannabis Act,” Government of Canada, February 1,
2019, updated December 20, 2019, accessed February 2, 2019, www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-
medication/cannabis/industry-licensees-applicants/licensed-cultivators-processors-sellers.html.
16 “Doctors’ Group Wants to Scrap Canada’s Medical Cannabis Program,” CBC: Radio, April 30, 2018, accessed September
12, 2018, www.cbc.ca/radio/quirks/scrap-medical-weed-women-in-space-and-more-1.4636793/doctors-group-wants-to-
scrap-canada-s-medical-cannabis-program-1.4636810.
17 Ibid.
18 Mark Rendell, “Big Pharma’s First Foray into Cannabis Arrives with Sandoz-Tilray Deal,” Financial Post, March 19, 2018,
accessed October 4, 2018, https://business.financialpost.com/cannabis/big-pharmas-first-foray-into-cannabis-arrives-with-
sandoz-tilray-deal.
19 Kevin Donovan, “Barry Sherman was Helping to Develop ‘Pot Pill’ for Medical Marijuana Users,” Star, March 25, 2018,
accessed October 4, 2018, www.thestar.com/news/gta/2018/03/25/barry-sherman-was-helping-to-develop-pot-pill-for-
medical-marijuana-users.html.
20 Karry Smith and Jolene Smith, “Cannabinoids for Chronic Pain,” Des Moines University Grand Rounds, September 6, 2018,
accessed September 20, 2018, https://cme.dmu.edu/system/files/DMU%20Grand%20Rounds%2006SEP2018%20FINAL%
20Handouts .; “Learn About Cannabis: Therapeutic Potential,” UCLA Health: Cannabis Research Initiative, accessed
September 6, 2018, www.uclahealth.org/cannabis/therapeutic-potential.; “Marijuana-Derived Drug Approved for Cancer Pain,”
CBC News, August 7, 2007, accessed September 20, 2018, www.cbc.ca/news/technology/marijuana-derived-drug-approved-
for-cancer-pain-1.635324.
21 “Doctors and MS Nurses,” Sativex, March 2018, accessed September 20, 2018, http://sativex.co.uk/; “Information on
Obtaining Sativex,” GW Pharmaceuticals, accessed September 20, 2018, www.gwpharm.com/healthcare-
professionals/sativex/prescribing-information.
22 Eric A. Adams, “A Message to Our Shareholders,” InMed Pharmaceuticals, January 29, 2019, accessed February 1, 2019,
www.inmedpharma.com/letter_to_shareholders/.

www.inmedpharma.com/letter_to_shareholders

www.gwpharm.com/healthcareprofessionals/sativex/prescribing-information

http://sativex.co.uk

www.cbc.ca/news/technology/marijuana-derived-drug-approvedfor-cancer-pain-1.635324

www.uclahealth.org/cannabis/therapeutic-potential

https://cme.dmu.edu/system/files/DMU%20Grand%20Rounds%2006SEP2018%20FINAL

www.thestar.com/news/gta/2018/03/25/barry-sherman-was-helping-to-develop-pot-pill-formedical-marijuana-users.htm

https://business.financialpost.com/cannabis/big-pharmas-first-foray-into-cannabis-arrives-withsandoz-tilray-deal

www.cbc.ca/radio/quirks/scrap-medical-weed-women-in-space-and-more-1.4636793/doctors-group-wants-toscrap-canada-s-medical-cannabis-program-1.4636810

www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugsmedication/cannabis/industry-licensees-applicants/licensed-cultivators-processors-sellers.html.

www.benefitscanada.com/benefits/health-benefits/canada%E2%80%99s-off-label-drug-problem-49786

www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/healthy-living/your-health/medical-information/clinical-trials-drug-safety.html

www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/drug-products/fact-sheets/drug-identification-number.html

www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/getting-cannabis-from-licensed-producer/accessing-fromlicensed-producer.html.

www.ctvnews.ca/canada/why-you-won-t-be-seeing-cannabis-ads-everywhere-1.4138061

www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-medication/cannabis/industrylicensees-applicants/applying-licence.html.

www.cnn.com/2018/01/04/politics/marijuana-legalization-by-the-numbers/index.html

www.newswire.ca/news-releases/emblemestablishes-temporary-patient-access-investment-fund-to-partially-cover-medical-cannabis-excise-tax-697662461.html

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-38.8/20171227/P1TT3xt3.html

www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/publications/drugs-health-products/understanding-new-accessto-cannabis-for-medical-purposes-regulations.html

www.ctvnews.ca/politics/marijuana-key-dates-in-the-evolution-of-canadian-attitudes-laws-1.1753702

www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-medication/cannabis/lawsregulations/provinces-territories.html.

www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-medication/cannabis/medical-use

www.ctvnews.ca/canada/cannabis-report-card-how-s-the-legal-pot-regime-working-forcanadians-1.4215526.

www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/06/all-eyes-on-canada-as-first-g7-nation-prepares-to-makemarijuana-legal

Page 14 9B20A003

23 “Munchies B Gone Gum: Crave Control Gum,” Munchies B Gone, 2018, accessed October 1, 2018,
www.munchiesbgone.com/.
24 Joel Banner Baird, “Marijuana in Vermont: How Long is THC in Your System?,” Burlington Free Press, May 14, 2018, accessed
September 1, 2018, www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/2018/05/14/vermont-marijuana-law-how-long-does-marijuana-thc-
stay-your-system/601727002/; Jane Stevenson, “Legal Weed Won’t Eliminate Pot Stigma: Experts,” Toronto Sun, March 5, 2018,
accessed September 1, 2018, https://torontosun.com/news/national/legal-weed-wont-eliminate-pot-stigma-experts.
25 Alicia Bridges, “’We’re all Very Worried’: Sask. Police Chiefs Wait for Answers about Impaired Driving and Marijuana,” CBC
News: Saskatoon, March 29, 2017, accessed September 1, 2018, www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/saskatchewan-police-
chiefs-marijuana-legalization-reaction-1.4045974.
26 Tana Ganeva, “Jeff Sessions’s Ridiculous Anti-Drug Crusade,” Washington Post, November 21, 2016, accessed September
1, 2018, www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2016/11/21/jeff-sessionss-ridiculous-anti-drug-
crusade/?utm_term=.a28c20a1f095.
27 “Dalhousie Releases Study on Canadian Attitudes towards Cannabis-Infused Food,” Dalhousie University, September 26,
2017, accessed September 1, 2018, www.dal.ca/faculty/management/news-events/ news/ 2017/ 09/26/ dalhousie_releases_
study_ on_ canadians __attitudes_ towards_cannabis_infused_food.html.
28 A.W. Geiger and John Gramlich, “6 Facts about Marijuana,” Pew Research Center: FactTank, June 26, 2019, updated
November 22, 2019, accessed September 10, 2019, www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/26/facts-about-marijuana/.
29 Justin McCarthy, “Record-High Support for Legalizing Marijuana Use in U.S.,” Gallup, October 25, 2017, accessed
September 1, 2018, https://news.gallup.com/poll/221018/record-high-support-legalizing-marijuana.aspx.
30 Armina Ligaya, “Cannabis Marketing Rules Still Hazy Post-Legalization,” Financial Post, November 17, 2018, accessed
November 18, 2018, https://business.financialpost.com/pmn/commodities-business-pmn/agriculture-commodities-business-
pmn/cannabis-marketing-rules-still-hazy-post-legalization.
31 Christine Birkner, “High Times,” Issuu, October 27, 2015: 35–45, accessed January 06, 2019, https://issuu.com/christine-
birkner/docs/marijuana-marketing.
32 “Regulatory Requirements for Advertising,” Government of Canada, May 12, 2015, accessed May 4, 2018,
www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/regulatory-requirements-advertising.html.

www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/regulatory-requirements-advertising.html

https://issuu.com/christinebirkner/docs/marijuana-marketing

https://business.financialpost.com/pmn/commodities-business-pmn/agriculture-commodities-businesspmn/cannabis-marketing-rules-still-hazy-post-legalization

https://news.gallup.com/poll/221018/record-high-support-legalizing-marijuana.aspx

www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/26/facts-about-marijuana

www.dal.ca/faculty/management/news-events

www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2016/11/21/jeff-sessionss-ridiculous-anti-drugcrusade/?utm_term=.a28c20a1f095

www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/saskatchewan-policechiefs-marijuana-legalization-reaction-1.4045974.

https://torontosun.com/news/national/legal-weed-wont-eliminate-pot-stigma-experts

www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/2018/05/14/vermont-marijuana-law-how-long-does-marijuana-thc

www.munchiesbgone.com

TETRA BIO-PHARMA: BRAND BUILDING IN THE CANNABINOID PHARMACEUTICAL MARKET

MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION IN CANADA: THE INCEPTION OF KEY MARKETS
INDUSTRY OVERVIEW
TETRA BIO-PHARMA: INCEPTION AND EVOLUTION
TETRA’S STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATION
CONSUMER ATTITUDES
MARKETING EFFORTS
MOVING FORWARD: THE DECISIONS
EXHIBIT 1: TETRA BIO-PHARMA HISTORY TIMELINE
EXHIBIT 2: PARTNERSHIPS
EXHIBIT 2 (CONTINUED)
EXHIBIT 3: PRODUCT PIPELINE
EXHIBIT 3 (CONTINUED)
EXHIBIT 4: TETRA BIO-PHARMA FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CA$)
EXHIBIT 4 (CONTINUED)
EXHIBIT 5: TETRA MANAGEMENT TEAM
EXHIBIT 6: TETRA BIO-PHARMA LOGOS, AND RXPRINCEPS PACKAGING
ENDNOTES

Turn in your highest-quality paper
Get a qualified writer to help you with

“ case response ”

Get high-quality paper

NEW! AI matching with writer

Hire a Writer

Client Reviews

4.9

Sitejabber

4.6

Trustpilot

4.8

Our Guarantees

100% Confidentiality

Information about customers is confidential and never disclosed to third parties.

Original Writing

We complete all papers from scratch. You can get a plagiarism report.

Timely Delivery

No missed deadlines – 97% of assignments are completed in time.

Money Back

If you're confident that a writer didn't follow your order details, ask for a refund.

New to Your Trusted Assignment Help Service? Sign up & Save

Calculate the price of your order

Type of paper needed:

Pages:

You will get a personal manager and a discount.

Academic level:

We'll send you the first draft for approval by at

Total price:

$0.00

Power up Your Academic Success with the
Team of Professionals. We’ve Got Your Back.

Power up Your Study Success with Experts We’ve Got Your Back.

Order Now Order Now