I’m going to start by saying that this post is going to be incredibly long. Through this post, I am not asking for people to never support this business again, or to never give Cephalofair another chance. What I am doing is acknowledging that there are at least two sides to this very heated debate, and while neither side probably wants to hear it, there are portions of arguments that are coming from both sides that are incorrect, just for completely different reasons. I’ll start by saying that I want to give the benefit of the doubt as to where the people who are actively barraging Cephalofair’s current critics are probably coming from. These are people who believe they are doing so from a good place, and they want to defend a company they think is not deserving of how much ire they are currently getting. However, it also appears that through the name calling, shaming, and bashing that has been taking place, there is a lack of empathy and grace being equally extended to the people who have been brave enough to put themselves out there on the Internet, of all places, and voice their frustrations about this whole situation. There is no doubt, some of the critical opinions being expressed could be written in a far less inflammatory manner or perhaps even better articulated, but this is also what happens sometimes when people are so angry. I am willing to bet, for a lot of the current critics of Cephalofair, the true heart of the issue is stemming from similarities between how this campaign has been going and how that of Frosthaven went down. I think people may be concerned they are starting to see a really bad pattern. As for the current state of politics and the situation with tarrifs, this actually happens to be, at this moment, a rather fortuitously timed and perfect smokescreen for Cephalofair. What I mean is, these issues are something that can be conveniently pointed to as a major, if not primary, source of blame. Cephalofair also has just enough people who are willing to go to great lengths to defend the bad behaviors that have been exhibited between this campaign and Frosthaven’s. In taking time to look into things a bit more deeply, it does appear that such bad behavior from Cephalofair is a more recent trend than some people have allowed themselves to believe. My guess is, people think this has been a far longer pattern than it ultimately has been perhaps because they might be still reeling from the bad experiences that were had during the Frosthaven campaign. Some in that group might even be people who actually had vehemently defended Cephalofair then, but they’re not willing to do so now. Not now that it appears consumers are being burned for a second time. They might be feeling that whole fool me once, shame on you, but fool me twice, shame on me. One of the counterarguments I have seen made repeatedly does not seem to have a firm basis in logic. There’s so many reasons why a backer of this campaign might be upset with feeling as if they’re being nickle-and-dimed, and it has absolutely nothing to do with any kind of political view they might possess or even the issue of tariffs. Not unless it really is that common for a project to ask its backers for additional money beyond the funds that have already been collected for their pledge level, add-ons, or any late pledged items, and I’m just not aware of it. I personally can’t think of a single crowdfunded project I’ve backed in the past that has ever asked me to do this, no matter how delayed the project got or whatever backend snafus the project managers ended up running into. I also can’t think of a time where I have been asked repeatedly for additional money to address issues that arise for a project after the fact. Asks for donations, I’ve definitely seen, but never a mandatory amount imposed like it has been here. For anyone who might be skeptical that Cephalofair has ever previously shown they’d use an issue that was out of their control to mask any deficiencies in the managing of a crowdfunded project, I think now would be a good time to remind ourselves that the last time the reason that was presented for delays and any apparent issues in how that whole campaign went was COVID-19. I’m not arguing there was any way for any business to have had such great foresight that they could have been prepared for such an unprecedented situation. What I am arguing is that, as a business, they were now on notice after that event. Now they’ve become aware unprecedented situations like of that magnitude, could absolutely happen again. I do believe businesses should take responsibility after experiencing something like that to be prepared to be able address a large scale crisis like that again, and do their best to mitigate any impact it might have on operations. Also, unlike the pandemic, there was arguably months of notice here where it was a 50-50 shot as to who was going to be next in political office, and a 50-50 shot as to how bad the tariff situation was actually going to be once it became reality. That time would have been best spent figuring out contingency plans, which doesn’t appear to be what ended up happening here. Even with COVID, there did appear to be businesses who somehow figured out a way to make things work, and people still received those projects in a reasonable timeframe despite the circumstances. How can things like a pandemic, politics, and tariffs act as a perfect smokescreen? Because, in this particular case, it has effectively turned the community in on itself. There’s the distraction. When the focus is on community member tearing down fellow community member, no one is paying attention to the actual overarching issue, which is the lack of accountabilty. Why would they allow something like this to happen again? Because it worked incredibly well for them the last time. Two key things were taken advantage of. First, and this is true for any company, they will always have a diehard loyal fanbase that will excuse every bad business decision they will ever make, even ones that truly harm the consumers they need to be able to keep going. Anyone who doesn’t believe this need look no further than any other business like EA Games, Apple, Amazon, and Starbucks, just to name a few. That said, these are businesses that seem to be able to actively steamroll customers without too much consequence to themselves, and that’s only because of how much cushion they probably have stored to avoid going under when there’s any kind of fallout with the consumer. In truth, there is no way to know whether Cephalofair has this same kind of cushion. To those wanting to know where they currently stand in terms of revenue, I get it, you’re upset, you feel like your goodwill is being burned right through, and that’s exactly why you want to know. Had chaos not come to visit us a second time, you probably wouldn’t even be asking this question. That said, Cephalofair is not a public company. You can’t FOIA the IRS about them. You are never going to get those numbers. That doesn’t necessarily mean your instincts are off, but there’s also literally no way to confirm it unless the company is willing to divulge that information themselves. Given the PR disaster this campaign and the last have been, the reality is they are absolutely not going to do that. Especially if the truth it turns out we actually have been lied to, all this time, thereby making the truth more damning than the lie. The second thing Cephalofair has taken key advantage of is goodwill of the consumer. Again, Cephalofair is not the first, nor will it ever be the last business to ever take advantage of this. To think any business will not try to take advantage of consumer goodwill is completely naive. What has led to things like tipping fatigue and consumer pushback on rising prices? It’s not just inflation. It’s because, during COVID, we saw businesses take advantage of something we’ve never seen before at the scale it was executed pre-pandemic. We had businesses that begged consumers to have a heart and accept rising prices and leave tips for services where there used to be absolutely no expectation to receive a tip for, as a consequence of businesses impacted by the pandemic. I’ve no doubt some of those businesses did in fact need us to keep them from shuttering their doors, but there were also plenty that also probably had enough of a cushion that just didn’t reveal that they had and rode the same wave. Why? Because that increases their profits. That’s just the cold hard reality of business. That said, I think there is merit to people who are becoming worried they are seeing the beginnings of a concerning trend. During the Frosthaven campaign, COVID was used to explain away issues such as poor shipping estimates, delays in production, etc. Ultimately, the message that seemed to be presented was that the overall poor execution of that campaign was a fluke. Trust us, bear with us, and you won’t see this happen ever again. I do think people are more than willing to excuse along with you, as long as these same types of issues are not constantly repeated. From the start of Gloomhaven Grand Festival, there was criticism over what the overall direction of this campaign was. I do think there was at least some basis for this concern. With the first Gloomhaven campaign, it was obvious the goal was Gloomhaven. With the 2nd printing of Gloomhaven, it was clear the goal was that second printing. With Frosthaven, it was clear that the sole purpose was Frosthaven. With Gloomhaven Grand Festival, there has been confusion as to whether the overall goal was to push the 2nd edition of Gloomhaven (not to be confused with the campaign about its second printing), the RPG, the minis, Buttons and Bugs, or other items like the Frosthaven play surface books. If we go by just filtering through the major updates made by the Cephalofair team only on Backerkit, and ignoring all other posts in between (and it’s only through this campaign I’m seeing how confusing Backerkit can make it to distinguish between an update that was made by the actual creator of the project vs. posts made by the consumer, that can also confusingly look like an update), we initially see that this campaign was presented as a push for the second edition of Gloomhaven. A short time later, we see a mention of the upgrade pack, which only came about after some people asked for it because they didn’t want to buy what they viewed was basically the same exact game with not enough major refreshes to justify buying the 2nd edition. This is where I think the critics of the critics started to really fan their flames during this campaign. There were arguments made that a push for an upgrade pack didn’t make practical sense given what was changing and the greater likelihood that the upgrade pack wouldn’t actually be 100% backwards compatible. There were also arguments that consumer feedback shouldn’t be able to sway a company to give in so easily to the demands of what has been viewed as a small pocket of consumers. I do think there is a degree of merit to those arguments, based on the additional information we later received about the level of differences between Gloomhaven v. 1 and Gloomhaven v. 2. With hindsight always being 20/20, and in looking at how this campaign was titled from the start, I also think an argument could reasonably be made, at least at this juncture, that use of the words “Grand Festival” in the campaign’s title was hint from the get go that Cephalofair’s overall vision for this campaign was always to go well beyond just pushing the 2nd edition of Gloomhaven. That said, I do think some of the criticism about this was a result of people not fully understanding what the ultimate product was that Cephalofair was trying to highlight as the core of the campaign, in comparison to their prior campaigns where they were promoting just one specific thing as the centerpiece vs. everything, altogether, all at once. The best way Cephalofair has, that I think current critics are hoping for, is a lot more clarity, a lot earlier in the process the next campaign. Cephalofair could also probably stand to benefit from an actually trained public relations team that is seasoned with knowing how to address both delivery of clear communication to consumers and the handling of crisis communication. It also would probably benefit Cephalofair greatly to hire someone who has actual experience in managing logistics for a large-scale project like this one. At a minimum, effective managing of logistics means someone should be able to look at where Cephalofair has failed, both during this campaign and Frosthaven. They have to be able to understand the full and complete scope of any new project, and this goes beyond simply being able to figure out what the projected timeline is going to be at the end of the day. Before a timeline can be given, that logistician needs to be able to figure out, realistically, how much each moving cog in the machine needs. How much does creative need? How long do editors need? How long is playtesting? How much time will production need? How much time is needed for shipping? How much funding is really actually needed as the bare minimum funding goal for the project, which should have enough wiggle room to account for any serious disasters like the pandemic or tariffs. After determining an ideal timeline, now that logistician should look back at the data of prior projects and consider the actual timeline that ended up happening for those projects, and how much average time each hiccup added to the initially promised timeline. From there, buffer time should be added to each stage of the process for the timeline of the new project before it launches. The person Cephalofair hires for logistics also needs to be someone its leaders will actually respect and listen to. This is critical, because if the logistician tells them “no,” or tells them news they really don’t want to hear, they have to be ready to respect that assessment, and act accordingly. Cephalofair also could really benefit from a strong public relations team or expert that they trust, for the same reasons as stated for the logistician. At a minimum, the PR department needs to have a strong line of communication with both Cephalofair’s leaders and their logistics arm. An effectively utilized PR representative should be able to provide updates on the project’s scope, direction, timeline, and any delays, especially as a business grows and the recognized head of the business has to dedicate their time more on the business side of operations as opposed to the public facing side. Sometimes, the PR representative may advise a business that an apology or a certain level of compensation to their customer base may be appropriate. If the business has hired someone whose advice they can respect, there’s the possibility they can actually avoid a great deal of the ire Cephalofair has been facing this campaign and the last. The business also needs to understand that it’s not always about defending one’s pride or honor, especially in cases where it can affect their longterm bottom line. Someone who is actually good at their job in public relations should be adequately trained in what’s called crisis communication. This is where the PR team should be able to advise the company when it’s appropriate to acknowledge fault, what faults are important to their consumers to acknowledge, when to make and how to write a public apology (in instances where such might be warranted), timing of that apology (for example, it is better for a business to get ahead of bad press by addressing an issue well enough in advance, as that resonates better than defensiveness or apologizing only after an apology has been demanded, as a late one can seem disingenuous or ring hollow), and give advice as to how a company can repair or recover an image that may have become damaged. Cephalofair is not the only business or entity that has struggled in either of these areas, logistics or PR. If you’re skeptical, look no further than what happened to dumpster fires such as Fyre Festival or Woodstock ‘99. Large, familiar businesses are not immune either. Look at the rise and downfall of Abercrombie & Fitch. Look at American Apparel. If people take time to look at what happened in those situations, I guarantee people will see a lot of striking similarities in the formula, not just in the trajectory those situations went, but also in the response that was given when there was public outcry. And then we get to the comments showdown issue. Cephalofair’s critics vs. the critics of the critics of Cephalofair. Let’s start with Cephalofair’s critics. One of the most commonly used arguments by this camp is that Cephalofair consistently fails to deliver their projects timely, and that they have a longstanding history of not fulfilling their projects for 5 years or more. This argument does, in fact, require fine-tuning in order for the message to be accurate or effective. There is a reason why there is some merit to the counterpoints that have been made to this argument, and that has to be acknowledged, in order for discussion on this to actually be productive, for all parties involved. I’ll revisit this in several more paragraphs. The remainder of the complaints can be summed up to fall into the buckets I’ve already described at length above (e.g. poor business decisions, weaknesses with logistics planning and PR). As a result, I’m not returning to these topics at length below because it’s already been thoroughly discussed. Now let’s go to those who are criticizing the critics of Cephalofair. In reviewing many of the comments made by this group, it appears, at least on the face of counterarguments being made, that there’s still just enough people willing to excuse Cephalofair’s bad behavior as a business. What I think this group might not yet be seeing is, by continuing to excuse that bad behavior, that business has absolutely zero incentive to change its practices. It also appears that Cephalofair’s greatest defenders are also not considering how they might be making things worse for the business, longterm, and it also appears Cephalofair might not entirely be realizing this either. Or maybe Cephalofair does, given what I’ve recently noticed about the numbers. Thankfully, because this is the Internet, that means we have some receipts. Some data was a bit tougher for me to find than others, given the fact that not everything is publicly available, but that’s neither here nor there at this point. Let’s return to the argument that is, essentially, about Cephalofair failing in its ability to maintain consumer trust and delivering on its promises. I think it is important to hear out the argument that crowdfunding projects are a risk, and that specifically, those who would fall into the category of veteran crowdfunders should not be surprised when things like delays happen. I think it’s also important to acknowledge that most people who consider themselves veteran crowdfunders generally do realize to expect at least some kind of delay. I think the true issue on the subject of delays, with Cephalofair in particular, is how exactly those delays are ultimately handled. Now let’s look at some numbers. Back when the first Gloomhaven campaign happened, that campaign’s funding period concluded sometime around September 2015. In skimming through the updates of that project, shipment of all backed copies of that project appear to have finished up somewhere around March of 2017. For a crowdfunded effort, that’s actually not too bad, if you’re looking at crowdfunded projects as a whole. Sure, an argument can be made that that’s not fantastic, but I also think you couldn’t have said that we’d traversed into the land of entirely outrageous and unreasonable either for that campaign, not in the world of crowdfunding, anyway. It’s additionally worth noting that the project had an original funding goal of $70,000, and actually achieved raising $386,104, and this was done through the help of 4,904 backers. During that first Gloomhaven campaign, I would argue Cephalofair had done a lot of things right at the time, and especially in comparison to how things are now with them today. During that first Gloomhaven campaign, there appeared to be consistent communication, delivery of a product many people came to really enjoy, and the start of establishing trust with an up and coming business. These benefits are clearly reflected in the success of their campaign of their second print of Gloomhaven (not to be confused with the 2nd edition that was marketed for this campaign). In the Gloomhaven 2nd print campaign, that funding period ended around May 2017, and they had an original funding goal of $100,000. They surpassed that, significantly, and raised $3,999,795 through 40,642 backers. Skimming through those updates, shipping out of all backer product appears to have concluded sometime around February 2018. That’s actually better than the first Gloomhaven campaign, although this could also have been attributed to the fact that the changes were minor in comparison to the 2nd edition they’ve sold to us through this Grand Festival campaign. Regardless, it’s important to note that they delivered within a reasonable timeline for a crowdfunded project. Then the next major project Cephalofair has is Frosthaven. Based on the numbers from this campaign, it is clear that public trust had been built and then relied upon. The funding period for Frosthaven ended sometime in May 2020. Out of a goal amount of $500,000, they raised a whopping $12,969,608 with the help of 83,193 backers. The Frosthaven campaign is also where we start seeing some cracks in their business model, and the start of a huge chasm growing within the consumer base. Through this campaign and Frosthaven’s, it appears Cephalofair has become a victim of its own success, and is still struggling to handle its drastic growth. In looking at the updates for Frosthaven’s campaign, backer copies should have all shipped out sometime around July 2024. This is, in fact, the first time we see an actual longer stretch in a delay in delivery of a product from Cephalofair, if we compare it to the prior two major projects they crowdfunded. We jump from 1-2 years to about 3-4 years. We see the beginnings of a business that does not appear to be adequately equipped to keep up with responding to a much higher volume of customer inquiries made through their official channels than was probably experienced previously. We also see the beginnings of consequences in Cephalofair’s choice in allowing diehard fans of their business within their consumer base to freely disparage those expressing any level of discontentment, as well as the consequences of rewarding only those who are willing to defend them to the bitter end instead of being willing to openly take responsibility for certain poor business decisions and showing understanding rather than contempt for those who have been brave enough to voice their unpopular opinions. The question then becomes, what are the consequences? In this campaign, there is now a rage at certain issues that are far more amplified than they were when similar issues arose during the Frosthaven campaign. Then, like now, we have consumers who are making clear to Cephalofair that they will not be inclined to invest again unless there is an actual show of improvement from Cephalofair to never again repeat past mistakes that have already, now twice over, have been made. It is not unreasonable, generally, for a consumer to expect better projection of timelines, an improved logistical process, or improved timeliness to customer service inquiries, to name a few, from any business. Not just Cephalofair. Critics of Cephalofair’s critics may take it as a win when people do, in fact, stay true to their word and take their money elsewhere. I would argue that such a victory is actually small and hollow when looking at the numbers and thinking about things longterm. Before comparing the numbers between the Frosthaven campaign and this one, I think it’s also worth noting that Cephalofair is also not factoring in the harsh reality that other businesses, especially the bigger ones, are equally guilty of not acknowledging. The reality right now is, inflation is pretty bad for everyone. So bad, that it makes people notice things they might not have necessarily notice pre-economic crisis, or that they otherwise would have been more than happy to turn a blind eye to in a more reasonable economy. Board gaming has also, over time, shifted from being a generally affordable family pastime to a more dedicated, expensive hobby. But at the end of the day, it is a hobby. This hobby is competing against a greater priority when it comes to the consumer wallet, and that’s when funding a hobby gets weighed against what people actually need as necessities. No matter how much people enjoy this hobby, it’s an expense that is going to be higher on the list of being more likely to get cut out when it becomes no longer feasible to fund it in addition to rising prices of essentials, such as food and gasoline. It’s going to remain that way if and until something shifts in the economy’s current volatile trajectory. Now back to the numbers. Out of an asking goal of $2,000,000, this Grand Festival campaign generated $5,053,000. That sounds impressive, until you recall that Frosthaven generated $12,969,608. Also in this Grand Festival campaign, that $5 millionish amount was generated through the help of 34,691 backers. That also may sound impressive until you recall that Frosthaven had the help of 83,193 backers. This means that between Frosthaven and this campaign, you had roughly 48,502 backers who decided to stick to their guns when they expressed last campaign that they would not be taken advantage of and make the same mistake twice, and no doubt a great deal who were probably turned away ultimately by fellow consumers who had turned on the same group of people they were all collectively a part of. They were also probably turned off by Cephalofair doing nothing to stop these people from attacking their fellow man. There’s no doubt there are times people say they will quit something, and then never actually follow through on it. For every person that complains about Nintendo’s price gouging and quits supporting the brand, it does also happen that people will complain, but buy the product anyway, whatever the underlying reason for that may be. So sometimes, it doesn’t matter what the critics say, because people won’t actually walk away from that business at the end of the day. That’s not what appears has happened with Cephalofair though. Based on the numbers, the belief that the deeply upset consumers in Cephalofair’s fanbase who are getting shamed or silenced is going to be beneficial for Cephalof air’s bottom line longterm, I think there is enough support from the numbers where someone could comfortably agree to disagree with that position. It is worth considering that while this Grand Festival campaign has had 34,691 backers, that’s also 5,951 less backers than the number who backed the 2nd printing of the original Gloomhaven. I have also seen counterpoints saying other board game companies are able to avoid the same issues Cephalofair has faced with this campaign and Frosthaven because they have some kind of contingency plan in place to be able to do so, such as an alternate means of revenue. Notwithstanding the fact that this then actually supports the argument that this means businesses can be more than capable to figure out how to avoid repeating past mistakes, it also supports the argument that to have that expectation from a business, as a consumer, is not so far deep in the realm of fantasy. I have used these companies I am about to name as examples before, not because I wish to drag them into a fight they’re not actually a part of, but because I think it helps to compare with something tangible. I am also a consumer of their products, and I have have experienced firsthand how their campaigns go as a backer. I have looked into estimated revenue data I could find publicly available on the two companies I am about to name, in comparison to Cephalofair. I found this data through a site called Tabletop Analytics. Based on the publicly available information on the lifetime revenue differences between the three companies, I found the following pretty interesting. According to Tabletop Analytics, between the years of 2013 to 2025, Fowers Games has generated an approximate total lifetime revenue of $2,402,399. Between the years of 2019 to 2025, IV studios has generated an approximate total lifetime revenue of $9,844,142. Between the years of 2014 to 2020, Cephalofair’s approximate total lifetime revenue up until that point is estimated to be around $17,971,003. For whatever reason, no data appears to be available post-2020, at least none that I could find. Regardless, that’s $5,724,462 more than both those other two companies I just mentioned combined. What this means is, Cephalofair can either hide, or encourage people to hide as many posts on this campaign’s community discussion page as much as they want. It still doesn’t change reality. People often do remember how they are made to feel, and that can sometimes reflect on a company’s bottom line. A business struggling to respond to a high volume of customer inquiries that are submitted through official channels is an issue of staffing. A lack of regular schedule for updates is can be an issue of staffing and poor planning or structure. Directing people back to utilize those official channels when they come to a comments section looking for answers when those official channels provide no answer or response, is not helpful. It’s not great when customers are able to answer customer questions in a more effective and timely manner before hearing any response from the business itself. Cephalofair is asking for people to pay additional money for tariffs that other companies have somehow managed to figure out how to absorb. While there is no obligation for Cephalofair to be so painfully transparent about why they can’t do the same, that lack of transparency is what leads to the questions. This is a campaign that started pre-tariffs issue. This is not a campaign that began after tariffs became a reality, where now consumers know before backing they have to decide whether they might be ready to absorb such a potential cost. This pre- vs. post- issue is where at least some of the voiced frustrations are likely coming from. I don’t necessarily think the people who are complaining about tariffs this campaign are also then going to continue to campaign on campaigns that get launched now, post-tariffs situation, that they have to pay them. They either will be able to accept reality and be ready to pay it, or they just simply won’t back the effort. People just don’t like when they feel they’ve been ambushed or something is being unreasonably held hostage. There is also the issue of the 10% restocking fee. This issue, and the tariffs issue, of course the argument is going to be made that the amount being asked for by them isn’t great. For some, the issue really does come down to the amount being asked. For others, the issue is actually something else. It’s principle. The 10% restocking fee being asked for is not being done in a situation where someone has bought the product, received it, had the potential to ruin the product seals or damage the outer packaging, and then returned it at a lesser appraisable value to the retailer for resale. A restocking fee in that circumstance, makes complete sense. A restocking fee on a product that has not even shipped that is a crowdfunded is somewhat nonsensical. If the argument is being made that a crowdfunder assumes the risk of any additional costs that result from a project on the basis that it is a crowdfunded project and not an item that was made without such lay investors, then the same should be true that a business absorbs the cost on any losses they incur when they cannot adequately deliver on their promises when a refund is demanded on the same basis. There is no rule that I’m aware of where crowdfunding means the business is entirely excused from any and all liability, with all that liability to be pushed onto the consumer. What happens in a real world investing situation? The investor is the one that takes all their money and runs when a company can’t deliver, and the company now has to figure out how to avoid the consequences of the fallout of that relationship, such as potentially filing for bankruptcy. Why it’s considered normal for it to be backwards with crowdfunding doesn’t seem to make sense. The 10% restocking fee in this situation only seems to make sense when you look at the numbers between Frosthaven and the Grand Festival campaigns. Cephalofair has now seen it actually can looks a considerable chunk of its business, and that a good number of people will, truly, take their business elsewhere. Yes, a restocking fee can be used to recoup losses on shipping costs and any potential damages that may lessen the value of a returned item. However, here, I think it is also potentially indicative of something else. Like if, say, a business is not confident that they may have a consumer who is willing to buy from their inventory beyond the exact number of people who originally crowdfunded these items, then they need a way to recoup at least a fraction of that loss. Reputations and trust can be built over time, but for whatever reason they can be annihilated in a fraction of that time. On the one hand, I do think that concept can be ridiculous, but on the other hand, it’s also unfortunately reality. Maybe next time, the blame may fall on a recession, if one ever comes. Or on consumers who refused to risk potentially being burned a third time. Or on whatever happens to be next in line of upcoming socioeconomic travesties. Or maybe, Cephalofair will finally realize what people are actually saying, take accountability, and truly work hard to never again repeat the mistakes we’ve seen this campaign and with Frosthaven. I don’t think it’s completely out of the realm of possibility that a business can recover from a bad situation and come back better and stronger, and have renewed support from people who had previously walked away from them. I think at the end of the day though, Cephalofair has to decide which path they’d like to pursue.