The difference between a kickstarter where the money ultimately wasnt enough, product wasnt made, employees werent paid anymore, and company folded. And a company that put a project, ultimately decide to cancel it, continue on their merry way, have their success and money in other stuff and be like "well, thank you for the money i guess" while delivering nothing in any shape or form.
And the company thinks that whatever R+D done and experience gained on that Kickstarter died with that project and did not make its way into any of their other products.
@@Applejuiceisxxx I also thought about that, like if no money from the kickstarter trickled down the line in making their new case that was presented here possible...
huge problem, technically they can do it over and over again. legally. thats the biggest issue having a legal "scam" or ripoff running. imagine u work for a company that allows u run a kickstarter project and then decide nah it failed just to take the experience to make the same product just with some tweaks/improvement but in the end the same or most base engineering is flat copied. so it would be possible to take money for a new water cooling tech. then to scrap everything leaving the backers behind and somehow magical it gets released 6 months later by the company and if kickstarter doesnt do anything about it im sure we will see more of this kind of stuff.
Also, the research that they did with that money, was used in this project... they just changed the project to a more expensive one and expectect the people that back them up to eat it...
Def There's people who didn't crunch the right numbers and maybe weren't super business-savvy and didn't ask for enough or something. Then there's just rugpulls and scams.
Also, that company is ignoring inflation. $575 six years ago is worth $711 today. So, at that point they should they should just be charging next to nothing
I agree with Luke. Make it so people can get 100% of their money back, or say 130% of that amount in credit towards the new case. If it was the choice of $600 back or $800 towards a $1,000 case I could see a lot of people taking the upgrade.
Also makes financial sense, if you still want the case and can eat another $200. In today’s dollars it’s worth about 740. What I don’t get is aren’t they liable for defrauding investors? What about Kickstarter shields them from the FTC?
@@rinzor Kickstarter terms say something like you aren’t buying anything. You are making a pledge and IF the product is finished you CAN get one. Refunds can only be done before a goal is met IIRC. Since they reached the goal the company gets the money. Since the product was never finished no products needs to be delivered.
@@orangeapples Kickstarter is a service on the internet where you can get scammed by any opportunist of your choosing! The premise has always been enticing to me. Ofc there is a Pebble a few times in a decade but it's still like throwing money on the ground and hoping some of it grows into useful products
@@Maplaplaplapla There has been a lot of good stuff out of kickstarter, but the internet loves to accentuate the negatives because people misunderstand how the platform works. Kickstarter isn’t a store to get things for cheap. It isn’t a pre-order and you aren’t guaranteed anything. It is all risk. But then people lost on their gambles and blame everyone but themselves. If you’re not willing to risk losing, don’t gamble. Your money pledged is you saying, “i believe in your vision this much, and if it works out I get X rewards for that tier.” I personally have never pledged anything over $50 for something that was not guaranteed. For that kind of money I want a product within the week. $15, $25, $35 i have no problem pledging and games would give you a copy for that much. I was only interested in low cost and low risk. $45 and I’m far more reserved. You need a very solid business plan for me to be on board. I don’t have the disposable income to risk much more than that. The people who pledged hundreds of dollars for this case took a much higher risk than I ever would and it looks like they lost. As discussed in the video, legally the company doesn’t need to do anything. Morally they should. At the very least finish that original case and fulfill the backers. It’s a cool concept, but it’s a shame it’s attached to a company who saw nothing morally wrong with their choice of actions.
The issue is them acting as though this wasn't their fault. Saying it was just kickstarter, and that there were unforseen issues simply means that they negligently mishandled customer's money and then tried to play the victim. Anyone who does business with them after that is asking to get screwed.
@Torvaltz I mean, it’s reasonable to expect it if it is promised to you explicitly, assuming, as Linus said, the company/group is fairly well-known and has a reasonably good reputation. Sure, it’s a roll of the dice if you are dealing with a sketchy product that it doesn’t seem to be possible to be produced on the scale promised, but this is a business that did eventually produce a product, so expecting to get what was promised is fair.
@@flameshana9 I think kickstarters are legally protected somehow, based on what Linus was saying. I feel if there was explicit verbiage that they would get something for their contribution then they should be held legally accountable, or otherwise be required to give the money back. There are probably reasons it is the way it is but this not being legally enforceable is garbage.
@@inflameslp311 yea, it's not that you are buying a product so much as investing in a business. When it goes belly up you're simply out of luck. They absolutely should be treated as though they've screwed you when that happens though, because it isn't a traditional investor/company relationship, it's investments with the promise and expectation of the product in return rather than an actual stake in a venture. A pretty terrible deal for those investors for sure. Which is why there is a greater expectation for the company to succeed and provide the product as the investors have really stuck their neck out for you.
@@inflameslp311 Then the company should be forced to fold, can you imagine the fallout if RSI dropped SC and walked away? There would be challenges to the kickstarter laws for certain.
"So you blackmailed them." More proof that there are people who watch Linus with the sole intent of catching him in a "Gotcha!" moment- and if he doesn't give them anything, they'll _invent_ something.
Can you even blackmail a obvious fraudster? Had this happened within some weeks you could have put it to poor communication or inpexperience. After 6 years that is just nasty I mean there must be backers who have literally died in the meantime...
@@brahtrumpwonbigly7309 Except there was no "...or else". "Do the right thing and I'll do business with you." was the entire thing and there is no blackmail in that line of reasoning.
If this was 6 years ago, inflation alone turns 500 into 750. If this new product is 1000 dollars they should absolutely be able to provide it to those Kickstarter backers. This comes off as either a lack of confidence in the viability for the new case or a lack of respect for the original backers. A 500 dollar refund to me is the bare minimum. Edit: 500 from 2017 would be 623 not 750
@@rasmusvedel That is what the Federal Reserve would like you to believe, yes.
Год назад
The more I hear from Linus and team about theirs viewpoint and concepts the more I believe this is a company anyone (me including) would love to work for. Putting morality in technology business - at least to some extent - is what we need more.
You're exactly right. How much of the technical development of the technology used in the new case was paid for by their Kickstarter backers project that fell through. Even if it was just working out how they were going to be able to manufacture and ship at scale, it's still r&d on free Kickstarter money.
Agreed, but when you invest in a Kickstarter product, you should be fully aware you may have just burned that money. People who treat Kickstarter like an online retailer are not understanding what Kickstarter is and deserve to learn a hard lesson.
The minute you said 'ripped off the community' I knew it was Calyos. Aside from the people who got shafted, I felt really bad for everyone who gave them free advertising. They had a really slick set up going and lot's of channels were made to look like idiots because of them. That response 'but it was Kickstarter' says everything about their attitude, I see no reason why they won't repeat themselves in the near future, they clearly don't see anything wrong with their actions. Feel bad for Streacom, maybe they'll come out of this owning the technology.
Something I just realized: If the voucher was for "the full amount of their backing," that's extra shady, because that would potentially screw over early-bird buyers harder than the rest. If you only get a credit for what you paid on Kickstarter, then any early-bird backers will have to pay MORE now for the "upgrade" than those who paid the standard KS price. What a scam.
I'm french and that's how it's pronounced, although I"m more surprised about Linus even knowing about Citroen to begin with since they're basically unknown outside of Europe lol
When a company with an established reputation launches a product on Kickstarter, it comes with a whole other set of expectations vs. Joe trying to make hammers. And when that product fails to deliver and the company says "well, that's Kickstarter," it's a pretty clear hiding behind some kind of perceived financial security net was their whole intent with going the whole Kickstarter route in the first place. There's one way to fix it, and that's to offer a refund option (in addition to whatever the hell other options they want to offer).
Issue I have with this is that the company benefits from the research and development from the kickstarter to build the newer fanless case. It's different if they had folded but people essentially funded them to make a product that morphed into something else. They should be entitled to a refund.
This would have been a 500,000$ loss for them for now, yeah. But you can't *stay* mad at them if they just refunded you, meaning they have more business opportunities in the future, but now they'd rather keep that, but lose opportunities too and at this point it would seem very forced to do it now.
That’s the amazing thing this company doesn’t seem to understand. Holding out on giving refunds means no one will buy this new more expensive product. If they said refund or money towards new case, sure they lose money, but they gain Goodwill.
Not to mention they've had, what, 6 years to achieve this? 80k a year in refunds? That's like hiring one or two people. Not that big a deal unless they are tiny.
According to US Bureau of Labour Statistics the value 600 US dollars in October 2016 (the published date of the LTT video about said Calyos case) in 2023 is 752 US dollars when adjusted for inflation. So not only they fucked over the original backers of the kickster campaign, these people will end up paying more in terms of monetary value in exchange for a product than someone who buys it off the shelf when it's for sale (assuming it's going to cost 1000 US dollars) Funny.
@@Drago_Whooves i mean good PR would be a refund option period. the average consumer isn't thinking about "but inflation on that refund", they're happy to see a company act with any sort of moral compass period. as linus said this a relatively easy and cheap problem to solve, it just takes them actually going forward and an option for a refund.
Regardless of Kickstart terms someone should bring this to court and allow a Judge to decide if a large corporation is covered the same as an individual under Kickstarter. Seems like some sort of evasion of tax or liability to me on the company's part.
Guarantee it the kickstarter terms would not hold up in court, they are made to protect very small companies from failures, not companies from taking peoples money and moving on.
Kickstarter terms say you aren't buying anything, just pledging money and you may get something in return - a bit like getting a t shirt as a patreon reward or whatever. Whether that holds up in court is a different matter. In the US, history would suggest the company wins because companies = people or whatever bullshit they decided but elsewhere laws are very explicit about how you can't contract your way out of the law. It'd be a breach of our consumer laws here, regardless of Kickstarter's terms they'd Ben held to the same standards as any company
I would have liked to have seen a video with the case where mentions about the the issues with the company, interviews the CEO, and then just entirely talks about the company's failure to make good on their promises. That way, viewers would have been informed of the existence of this case, seeing what was cool about it and what's possible, while also seeing first-hand how little the CEO thinks of the people who believed in him from the beginning in his own words.
Yeah but that would give them the positive PR that they wanted. In the end of the CEOs of a company that screwed over everyone that supported them would just end up getting more unworked for gains. This clip is all they deserve
@@khrishp I don’t agree that this idea is net positive coverage. It puts their stupid decision to screw hundreds of people over for 6 figures front and centre to millions of people and would probably prompt other media to mention it in their coverage too. If I’m their CEO I’m definitely super happy that the controversy was buried deep in a WAN show.
Yeah, I did a Kickstarter for CastAR, when it was clear they weren't going to make the schedule they offered refunds to us. I ended up taking it. When Jeri was able to try again with the Tilt5, I backed her again. Because they tried to make things right even though they didn't have to. I still wanted to see them make the thing. They succeeded this time, although late. I wouldn't have given them the money the second time if they hadn't done the right thing though.
Thank you for going into detail like this. What a bizarre story. Unless you editorialized, it sounds like a lawyer *could* make a case that they are still legally liable. It sounds suspiciously like they used Kickstarter to help fund their R&D. Whether they intended to deceive people or not, they did. The Kickstarter TOS outlines 5 separate things they are required to do to fulfill their obligation to the backers, and it sounds like they haven't done any of them. But on the bigger point, people exchange money for something specific in return. If I go to the store and buy a PS5, the store won't then hand me a voucher towards a gaming PC. That just isn't how transactions work. The fact that they've somehow convinced themselves that this is okay is freaking weird, and makes me never want to do business with them.
There needs to be a lot more transparency and name shaming in this whole area and the way companies are treating consumers, not just in the tech industry.
I wonder if they even had the cash to refund and that's why they were so weird about it. But offering a weird profit sharing sounds like such a bigger headache than a refund.
I've been very lucky and only ever backed Kickstarters that actually produced something. Tundra Trackers, a neat keyboard, a Star Trek fan film, etc... But I can only imagine how mad I would be if something fell through when that much money was on the line, but if the company folded completely because they just couldn't pull it off, I could get over it so long as they didn't completely ghost and demonstrated that they made a legit effort and failed because of unforeseen circumstances or, _at least,_ because they just got in over their heads. Shit happens. Sometimes a project being a runaway success on Kickstarter can actually be a curse disguised as a blessing, because you may find yourself suddenly having to deal with a completely different level of scale and manufacturing complexity that you were not accounting for when you came up with the pitch. If issues in production came up that made the whole project fall apart, and we don't see the founder driving around in Ferraris and buying yachts, then I can at least _come to terms_ with the fact that things just didn't work out, even if I'm not happy about it. But if I found out that the company not only _still existed,_ but was also _making and selling what is essentially the same product I already fucking paid for and not sending me one,_ I would be _livid._ I cannot believe that they will not only _not_ give that money back, but they also have the _gall_ to ask for _more money._ And, not a small amount of money, either, but _almost double_ what was already paid. It's bad enough that the 500 dollars backers spent 6 years ago is already worth _significantly less_ than the money they would be refunded today (due to inflation), but to just say they're going to keep that money, but, as compensation, _graciously_ leave the door open for backers to _give them more money_ is just... I don't know. Come the fuck on, _really?_ I don't understand how this is legal. It's not unheard of to hear about Kickstarter-backed companies folding and then being investigated and sometimes charges for mismanagement, fraud, and whatever else, so how is it even possible for a company that _still exists_ to just get away with ripping people off like that? I also know this isn't the first time a company has crowd funded a product and then just run away with the money, sometimes even quite large companies have pulled this shit. But how is it that a company that collapses under its own mismanagement is more likely to have the ashes of their business sifted through by investigators than a company that is still operating normally? A company that falls apart after a kickstarter campaign honestly seems a lot less inherently suspicious to me, because they usually at least have a fairly solid defense of poor business decisions and inexperience, than a big company who just takes money and goes along its merry way. One of these things is people being in over their heads and overly-optimistic, while the other is just fucking fraud, IMO, even if it's somehow not _legally_ fraud, it's _still just plain old fraud._
Yes, there are many, many "too good too be true" products that ended up getting busted by so many experts such as Captain Disillusion, Thunderfoot, EEVblog, and so on.
The problem is too many people don't understand what a kick starter is and think they are somehow making an investment. You never lose in a kick starter you are always properly rewarded for your stupidity.
Not really. This is actually an example of why people need to stop thinking of Kickstarter as a store. It's a platform to invest in companies/projects. It needs to be approached in the same way as any other investment. If they're successful, you'll get something for that investment. If not, it's a loss.
@@lethauntic Not all, there are definitely companies that literally sell their stuff exclusively or at least most of their products on Kickstarter, even to this day. Peak Design comes to mind, immediately.
So they were basically saying “double or nothing” - sounds like a good bet based on their past history 😂. Always appreciate your transparency and integrity LTT ❤
I wish I could. I crave conflict like this. I hate that many people allow others to get one over on them by being pushy and manipulative, and I love when people try to use those tactics on me.
Sounds like a scam, or at the very least, very scummy. I'm glad I don't have the money for kickstarter products, they just don't seem very legit alot of times. I have not much experience on products that made it and who didn't so I can't say for sure, just what I've heard in the past 3-5 years isch on youtube.
I mean obviously you'll hear about the flops and scams more on RU-vid than the succesful ones but I do wholeheartedly agree that its risky business investing in kickstarters
@@nubz4evva It depends right? If a product is successful then maybe you see a video about it later. I'm unsure but LTT has done that, correct me if I'm wrong of course. But yea Linus said it pretty well in the video.
It isnt even about the fact that people paid for something 'inferior' and that this thing they are shipping is 'better' (the Citroen vs BMW argument). The fact is, the research and experience that the new case was based off of was paid for by those backers. That is a tangible benefit the company gained. The fact that they don't even comment on that and only see it as 'oh they are getting more than they paid for', shows either a lack of understanding of their own business, or a willful ignoring of the truth. And that isn't even factoring in things like inflation over the last 6 years. That money back then woulda went a lot farther for most than it will now.
you can also use difference gases in each heat-pipe to target different thermal ranges , most heatpipes just use h20 , but others use methanol / ethanol ,etc to target different phase changes , and I think it was like 500 cases they never shipped
Thanks for your integrity Linus, I didn't back it on kickstarter. I bought it in the awkward period after kickstarter in November of 2017, I actually bought it direct from them not kickstarter, for €769 including shipping. Because I bought it direct from them I wasn't even able to see the awkward back and forth on kickstarter. That also shows they are still lying, the it was kickstarter thing doesn't fly. I've got en email from Calyos direct for my order. For a time they were selling it like it was a fished product. I really appreciate you taking a stand on it.
I should get a job there. When they find out I don’t do anything I’ll just ask them to double my salary and pinky promise to work really hard next time. 😂😂
Linus is completely right about the integrity thing, but he should also realise that very few people would be happy to just get their money back after 6 years. The PR battle is lost no matter what that company does. Bad company bad policies. Best thing to do is to avoid doing business with them, which is what Linus uultimately did.
I agree. It's easy to see Linus' point, and I'm glad that point came back to haunt them. They way he puts it makes total sense. The didn't deliver before, and now in order to reap compensation, I have to trust them again with more money? Now If I had been a backer 6 years ago, I wouldn't be expecting anything either. I also wouldn't have forgotten that they did not deliver, and would definitely not trust them again. The whole premise of kickstarter is there's no real obligation to deliver, so you go in knowing there's a risk you may not receive anything. You can't expect a refund, especially one 6 years later, adjusted for inflation.
@@thedave1602 from a Kickstarter guidelines perspective they don't owe anyone anything, but if they want to actually make products that people want to buy, their offer here isn't nearly enough.
The stupid thing is that they'd probably be willing to pay more than cost of refunds on a "cost of doing business" if there was some law or guideline they had broken.
If they're hellbent on trying to not give refunds, give customers an incentive to use the voucher by increasing its original value. Like, give a $600 refund, OR get a $700 voucher. If your new product is as great as it seems then I'd guess a lot of folks would take the voucher.
I saw a good recap in the kickstarted comments of the "recent" updates from Calyos: October 29th 2021: Ordered PC parts for testing November 30th 2021: PC parts assembled December 24th 2021: No testing yet because "we faced some issues with the PSU and SSD" February 23rd 2022: Still no testing yet because motherboards (plural) were dying June 12th 2022: THE PC WAS TESTED... with normal fans... It took them 8 months to assemble and test a normal PC with normal fans??? September 2nd 2022: Tests with the passive cooling system was tested and it performed worse than expected. Regardless, they said they would provide a view of the final SG10 design and possibly cost info in 4-6 weeks November 17th 2022: (yes, 11 weeks, not 4-6 weeks) they did not provide either of the promised information, instead, they just restated the same tests but included a GPU render this time. This is the end of the recap. There are two more updates from May 5, 2023 and June 1, 2023 but as far as I can tell those were just the: Hey we have the case, you just have to pay us $500 more :D And then a visit to Streacom's Computex booth showing off the SG10.
What they suggested is closer to extortion than what you did is to blackmail. Also how are kickstarters not legally obligated to either deliver on their promises or refund the money? What hot garbage.
The whole thing about using Kickstarter for pre-orders is so messed up. There's that whole thing about the fine-print saying it's a investment that might not pay off, but at the same time the situation is often people getting tricked into thinking it's a more guaranteed deal than it really is...
Blackmailing is when you're threatening to do something which is NOT within your good right unless the potential victim does something for you. In this case, it even would have been within LTT's good right to not cover their product even if they didn't have any good reason for that. On top of that they actually did have a good reason. With the other logic, it would even be blackmailing if you just sell stuff to someone. "Either you give me money, or I refuse to give you the product." Blackmailing is NOT just someone saying you have to do something or they won't/will do something else.
The case I wanted, still the case I want. Won't by it until they fix their mentality. (Wasn't one of the backer cause I doubted them ) But Damn I want a case like that !
Who the hell is going to buy something again from a company that has already ripped you off ? , changing the company name does not solve the problem. I would of wanted my money back about 4 years ago before even consider buying from these crooks again. You did the right thing not to interview them for their new product, they need to pay everyone back first who got ripped 5 years ago. CHEERS.
Thank you for fighting against the use of crowdsourcing as an accountability-free card for established companies to benefit from risky decisions while leaving consumers on the hook for business decisions out of their control. The role of media coverage on these sorts of ventures is one of the only levers available to counteract lots of bad behaviors and bad actors.
Trust in question is also about how well will they make extensions, provide support, deal with warranty claims. Because at the $1k price it's an investment, that should serve several years, and be compatible with system upgrades
8:30 even in that case it would be a free credit for 6+ years. If they really want to make up for the kickstarter campaign they should give the people who paid for a case back then the new case with no extra charge or offer a propper refund.
The dumb thing about this is that, most people on Kickstarter, don't expect refunds. So by offering a refund they'd have their cake and eat it too because only a small percentage will ask for it. The. They could have a rebate and get those same people to spend *MORE* than what they would have refunded....
Most people expect to get some type of product on Kickstarter. People don't expect to get refunds because of Kickstarter's ToS and also precedent set when people tried to sue failed Kickstarter projects. But at the end of the day, people expect to get at least something when they fund a Kickstarter.
I am of two minds about this. On the one hand, I agree that Linus tech tips can make any kind of requirement they want in order to do a story or not do a story. So, if you don’t like what this company offered their backers, and as a result, you don’t want to give them promotion, I support your choice to do that. On the other hand, while they’re being as flippant about it as they are, I do agree with them, that Kickstarter list itself as not a store. That is to say, if somebody is trying to make something that they’re not sure they can make, they bring it to Kickstarter to get people to Baca, and there are times where they don’t succeed. Now Kickstarter has plenty of terms of service that lay out what are good and bad reasons for not providing The product to people, but it’s my understanding that there are terms of service, which do, in fact allow a creator to not give money back. That being said, since this company still exists, and is in business, I would say that what they ought to do is in addition to providing, this credit towards their new kick started product, if they sell other products, then backers should be able to use that credit for the retail value of whatever is on their site. In other words, I agree with Linus that there’s no reason for any of these people to want to Back another Kickstarter from this company, but at the same time, the company might not be able to afford to just give money back if their claim that they spent three times what was in the Kickstarter trying to get it to work is true. So assuming that they have products that cost less than what the Kickstarter was worth, they should send those to people who want them, if they have products that cost more and that’s all they have, then they should offer the same discount on products that they guarantee will ship, and then, after all that process is through then perhaps they could offer refunds to the remaining people.
I feel like Kickstarter needs a different agreement that allows funders to get their money back if a product is not shipped within a certain period of time, dependent on the product.
You are only covering the kickstarter side, but Calyos also legitimately sold these cases as preorders after the kickstarter ended. I know what I am talking about, because I too was one of those unfortunate folks. However, Calyos treats the regular buyers the same as the kickstarter backers, despite their obvious legal obligations towards the "real" buyers. At one point, I spoke to Antoine de Ryckel about this, and he (as the introduced new CEO?) seemed to not even be aware of this situation. Until this day, I even get shady and short update letters, but I am afraid, that ultimately my money will still be lost like the kickstarter backers'. Hearing about this deal, the only good news is, that some of the late buyers paid up to 999€, so they at least should get their streacom for free. I paid 799€, but considering spending more is a prime example of sunken cost fallacy. And Linus is absolutey right about the reputation: I have started working in industries close to aerospace, and if Calyos ever comes up as a possible manufacturer for custom cooling solution, the project will not pass my desk without severe resistance. If LMG were interested, I can gladly provide all information I got on this scam. Thank you for your integrity.
When will people get in their heads that regardless of how reputable a company is, the only time they are legally obligated to give you something is when they have a store. If it is Kickstarter, you should always be prepared for-and be willing to accept-the possibility that you may *never* see that money again, whether in the form of your reward or in the form of a refund.
People don't misunderstand the legal situation, what the company doesn't understand is that this type of situation becomes their reputation the longer it goes on.
I hadn't heard this story but as soon as you said "...shares" @ 10:37 I immediately though "OMG, are you freaking kidding???" Thanks for doing everyone a solid, Linus! 👊
They could even just do a calculation of 'how much money from backers did we spend trying to make the product'. Make that calculation audited and signed. Give people the option for that money back, or a voucher for the complete amount for the new case. I think the idea of the voucher for the new case is that it will just eat into the actual *profits* of the case, the overhead. That's sortof reasonable. If they don't have the budget to sink the cost of refunding everyone, then this is what they could reasonably do, unless they spent the backers money on.. other things :P.
This is exactly why I don't do ANYTHING with anything on any "crowdfunding" site. If you wanna sell me something, sell me something. I'm not going to buy a "I sure hope" ticket...
Isn't the whole point of KS that the money funds the development of the product? If the development fails how can anyone expect the money to be available to return?
I backed a kickstarter on a mask product that had LEDs on it with voice activated stuff. the poor solo sap who was making the project was not able to make it in the current 2020 environment. you know what he did? ... ... Refund every single backer. he had nothing to lose keeping the money. he didn't belong to a company. the man will have more integrity then a larger company.
We know a lot of the corporate entities struggle with good ethics but It’s amazing how many just don’t understand the value of good PR/brand perception and how it will impact their bottom line for the better.
