CrunchBase : The Week’s Biggest Funding Rounds: Scale AI Tops Busy Week For AI I

The Week’s Biggest Funding Rounds: Scale AI Tops Busy Week For AI Investment

It was another big week for AI-related funding, topped off by Scale AI’s massive new investment from Meta. We also saw big rounds for startups in sectors including cybersecurity, networking, enterprise software and robotics, among other areas.

1. Scale AI, $14.3B, gen AI: San Francisco-based Scale AI, a provider of training data and model evaluation for AI applications, announced Thursday that it raised a new investment, reportedly totaling $14.3 billion, from Meta at a valuation of $29 billion. The agreement will also expand Scale and Meta’s commercial relationship, with Scale’s founder, Alexandr Wang, joining Meta to work on its AI efforts.

2. Cyera, $540M, cybersecurity: Data security platform Cyera announced that it raised $540 million in a Series E round with backers including Georgian, Greenoaks and Lightspeed Venture Partners. The round brings total funding for the New York- and Israel-headquartered company to $1.3 billion, per Crunchbase data.

3. Meter, $170M, networking: San Francisco-based networking infrastructure provider Meter announced that it raised $170 million in a Series C financing led by General Catalyst. Meter was founded in 2015 and has raised $255 million to date, per Crunchbase data.

4. Glean, $150M, AI work assistant: Enterprise AI startup Glean announced that it has raised $150 million in a Series F round led by Wellington Management at a $7.2 billion valuation. The latest fundraise took place just nine months after Palo Alto, California-based Glean announced a $260 million Series E that doubled the company’s valuation to $4.6 billion.

5. Gecko Robotics, $125M, robotics: Pittsburgh-based Gecko Robotics, an AI and robotics startup developing a platform for building and operating infrastructure for defense, energy and manufacturing sectors, announced that it raised a Series D round at $1.25 billion valuation. The round reportedly totaled $125 million, with Cox Enterprises as lead investor.

6. (tied) Fervo Energy, $100M, geothermal energy: Houston-based Fervo Energy, a developer of geothermal energy projects, announced that it raised $100 million in equity financing from Breakthrough Energy Ventures’ Breakthrough Energy Catalyst platform. The company also picked up $106 million in debt financing from Mercuria and X-Caliber Rural Capital for a major geothermal project in Utah.

6. (tied) Laurel, $100M, timesheet management: Laurel, provider of an AI-enabled platform for tracking time spent by knowledge workers, raised $100 million in a Series C led by IVP. Founded in 2016, San Francisco-based Laurel has raised $156 million to date, per Crunchbase data.

8. Linear, $82M, software development tools: San Francisco-based Linear, a provider of project planning tools for software development, announced that it raised $82 million in Series C financing led by Accel. The financing sets a $1.25 billion valuation for the 6-year-old company.

9. (tied) Mosanna Therapeutics, $80M, sleep apnea treatment: Mosanna Therapeutics, a startup based in Silicon Valley and Basel, Switzerland that is developing a nasal spray for obstructive sleep apnea, raised $80 million in initial funding led by Pivotal bioVenture Partners and EQT Life Sciences.

9. (tied) Coco Robotics, $80M, delivery robots: Santa Monica, California-based Coco Robotics, a startup operating a fleet of small, self-driving delivery vehicles, raised $80 million in a funding round that includes SNR.vc, Sam Altman, Pelion Venture Partners and Outlander VC. Coco said it plans to deploy 10,000 autonomous delivery vehicles by the end of 2026.

9. (tied) Canary Technologies, $80M, hospitality software: San Francisco-based Canary Technologies, a provider of hotel guest management software, raised $80 million in a Series D round led by Brighton Park Capital. The financing brings funding to date for the 8-year-old company to $177 million, per Crunchbase data.

FT : Has multi-club ownership hit its limits?

Has multi-club ownership hit its limits?

Crystal Palace: victims of their own success © PA Wire/PA Images
Long before a ball was kicked, the Club World Cup set an important precedent with big implications for investors.

Fifa’s decision to eject Mexican side Club Leon from the tournament due to its common ownership with Pachuca has set a hard line on what is permissible under multiclub ownership. That the case then went to the Court of Arbitration in Sport further underlined a new reality in which governing bodies can no longer turn a blind eye.

Crystal Palace may be the first victim of the new approach. The south London club won its first major trophy less than a month ago, but the celebrations have been crudely interrupted. Its place in next season’s Europa League is in peril — due solely to the make-up of its ownership group.

Palace have four owners — longtime chair Steve Parish, Apollo co-founder Josh Harris, Blackstone executive David Blitzer, and tech entrepreneur John Textor. None of them has a controlling stake, all four have equal voting rights.

Textor’s Eagle Football, which owns Olympique Lyonnais, RWD Molenbeek and Botafogo, has the biggest slice at around 45 per cent. And that is where the problem lies. Palace qualified for the Europa League by winning the domestic cup, but Lyon also made it after finishing sixth in Ligue 1 (a feat managed in injury time on the last day of the season).

Uefa has raised concerns about Lyon and Palace both competing in the same competition, due to Textor shareholdings in both. There is precedent, such as Red Bull Leipzig and RB Salzburg being allowed into the same competition, and Manchester United and OGC Nice, both backed by Ineos.

Other clubs with shared owners have been able to use blind trusts as a work around. But even if Textor had the foresight (Palace had never qualified for Europe before) ahead of the March 1 deadline to move his shares into a trust, that could have complicated efforts to sell them — as has been his aim for more than a year. Indeed, the money expected from the stake sale is key to his plans to fix Lyon’s battered balance sheet.

Palace now have a couple of weeks to find a solution. Textor has been trying to accelerate a sale of his stake, possibly to Woody Johnson, the former US ambassador to the UK and owner of the New York Jets in the NFL. But a sale to anyone other than Harris and Blitzer may not solve the problem, as any new owner would need to pass the Premier League’s owners and directors test.

The Palace situation has some pretty unique elements, yet it nonetheless poses real questions about the future of multiclub ownership. In theory, the multiclub approach is meant to improve the performance of every team in the network. But if widespread success then puts owners in a situation where they have to relinquish control, what’s the point? And while Uefa’s concern has always been about protecting the integrity of its pan-European competitions, what about the impact on domestic football when owners find themselves having to pick favourites?

The recent trend of investors owning more than one club may not go into reverse, or even slow down. But the questions around whether it does more harm than good are going to keep getting louder.

FT : Fifa’s moment of truth

Fifa’s moment of truth

Will Infantino’s new competition deliver?

Players are unhappy at being asked to play yet more matches while domestic leagues complain that an already overcrowded calendar is at breaking point. A report from Deloitte this week warned that football’s “insatiable appetite for growth” risks having a negative effect on club finances through higher wage demands, while another from Fifpro called for a guaranteed 4-week off-season break and mandatory time off during the season. Yet Fifa and Uefa are pulling in the other direction.

Commercially, the CWC has been an uphill battle. A lack of appetite among traditional broadcasters and big streamers led to a global rights deal with DAZN, now backed by the Saudi state. In the UK, half the games will also be shown on Channel 5, after the BBC and ITV decided it wasn’t worth interrupting their existing summer plans.

Sponsors have been reluctant too. That Fifa announced a new commercial partner just two days before the tournament starts (Airbnb will be the official alternative accommodation and experiences booking platform) points to a late scramble. Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund joined the ranks of sponsors just a week earlier.

Ticket prices have reportedly been slashed to drum up demand on the ground, while the threat posed by the hardline stance on immigration in the US may cool appetite for travelling fans. According to The Athletic, US Customs and Border Protection took down a social media post this week that had highlighted the presence of its agents outside each of the host venues.

Despite all the gripes, the Club World Cup is still shaping up to be something of a game-changer. In getting this far, Fifa has firmly established itself as an important player in club football. The size of the prize pot — the winner will take home up to $125mn — makes it as lucrative as winning the Champions League. For clubs such as Real Madrid and Manchester City, who faltered in the competition this year, this offers something of a do-over, and helps explain why there has been a flurry of transfer activity in the last couple of weeks as top clubs look to maximise their chances.

But there’s one question that will only be answered in the coming weeks: is the actual football going to be any good? Data consultancy Twenty First Group is not optimistic, pointing out that the Club World Cup will feature 50 of the world’s top 100 players, compared to 72 at the World Cup in Qatar. The group stage games, on paper at least, look pretty lopsided, while a European team has a 95 per cent chance of winning the whole thing. Meanwhile three of the most popular teams in the world failed to qualify, potentially cutting off an important source of fan attention.

Whether Fifa’s land grab has paid off won’t be clear for a month, and possibly not for a few years when they presumably look to do it all again.

In the coming month, there’s a real prospect that elite teams will end up playing in empty stadiums. Glory could well be measured solely in US dollars.

WWD : Top Beverage Brands Are Racing to Partner With Formula 1

Top Beverage Brands Are Racing to Partner With Formula 1
Formula 1, the sport's 10 teams and its drivers have all partnered with a slew of alcohol and nonalcoholic brands on multiyear deals for the 2025 season and beyond.
Since the start of Formula 1 in 1950, celebratory toasts have been deeply intertwined with the culture of racing. Scenes of Ayrton Senna, Michael Schumacher, Nigel Mansell and Alain Prost celebrating their historic wins have now become some of the most recognizable iconography associated with the sport.

From victorious Champagne sprays to the legendary post-race parties held across the racing calendar, beverage brands and their associated triumphs on and off the podium have remained in the spotlight.

And who could forget recently retired Daniel Ricciardo’s popularization of the “shoey” — drinking Champagne out of a shoe (as seen for the first time at the 2016 German Grand Prix).

As Formula 1 has gone full throttle and become a large part of the global cultural zeitgeist — especially in the U.S. — a wide spectrum of beverage brands have become the top partners in the sport. Spirits to nonalcoholic brands alike have become official partners with Formula 1 itself, the individual races and the 10 teams while also tapping its drivers for brand ambassadorships.
Here, a roundup of the major beverage brands that are tapping into Formula 1.
This list will be continuously updated.

>>> 24h Le Mans : Departure 4pm Paris time : https://www.24h-lemans.com/en

  • 08:00 AM - 02:00 AM
    24 HOURS MUSEUM
    Trackside activities
  • 08:45 AM - 09:30 AM
    FORD MUSTANG CHALLENGE - RACE 2
    Support Races
  • 09:00 AM - 01:00 AM
    FAN ZONES & KIDS ZONE
    Trackside activities
  • 10:00 AM - 12:00 AM
    ACO H2 HYDROGEN VILLAGE
    Trackside activities
  • 10:00 AM - 12:00 AM
    MANUFACTURERS VILLAGE
    Trackside activities
  • 10:05 AM - 11:05 AM
    ROAD TO LE MANS - RACE 2
    Support Races
  • 10:30 AM - 11:00 AM
    Manufacturers Village - McLaren
    Trackside activities
  • 12:00 PM - 12:15 PM
    Warm-Up
    24 Hours of Le Mans
  • 01:35 PM - 02:35 PM
    GRIDWALK
    Trackside activities
  • 03:25 PM - 03:50 PM
    24 Hours of Le Mans - Official departure Ceremony
    24 Hours of Le Mans
  • 04:00 PM
    24 Hours of Le Mans - Start
    24 Hours of Le Mans
  • 08:00 PM - 11:00 PM
    CONCERT - KOOL & THE GANG
    Concert
  • 11:00 PM - 12:00 AM
    CONCERT - THE AVENER
    Concert
  • 11:59 PM - 12:20 AM
    THE 24 HOURS OF LE MANS SHOW
    Trackside activities

The Information : A Marc Benioff Protégé Has Morphed Into Salesforce’s Big Worry

A Marc Benioff Protégé Has Morphed Into Salesforce’s Big Worry
After a shock exit as Salesforce co-CEO, Bret Taylor has positioned his AI startup to seize a sizable piece of Marc Benioff’s business.

The Takeaway
• Bret Taylor, Salesforce’s former co-CEO, has sparked one of tech’s most talked-about rivalries with his former boss Marc Benioff.
• Taylor has targeted Salesforce customers to grow his new startup, Sierra.
• Salesforce has responded by sending teams of sales engineers to dissuade them from using Sierra and talk up its rival product, Agentforce.

After an unexpected exit as Salesforce co-CEO in 2022, Bret Taylor sat down with a friend, Benchmark’s Peter Fenton, to brainstorm ideas for what to do next. He knew if he chose to go up against ex-boss Marc Benioff, who had shared the CEO duties with him, Benioff would be a formidable opponent. “He had an immense admiration for Marc,” Fenton recalled. “And that was conveyed to me.”

Still, Taylor has ignited what has turned into one of the most intense and personal rivalries in Silicon Valley with Benioff.

In February 2024, Taylor launched his new startup, Sierra, igniting what has quickly become of the. Sierra makes automated AI software, or agents, for managing client relationships—exactly what much of Salesforce’s software is used for. Sierra has actively courted many of Salesforce’s customers and has signed deals with some of them, including SiriusXM and Sonos, according to a consultant who works with Salesforce customers. (Neither Benioff nor Taylor would comment for this story.)

Salesforce has responded by sending teams of sales engineers to dissuade them from using Sierra and explain why its agent-building service, Agentforce, is better for their needs, said two Salesforce consulting partners. It has also taken other steps to prevent competition from AI companies, like blocking rivals from accessing data in Slack.

In recent months, Benioff has also been calling senior executives at customers to ask why they aren’t moving faster to deploy Agentforce, said a person who has spoken with those executives.

Benioff’s assertive response to Sierra might seem disproportionate given the size of Taylor’s startup. Publicly traded Salesforce commands a market capitalization of more than $250 billion. By contrast, Sierra was last valued at $4.5 billion in an October funding round, which included investors such as Greenoaks Capital and Thrive Capital.

Still, Sierra is growing fast and was recently on pace to generate tens of millions of dollars in revenue this year, according to people close to the company. While that’s not a lot of revenue, it does threaten the part of Salesforce’s business that Benioff has refocused the company on: Agentforce and artificial intelligence, which he sees as the area that’s ripest for growth.

And the threat is led by someone who’s intimately familiar with Salesforce and its weaknesses, including its dependence on a seat-based pricing model that some critics say is outdated. Plus, Taylor enjoys a broad perspective on AI from his perch as OpenAI’s chair.

The Taylor-Benioff rivalry may come down to a truism about any David-versus-Goliath contest: For the smaller contestant to have a credible chance at winning, it helps to know exactly how the giant moves—and where it might stumble.

The relationship between Benioff and Taylor goes back years. Taylor, who previously worked at Google and as Facebook’s chief technology officer, took on increasingly senior roles at Salesforce after it bought Quip, which made software for office workers to collaborate on documents and spreadsheets. In late 2021, Benioff made Taylor his co-CEO, though Taylor continued to report to Benioff.

One of Taylor’s major initiatives at Salesforce was the company’s $27.7 billion purchase of Slack, the largest acquisition in Salesforce’s history—a long-running list given Benioff’s fondness for dealmaking. Although Benioff initially gushed about the deal, he later distanced himself from it by telling colleagues Taylor was its architect.

At the time, some senior Salesforce staff were skeptical that Slack was worth the hefty price tag, given that many of its customers were already using rival software from Microsoft. Despite saying privately that he expected to eventually become Salesforce’s solo CEO, Taylor suddenly left in late 2022, saying that he wanted to start a new company.

Taylor had been closely watching the ripple effect ChatGPT was having on the tech industry, and he knew that he wanted to launch a company based on new AI like OpenAI’s GPT models, recalled Fenton, the venture capitalist. Around that time, Fenton said, he visited Taylor at his home in Lafayette, Calif., when he was still considering a range of directions, from consumer products to business applications.

“That was in a time when he had not decided exactly where to take the technology, but you got the sense that he would land somewhere that would be unbounded,” Fenton said. “I saw his deep curiosity—he’d been reading the white papers, he’d been playing around with the code in Python.”

In the following weeks, Benchmark led a $25 million funding round in Taylor’s new company, which he started with Clay Bavor, a longtime Google executive.

Over the next 12 months, Sierra assembled a small team of engineers and salespeople to develop an early version of its product and begin marketing it to businesses, including consumer-focused companies like WeightWatchers and SiriusXM. Taylor also became enmeshed in the drama surrounding OpenAI’s leadership, joining as the company’s chair in November 2023 after the ouster and subsequent rehiring of CEO Sam Altman. Taylor and a handful of others replaced earlier directors who had clashed with Altman over whether he had been truthful with OpenAI’s board.

Then in early 2024, Taylor publicly unveiled Sierra. He was betting that its agent-powered chat software could better solve customers’ issues while lowering companies’ costs. That mission placed Sierra in direct competition with Salesforce software.

In February 2024, Taylor also announced a funding round of $110 million at a valuation of more than $1 billion from Benchmark and Sequoia Capital, two marquee venture capital firms. The price they paid for Sierra made it one of the most expensively valued startups in tech, relative to how little revenue it had generated to that point.

Seven months later, Benioff announced Salesforce’s contender in the AI agent field: Agentforce. In a splashy presentation at Dreamforce in September 2024, the company’s annual conference for customers and developers held each fall, Benioff announced his intention to reorient the software company around agents that can carry out tasks for workers, including handling support queries. It represented an AI-or-bust bet on the part of Benioff, who has since admitted to considering renaming his company after the new AI software.

By the end of 2024, Microsoft had announced its own agent product, as did more specialized customer support software vendors like Intercom, Zendesk and Decagon.

Sierra seemed to have particular success winning over business from Salesforce customers, many of whom Taylor already knew from his time there. “Bret’s using his Rolodex to get in there,” said Cameron Deatsch, former chief revenue officer at Atlassian and a board director at Intercom, a customer support software startup that competes with Sierra.

In a presentation to a potential customer in late 2024, Sierra said that many of its customers were also Salesforce customers, and that it had specifically designed its product so they could use it in conjunction with the CRM database they buy from Salesforce. For example, Sierra’s AI can respond to a request to return a product by using information stored in a customer’s Salesforce CRM. (Sierra is one of thousands of software providers that sell products that tap into Salesforce data.)

Sierra’s workforce also came to resemble Salesforce’s. As Sierra has grown, Taylor has hired more than 40 former Salesforce employees, who now make up a fifth of Sierra’s roughly 200 total employees. At least 11 of those came directly to Sierra from Salesforce, including Tableau’s former senior vice president of marketing and Salesforce’s senior vice president for self-service and growth.

Some enterprise buyers have come to see Sierra more favorably than Agentforce, which executives have said is far more difficult to set up, according to a person who has spoken with executives who have tested both products at their companies. Still, Salesforce has been giving customers aggressive discounts on the Agentforce software, including bundling it with other offerings like its data management product, this person said. The bundling makes it hard to determine how much revenue the company is bringing in from other products, this person added.

Meanwhile, Sierra still faces its own issues, including how accurate its chatbot is. For instance, when The Information used a Sierra-powered virtual agent on shoe seller OluKai’s website, the agent incorrectly said that the company’s Lae‘ahi Lauhala shoes were out of stock when the product page showed they were available in many different colors and sizes. OluKai was one of the first Sierra customers the company disclosed publicly.

Olukai did not respond to a request to comment. But the company appears to be generally satisfied with the performance of Sierra’s software, which as of February 2024 was enabling it to resolve 70% of its customer inquiries using the virtual agent, according to a case study on Sierra’s website. (Other companies that sell virtual agent software, including Salesforce, have had similar issues with accuracy.)

To win customers over, Sierra has said it will assign engineers to monitor its performance on a weekly basis based on metrics like what portion of customer inquiries it can resolve automatically, according to a person who has heard its sales pitch. But Sierra has also designed its product so non-technical users can use it without assistance from the startup’s engineers, a person close to the company said.

As Sierra courts large businesses, it has offered to customize its product extensively to work with their other software systems, a process that could take months, this person said. That customization could appeal to enterprises that need the AI to work across many different software systems, but it could also come with risks if technology advances quickly, according to Intercom’s Deatsch. If the product becomes obsolete or outdated in the interim, those investments in custom software might look wasteful in hindsight.

Some rival executives privately grumble that Sierra is pinning its hopes on its well-connected CEO instead of on developing cutting-edge technology. The company uses a variety of models, including software from Anthropic, OpenAI and Meta Platforms, to generate responses for customers, a Sierra spokesperson said. Sierra’s system determines which model produces the best answer for each query and uses the response from that one.

One risk to both Salesforce and Sierra is that model providers like Anthropic and OpenAI could come up with their own customer support applications even if Salesforce and Sierra might have a better understanding of what customers want from such technology.

Other software industry executives speculate that Sierra will inevitably end up in the hands of a bigger tech company—possibly even Salesforce itself. That would help justify Sierra’s sky-high valuation for a company with relatively little revenue, said Muddu Sudhakar, a longtime enterprise software executive who co-founded Aisera, a startup that automates IT help desks.

Another possible acquirer could be OpenAI, where, of course, Taylor sits on the board. OpenAI recently hired another senior tech leader, Instacart CEO Fidji Simo, to run its applications business, and the addition of Taylor could help the company gain more market share among corporate customers, many of whom use software from rival Anthropic, Sudhakar said.

While Sierra’s future isn’t entirely clear, one thing is not: Benioff will be coming for Taylor with full force—a reality Benchmark’s Fenton, who knows both men, acknowledged with his usual amount of understatement.

“Part of Marc—of any CEO—is that they have a strong competitive drive,” he said.

WWD : Vietnam’s Ready For High Stakes US Trade Talks To Avoid Steep Tariffs

Vietnam’s Ready For High Stakes US Trade Talks To Avoid Steep Tariffs
Vietnam, a substantial producer of athletic performance shoes, is hoping to avoid the 46 percent reciprocal tariffs when 90-day pause ends on July 9.

Just ahead of the high-takes reciprocal trade talks with the U.S., Vietnam‘s Trade Minister Nguyen Hong Dien said the country is ready to open its market and give more incentives for U.S. exports.

In April, U.S. President Donald Trump disclosed global reciprocal tariffs that raised Vietnam’s new total duty rate to 46 percent. Since then, there has been a temporary 10 percent increase during a 90-day pause for imports from Vietnam until July 9. The U.S. and Vietnam have been in intensive trade talks to strike a new trade agreement that would cap any new duties to a number lower than the planned 46 percent tariff should Trump reinstitute the original reciprocal rate.

The Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America, along with more than 80 leading U.S. footwear firms, at the end of April sent a letter to Trump urging him to exempt footwear from the reciprocal tariff plan. Trade talks are set to resume this month.

Vietnam remains a key manufacturing hub for athletic performance footwear. When Vietnam concluded a second round of tariff talks with the U.S. in Washington last month on the Bilateral Agreement on Reciprocal Trade between Vietnam and the U.S., a May 22 statement from Vietnam’s Ministry of Industry and Trade said the talks between the two negotiating delegations — led by Vietnam Minister Nguyen Hong Dien and U.S. Trade Representative Ambassador Jamieson Greer — ”made positive progress.”

In preparation for the next round of talks this month, Dien met with Senator Roger Marshall (R-KS) on Tuesday in Washington, D.C. A statement on Vietnam’s Ministry of Industry and Trade said on Tuesday that the Asian country is “ready to open its market, provide more incentives for U.S. exports” and has requested the U.S. to take “corresponding steps.”

A Bloomberg story said that while Vietnam has taken steps to crackdown on trade fraud, a U.S. concern, one outstanding issue is the Trump administration’s desire to lower Vietnam’s Chinese imports. While Dien’s in town, he’s been meeting with fashion and retail executives from Nike Inc., Walmart Inc. and others as he gets ready for the upcoming talks.

Footwear executives are keeping close tabs on those talks. In last month’s first quarter earnings conference call, Crocs Inc. CEO Andrew Rees said the “daily uncertainty as to the level of these tariffs makes it incredibly hard to plan and predict both short- and long-term impacts to our business.”

He said sourcing for the U.S. market in 2025 includes 47 percent from Vietnam, 17 percent from Indonesia, 13 percent each for China and India, and 5 percent each for Mexico and Cambodia.

During the call, he spoke about the looming uncertainty of Vietnam, noting that the “whole industry is worried about if a reciprocal tariff remains in place [is] Vietnam. That’s a huge amount of production for us and everybody else. That would be incredibly hard to mitigate.”

Adidas CEO Bjørn Gulden said during the company’s April 29 conference call on first-quarter earnings that the expectation is that “people will start to raise prices should these duties or all the duties be confirmed.”

Nike has already implemented some price adjustments, raising retail prices in its U.S. that average between $2 and $10, but it did keep intact the current price range for goods under $100. And the Air Force 1 sneaker, a popular work shoe for service providers that’s priced at $115, will not see any price increase.

Other footwear prices, such as sneakers between $100 and $150, will see increases up to $5, while those starting at $150 and higher, could see increases up to $10. The sports and apparel giant elected not to raise any prices on kids’ products, whether footwear or apparel, and it also has determined that there won’t be any increases for any Jordan product.