Charles Beck: Platform level. So Digimarc Illuminate is our platform. We’re using that in 2 ways. We are building our own products on top of that. Those are the 4 products we talked about. We have other product candidates that we’re working on. That’s what we sell direct, right? But we also believe — and I think I mentioned this in the call is going to be 2 calls ago, we also are licensing that platform to value-added resellers to build their own products and services on top of it. And it’s just like any other hyperscaler type model where the more capacity they use, the more they pay us. And there’s 3 wonderful things about it, I guess. The first is its highly scalable and high-margin revenue, right, as our value-added resellers are out selling whatever products or services they built upon Illuminate, that’s them doing all that work and as they need more capacity, they got to license more from us.
So that’s one. Secondly, it’s digitizing more and more of the world’s products using our technology. It’s a win-win-win. It’s a win for us. It’s a win for the VARs and it’s a win for the end customers. There’s cross-sell and upsell between that. We’re building a lot of technology companies that are both platform and product that can get to channel conflicts. We’re actually creating a triple win with the way we’re going to market. And then the third thing is we are never going to have all the best ideas in the world. And so by letting value-added resellers make use of our platform to come up with other solves, it’s wonderful.
Unidentified Analyst: Got it. Okay. All right. And then also, I appreciated the comments because we’re obviously excited about some of the potential new product candidates. So I appreciate the insight into the new product candidate process, if you will. I guess the question would be are any of the new product candidates that you’re kind of referencing top-down drivers? Or would you consider those also top-down drivers of product digitalization? Or are they more — I don’t want to use the term bolt-on, but I will because I can’t think of anything else.
Charles Beck: Yes. You could say accretive products, maybe bolt-on accretive. Yes, they’re both. I mean there’s a reason — here’s the reality, right? And Matt, we’ve had this conversation. I’d like to I never — I want to be careful what I say because there’s still uncertainty. And when there’s uncertainty, I want to call it out, they’re product candidates for a reason because we are not guaranteeing right now, they’re going to be some products. If we knew they were going to be products, they would be products, right? So with that caveat said, absolutely. There’s a reason why I talked about how we what we prioritize in the product candidate road map because those are really powerful, right, that having either a top-down driver or a network effect or some other forcing function is an incredible tailwind to have to a product as opposed to your word, bolt-on, as just another product.
So absolutely, there is — you picked up on it. I think that’s — that’s why I talked about how we prioritize some. So there are — there is a mix in our product candidate pool of both single products, kind of dissolving discrete problems that help us digitize the world’s products, one problem at a time. but there’s also some top-down forcing function network effect products in there. And when the time is right, when we can talk about it, we’ll make sure we talk about them.
Operator: There are no further questions at this time. I’d like to hand the floor back over to Riley McCormack for any closing comments.
Riley McCormack: Well, thank you, everybody. We appreciate your time. Have a great rest of your day.
Operator: This concludes today’s conference. You may disconnect your lines at this time. Thank you for your participation.
