Michael Farlekas: No, this is just a general comment, Mark. I appreciate that clarification, you allow me to make. I just think we have more potential to grow this business organically, and I think we have to kind of change our business a bit to kind of get to that potential. So it has nothing to do with the quarter, but with this, we have long-term guidance out there that’s a 12% plus. We think that’s very possible at these margin levels and I think that’s an important clarification. We are focused on generating high margins in a business. We think we can do both, which makes us a very unique kind of company. That’s what I meant by below our potential and I believe that we have greater potential to grow and we have some operational things to take care of in terms of our go-to-market.
Mark Schappel: I appreciate that. That’s all from me. Thanks.
Michael Farlekas: Thanks.
Operator: Okay. The next question is from Chad Bennett with Craig-Hallum. Please proceed, Chad.
Chad Bennett: Great. Thanks for taking my question. So just want to make sure I understand the large deal commentary. I think, Marje, you indicated in your prepared remarks that you saw several large deals hit earlier in the quarter. And then I think Michael indicated that there were large deals that you actually recouped from prior quarters, this quarter, are those one in the same commentary wise?
Michael Farlekas: Yeah, good to hear voice, Chad. Yeah, I think what we’re saying is, we had — as we said last time, our large deal pipeline has grown, a lot of that’s because they push and because of that we are able to get some of those and we had a pretty good quarter with large deals. And the days happened to happen earlier in the quarter, which kind of helped us out from a revenue perspective. We signed large deal. There somewhat impactful given kind of the quarterly revenue flow. So I think they are one of the same. That’s a good catch.
Chad Bennett: Okay. So with that in mind, if you recoup some and I guess you incrementally added some, your calculated subscription billings were effectively flat year-over-year and you guided for subscription growth of, call it, 1.4% mid 1% growth for the second quarter here year-over-year. So I think other people have asked this on the call. So the conviction, I guess, churn improving in the second half, are you expecting the macro to improve in the second half. How do we — and I’m not saying it’s a high bar, but you got to see pretty significant reacceleration in the second half relative to where we are in Q2 and where billings were in Q1 to get to kind of your midpoint. So I’m just kind of trying to understand the logic there?
Marje Armstrong: So, Chad, I think when you’re looking at billings growth, it was over 4% in Q1, I think maybe what you’re not doing is normalizing out the logistics impact from year ago. But happy to —
Chad Bennett: Subscription billings?
Marje Armstrong: Yeah.
Chad Bennett: Okay.
Marje Armstrong: But happy to go through those numbers specifically with you later.
Chad Bennett: Sure.
Marje Armstrong: But I think you’re not taking out the logistics from last year.
Chad Bennett: Well, logistics should have annualized, right?
Marje Armstrong: Yeah. So normalized for logistics, subscription billings year-over-year growth was just over 4%. But, sorry, I’d like to follow-up from that question, I just wanted to correct that, but —
Chad Bennett: Okay. Didn’t you have the logistics, the full quarter last year also or am I wrong?
Marje Armstrong: So that’s a — you basically need to normalize that out from the balances from that quarter. It’s a normalized change in the accounts receivables. But happy to walk through how that normalization works.
