The fledgling co-op's $65 million target was unrealistically high, but the fact it attracted $40 million sends a strong message that producers of more than a third of the country's strong wool want changes to the way the fibre is marketed and sold.
We can and should better market a fibre which ticks all the boxes of what modern, discerning consumers want, but as happens too often with sheep and beef farmers, politics and short-term considerations have dominated their thinking.
Regular comment was passed during the debate that some farmers were uneasy with PGG Wrightson's involvement, even though it would have been at arm's length from Wool Partners Co-op (WPC).
Some also questioned if there were sufficient fresh faces to run WPC, but the strong wool industry has been depressed for so long it has hardly been the sector of choice for many bright young people.
Once again, the industry has been looking over its shoulder when boldness and courage is needed to address 15 years of falling prices.
While the $15,000 to $20,000 investment was significant for some farmers, it is a fraction of what dairy farmers have had to invest.
A farmer buying shares in Fonterra for 300 cows would have to pay $500,000, but they view that as an investment, something sheep and beef farmers have traditionally not done.
Wool has followed a similar path to the red meat debate several years ago when momentum for change was lost, in part due to a cyclical improvement in price.
Wool prices have similarly risen, not because of anything industry players have done, but due to supply chains being exhausted of inventory.
This is exactly when change should occur.
So what is likely to happen?All the parties are talking about changes, but will it go far enough?Given the silo mentality and animosity that pervades the wool industry, who will drive it and how will they get any agreement?Successive governments have tried unsuccessfully to unify the sector, so why should growers have confidence there will be peace now given the aggressive tone of the recent wool debate.
Exporters are talking about international promotion of wool and linking with promotion initiated by the Prince of Wales.
It sounds grand but international promotion, such as was done with the old International Wool Secretariat (IWS), has a history of an enormous appetite for cash, which ultimately caused New Zealand to withdraw support for the IWS.
But, why would the New Zealand strong wool industry not want to use this country's attributes of scenic beauty, sustainable production and high ethical standards to promote and sell its products? Other export industries are moving to do just that and New Zealand Merino is proof of what can be done by promoting the country of origin.
The radical animal welfare group, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (Peta), damaged Australian fine wool sales in the United States and Europe by targeting retailers with concerns about mulesing of sheep.
New Zealand growers avoided being caught up in the campaign because, through New Zealand Merino, they had quality guarantees stating wool did not come from mulesed sheep.
Wool needs to rebuild its international reputation and profile.
Generations are growing up not knowing its attributes, but the Peta incident and China's melamine scare, from which Fonterra narrowly escaped with its reputation intact, should be a warning of the danger when an industry does not have complete control over its products and reputation.