Sheep farmers have decided free enterprise will resurrect the fortunes of strong wool where a centralised producer board has failed.
The reality is commercial entities will succeed only if farmers collectively show more interest and commitment than they have done previously.
Last month's Meat and Wool New Zealand (MWNZ) referendum, in which farmers decided by a narrow margin to no longer pay a levy on wool, was a watershed moment for the sector, leaving it with two potential routes.
It can continue down the commodity route, a dog-eat-dog existence in which farmers dispose of wool as a by-product, or the fragmented sector can start collaborating and promoting wool as the quality, high-value product it is considered to be.
Some say the real test will be whether the sector can show maturity, setting aside a decade of politics, in-fighting and a lack of trust.
The referendum result had several unintended consequences, including funding the training of shearers and shed hands and the future of some research and development programmes.
As MWNZ chairman Mike Petersen continually said in the lead up to the referendum: "no means no".
There were no exceptions.
The unintended consequences were the result of the referendum structure and question over which Mr Petersen said the board had no influence.
There was little doubt the referendum's failure was farmers rejecting a proposal to again invest money in marketing and promoting crossbred wool.
Sixty years ago, wool was New Zealand's largest export earner.
Some farmers recall the "pound for a pound" days during the Korean War when wool reached uncharted heights of price and demand.
In the late 1980s, frustration at continued industrial action by meat workers prompted some farmers to dabble with all-wool farming.
Unfortunately, wool has been in steady decline ever since, its contribution to gross farm income falling from around 40% to 15% in just 20 years, squeezed aside by competition from low-cost synthetics, inaccurate marketing and a selling process some have dubbed a disposal system.
Ten years ago, farmers opted to stop funding the marketing of wool, which tended to be generic and soaked up hundreds of millions of dollars, in the expectation the industry would fill the void.
It did not, leaving a generation of consumers with no knowledge of wool, its attributes or qualities.
The wool sector has dropped the ball, but Elders Primary Wool and Wool Partners International have given hints they intend picking it up, launching new brands and linking customer requirements with growers - the so-called integrated supply chain.
Elders has made the early running, contracting supply to several major United States carpet manufacturers, but the recession means it is trying to win over farmers with promises rather than higher prices.
Wool Partners is following a similar path, but has the unenviable job of asking farmers for investment capital for it to make headway.
There is little doubt the traditional wool auction system has lost its status as the main selling avenue for wool, and this has angered wool exporters.
But politics and turf protection garner little sympathy when the wool industry is in such disarray.
Wool's time has come.
It is a natural, sustainable product. The industry just has to get the supply and marketing structure worked out.