Bloom and Webinger (2011) present an intuitively agreeable proposition: embedding topics within an engaging and meaningful context can promote many desirable learning behaviours and outcomes. As instructors, Fred Phillips, Nathalie Johnstone, and Brandy Mackintosh have seen this play out many times in their classrooms. Thus, in a sense, they were already believers when they started to read how Bloom and Webinger (2011) claimed the global financial crisis (GFC) provided an ideal context to use when exploring Intermediate Financial Accounting topics. At the same time, they were skeptical. Teaching is a complex and dynamic endeavour. Students differ. The knowledge and interests of one group are rarely the same as those of the next. Replicating a successful teaching experience requires careful attention to the variables that created the success in the first place. A clear delineation of these variables is especially important when attempting to transfer a teaching innovation from its developers to others who were not intimately involved in its development. The purpose of this Commentary is to consider how clearly Bloom and Webinger (2011) have articulated the processes by which positive outcomes are likely to accrue and to suggest additional guidance that Bloom and Webinger (2011) should provide. [This article responds to Robert Bloom and Mariah Webinger's "Contextualizing the Intermediate Financial Accounting Courses in the Global Financial Crisis" v20 n5 p469-494 2011 (EJ1109610).]