Okay, good morning, everybody. Omar Dessouky here. I am on the internet team at Bank of America. I cover five ad tech names, AppLovin, Magnite, DoubleVerify, Integral Ad Science, and Digital Turbine. And I also cover Take-Two, Electronic Arts, and Playtika on the video game side, and we do a lot of video game work as well. I wanted to thank Jessica for the opportunity to have Mike and discuss Magnite with him at this conference. So, we are a buy on Magnite. We recently upgraded, was it back in May? In May. Right. Right after the Netflix announcement, we're going to talk a little bit about the structural opportunity for Magnite for a lot of media investors who may not be familiar with this name. So Michael, what's the first thing investors should think of when they hear the name Magnite? So, thanks, Omar, for the opportunity. You know, ad tech can be complicated, as we've talked about before, and I think that one of the easiest ways we try to position Magnite, and I'll get into a little bit more details, but I think a lot of people are familiar with a company called The Trade Desk, and they're by far the leading demand-side platform in the advertising tech area. And they service advertisers who want to buy programmatically, and that's how they get paid. And we are the leading independent supply-side platform, or SSP, and we work with publishers who want to take their inventory and sell it to someone like a Trade Desk or the marketers that are behind Trade Desk. We'd love to be their size. We'd love to put up the quarters of success they've had, but I think that the consolidation is just occurring a little bit later on the supply side, so on the publisher side, and I think we're incredibly well-positioned to be that company for publishers. What is that company? We work with all the leading global media companies. We interchangeably use media companies, publisher, whatever you want to refer to folks in the that create content, and we work with them to help them monetize their websites, whether it's a mobile website, a desktop website. We work with them to monetize their podcast. We work with folks like CBS to monetize digital out-of-home billboards. But one of the areas that is probably most exciting about the Magnite story, and close to 50% of our revenue is, we work with all of the leading streaming players, whether they're new to the space or broadcasters that are adapting to the connected television space, and we are their programmatic partner of choice. So if you look at how early stages we are in the streaming, you know, consumers always outstrip ad dollars that chase them. So eventually, the ad dollars flow to where the consumer is. But when consumers adopt new media, like the internet, originally, it took five, six, seven years for the internet to get its fair share of the dollars. People were still advertising in newspapers because that's what they were used to. People are still advertising broadcast TV because that's what they're used to. It's always helped them sell Tide. Little by little, though, their core audience is now streaming, and very little of those dollars have flown, have come over. So you're talking about a TAM that is anywhere from, you know, $60 billion-$170 billion, if you look at it globally. And these dollars have always been out of touch for the kind of digital ecosystem because they've never flowed through internet protocol, and now they are. And so I think that's the real excitement about the Magnite story, is our position in connected television. Got it. So we're gonna double-click on CTV because I think that's really where the investment thesis is on the stock. You know, we upgraded the stock back in May, and, you know, increasingly, we've seen Magnite's name appear alongside dominant media companies like Disney and Netflix, you know, in business media. You've been public for around 10 years. What you explained, is that the reason why now is Magnite's moment to shine? Is it because this later consolidation and this later shift of consumer eyeballs and dollars into CTV? Yeah, I think that's true. I think, you know, we started as one of the very first SSPs in a predominantly desktop world, right? And we were the Rubicon Project, and then right around 2020 we became quite aware of the importance of connected television. It was a build-by-partner scenario. We threw partner out because it's too strategic. Build, we felt, was gonna take us too long, so we actually acquired a company called Telaria. And right after we finished that, and right at the start of the great COVID pandemic, another company came on sale, SpotX, that was owned by RTL, Bertelsmann, and we acquired that along with an ad serving company. And so it, p art of this ten-year journey isn't been this same homogeneous company. We really made a conscious effort to turn ourselves into this omni-channel, but connected TV first player, and it takes a while to integrate that. It takes a while to polish your offering, taking it to market. And I think when you see someone like a Netflix, who had the opportunity two years ago to pick a programmatic partner and then hire a bunch of ad salespeople that have experience, go through that process and say, "You know what? I don't think we have the right partner. Let's pick the right partner this time," and pick Magnite, I think it's a validation for us and the whole industry that says that is a leader. Yep, and definitely indicative of timing when you get such a big customer. So the BofA's Magnite investment thesis is really underpinned, and I can say this because we're representing our own views as BofA analysts. It's underpinned by premium CTV publishers and broadcasters going programmatic. So we at BofA estimate that, you know, somewhere around 80% of the ad spend through Magnite is premium publishers spending, and they pay a take rate of 5%-6%, we think. Now, the other 20% is FAST channels and I think some custom work that you do with a much higher take rate. Right. But can you talk a little bit about the value proposition? Why will programmatic auctions eventually become the dominant distribution channel for premium CTV inventory? Yeah, and auctions mean different things to everyone right now. So, auctions in the open web rate is the idea that you sift through trillions of impressions to find that mom with young kids and then bid on that in an auction format, where the publisher may or may not be aware of the type of ad that's gonna run on their site. But they really don't care because they have so much inventory on their mobile website or their desktop website. It's always gonna be quite different in connected television, especially with the premium players, because you have finite inventory. Even though we have a surplus of inventory right now, that really is just more reflective of all of the major services having an ad tier all at the same time, all going to market at the same time, during kind of a muted macro ad environment and, as we talked about before, a slow shift from broadcast to streaming. So yeah, we think that biddable is the only way the economics work on this. Because biddable means a couple of things. Number one, it means you're absolutely monetizing at the highest value. You're running an auction, and ergo, if that impression is more valuable to someone who, let's say, they're selling dog food, and they know it's a dog food household, they're gonna bid more than someone selling soda. And if you don't have that dynamic, you're always gonna be stuck with this kind of legacy up front, where, I don't know, $35 sounds good, CPM across the board. And so you have to take that unit and split it up a hundred different ways and having people bid on it so that I see a different ad in my room, in my study. You see a different ad in the family room because it's targeted to the user. It's targeted to their viewing behavior, and we are in so early stages right now that we're still doing the, "$35 CPM sounds good. Let's do it that way." So it's the only way it works because obviously, the economics are quite different. No retrans fees. Those days are over, right? And so you have to stand on your own, and the most popular tier, by far, is the lowest priced subscription tier with the most amount of ads for the consumer, and that doesn't look like it's gonna change anytime soon. So if the media companies don't start to emulate growth rates like tech companies, it's just not going to work economically. So I think it all points to that. Now, will it be the Wild West? What we're seeing a big increase in is invitation-only auctions. So in other words, I'm Disney. I've known these 500 advertisers forever. I'm gonna let 300 of them in an auction to go after this auction package that I've defined, which is, you know, moms with young kids that visits the Disney World. It's obviously a very appealing to a lot of folks, car manufacturers, and diaper salespeople. So in other words, they're invited to auction onto that audience segment. Disney knows the creative ahead of time. They know the advertisers ahead of time, and that's probably where you start to see it evolve quickly, and that is the invite-only auction area. I want to challenge you on this a little bit. Okay. Okay, so we're talking about price, I think, here. And, you know, I think, when we did research, sold direct and executed mainly is something like 50% of ad spend, in the industry. Those are our estimates. So, you know, what- I would say more. Okay. So you have a huge structural opportunity sitting in front of you if all of that moves to programmatic. But the industry's been doing it that way for a long time, and presumably, it's been economical, and it's in somebody's interest to do it that way. The sellers. Right. Okay, so, you know, those sellers still need to move on board with this other way of doing it. Why is the market efficient yet on the programmatic side? And, you know, do the market participants actually want an efficient market, you know, which is what is alluded to in an auction? Does an inefficient market through sold direct and executed manually advantage anybody that wants to kind of keep that advantage? Yeah, it advantages buyers, and buyers have a lot of power right now. So in other words, no one... if you're the buyer, the big ad agency, you didn't like the upfront schedule structure all that much. You felt as though it was pretty inefficient, kind of had a gun to your head. If you needed to launch a movie in Q4, well, to get that inventory, you got to buy this inventory, and it's all at the same price. Targeting, you know, maybe by show, but I won't even tell you the show. So, you know, the sellers had a huge advantage. I mean, name another business where your audience is declining 20% a year, and your CPMs are increasing 20% a year. I mean, that's a great gig. I'd try to keep it going if I were them, too. Right. But the simple fact is, if you looked at this year's upfronts – programmatic, programmatic, programmatic, programmatic. And what buyers mean by programmatic is, "Hey, I want targeting." I have clients that are questioning the efficacy of broadcast advertising. I need to come to them and show them that this works and it delivers, and how can I do it by continually spraying and praying and just hoping that, yeah, GRPs is the way to do it, as opposed to actually targeting specific households based upon their behavior? So there's this, never let a, you know, recession spoil a way to gain leverage from a buy side. They were using this tremendously in the upfronts to say, "50% of it has to be programmatic, and of that, we'll deal with 30% being targeted." But, yeah, there's a big sea change in terms of, where the balance of power rests. And you have new players coming to market. Again, Amazon was never a player in the upfront, right? Netflix never a player in the upfront. They're coming to market with a whole different mindset. Mm-hmm. I mean, let's face it, in upfronts because they're gonna be in sports, right? And that's makes sense for an upfront, right? Finite schedule, but, they're crashing the party, and they're much more automated. Just to be clear, I do wanna focus on kind of the most high-value content and the most high-value inventory. Is that what we're talking about when you make these comments? Yeah, I mean, it's a little pejorative, right? Because we always think of, like, oh, the shows that we watch, those beautifully produced $1.5 million episode shows, that's quality. Everything else sucks. But the reality is, if you look at some of the best-targeted inventory on the internet right now, it's coming off of the glass. So in other words, the Samsungs, the LGs, the Vizios, they have this ACR data that's awesome, that they know exactly what the household's watching. So if you are wanting to advertise a certain something that appeals to action movie folks, they can give it to you that, you know, a publisher can't. So it goes at a lower CPM, but when you decorate ACR on media that might sell in the low teens, it jumps to $22-$24. That's starting to be premium. Mm-hmm. You know, I think that we tend to not look at it as plainly as this is premium, this isn't premium. I think data is going to really help turn the tide on what you value as a marketer in targeting. Indeed. Okay, well, thanks for that explanation. So let's then maybe use a baseball analogy and talk about adoption a little bit. What inning are we in this transition, you know, for again valuable content, whether it's extremely valuable, you know, custom-produced by the big publishers, you know, or not? Is 2024 a tipping point? You know, I think that when you look back on it, when any kind of end-market or five-year estimate, and you look in the middle of the five years, you look back and you say, "Oh, wow, we've already hit that number." So I think that we'll look back on 2024. We'll look back particularly on 2025, I feel, because of live. So all the major sports rights all have renewed, and they all include streaming as a core aspect of it, right? And that'll be the story of 2025. When you look back on 2025, you're gonna be like: "Oh, God, more inventory for streaming," because right now we do have a bit of surplus of inventory, but it's gonna be the stuff that buyers have to have, and so they will shift over with it. As opposed to entertainment, where they're like, "Ah, yeah, you know, kind of works here." There's still a core audience in broadcast. You know, when the NHL can only be advertised through in streaming, I think it changes advertiser behavior, and it disrupts everything. So I would say, as you exit 2025, because of the tip of the spear of live, you'll look at that as the turning point. Indeed. Indeed, good point. Could you explain the significance of the Netflix partnership? You talked about it a little bit, but maybe go into more detail. Explain the significance of the Netflix partnership as an indicator of the industry's state of adoption. Yeah, well, you know, two and a half years ago, Netflix was a gold model for a streaming service. It still is today, don't get me wrong, but no ads ever, high price to the consumer so they can avoid ads, and growing up into the right. And if you recall, that's how Disney launched, that's how Peacock initially launched, trying to emulate the Netflix model. Quickly, they realized that. And even Netflix realized that in order to really make it work and grow globally, you're gonna have to have an alternative to $17, $19, $20 a month, no ads. And so, in a very fast period of time, the ad- tier became the workhorse, and so I think that that, to me, represents the biggest change period, that if we were still debating the efficacy of ads versus no ads, I think we'd be in a pretty tough spot. But now it's across the board that everyone agrees that the biggest ARPU that you're gonna get is the lowest possible price for the subscriber with as much ads as possible. Hulu's proven that, and they've been at it since 2007. And so, so I think that Netflix picking Magnite in a very thoughtful, deliberate, kind of RFP process, kind of validates what we've said all along, and that is we're quite differentiated. That's because of owning an ad server, because of owning a streaming platform, and because we have a very strong demand facilitation team that calls on agencies, DSPs, et cetera, and global, we're in every big, major market, that if someone like a Netflix wanted to go from zero to 60, globally, 13 markets are launching in, there aren't a lot of choices out there. And we found that it kind of validated our premise, and it also helped our other customers who reached out to us and said, "How'd you win the business?" We walked them through that, you know, Netflix is taking a little bit of this, a little bit of that, a little bit of this. We're approaching it very modular because we know that each company wants it so slightly different. I think it opened up a lot of eyeballs that they're like, "Wait, wait a second, I just don't have to use your full answer, or I can use components of it?" And so I think that that modularity approach is gonna be the story for us in the years to come, that people can work with us all sizes, shapes, because they don't have to take all of it, where some of our competitors is take it or leave it. It's can't be broken up. We're kind of built to be able to service different tiers of clients. Got it, and of course, you saw this coming in 2020 when you bought those companies. Yeah. Along with the pandemic. No, yeah. No, the idea was the SpotX was the interesting one because we thought we had enough with Telaria to be able to make a go of it, but when SpotX came on the market, we were like, "Wow, that would be game-changing as well", so. Cool. Well, so just again, telling the audience, where we at BofA are with our forecasts, we really have Netflix ad spending ramping in the second half of 2025. Again, that's BofA estimates. The company's made its own statements about that. Just quickly, like, what are the implications for other premium publishers' use of programmatic, you know, given Netflix's, you know, announcements? Like, how have you seen, you know, their actions filter down to the rest of the market now? Yeah, and I would, yeah, kind of lump Amazon into that bucket too, right? So, you know, overnight in January, Amazon became ad-supported, and it was their default. So, if you were a Prime subscriber, you had access to Amazon Prime TV, instantly, ads appeared, which is quite different from the way Netflix is doing it, quite different from the way Disney did it. And so instantly, a 170 million U.S. households, bang, had ads. So you talk about a surge of inventory, and the way Amazon's handling it is, it's very tech-forward, it's very automated-forward, it's very programmatic-forward. It's not talking out of turn, because Netflix has talked about they want to be more tech-forward. They don't want to try to emulate what the broadcast guys do, only up-fronts, that kind of stuff. And so I think the writing on the wall is that you got to be tech-forward, you got to be programmatic first, and you have to be open to the idea that your bread is not gonna be buttered by the same 500 leading national advertisers that it has been for the last 25 years. That 500 advertisers are gonna have to look like 15,000 advertisers, and how are you gonna do that? You can't hire salespeople- Yeah. ... to call on that, so you better be tech-forward so I think we're, you know, very early stages at that evolution, where programmatic is going to really be defined by this streaming opportunity. Sounds exciting. Okay, so let's talk about maybe whatever obstacles to adoption kind of remain out there. You know, why hasn't this happened already for the highest value inventory? And you kind of alluded to, you know, the definition of what high-value inventory is changing, you know, depending on whether you can find the right audience for it, because different audiences value different content differently, some high, some low. Right. So that's an interesting insight in and of itself. You know, you talked a little bit about the inertia, right? How about technology? Is there a lack of performant technology that has kept this sea change from happening, you know, or integrators for the publishers? Like, what are some of the obstacles? Just a general question. Yeah, I mean, look, at early stages of anything, you're gonna have some confusion. For instance, there was a way, you know, broadcast, for good or for bad, it worked, right? There were years and years and years of folks using markers like, you know, gross rating points to determine the efficacy of their campaign, and that they knew they were gonna sell that many more boxes of detergent if they hit that number. You can't apply that to streaming, and so right there, there's some breakage between the playbook of yesterday and the playbook of today. And of course, there was a, you know, general distrust of kind of a household panels to project audiences, and now you can do this in real time. And how do you take something like an iSpot and make it a Nielsen and make it the equivalent so that when you're running your broadcast campaign and your streaming campaign, you don't have two completely different set of numbers? So there is definitely a process by which the whole industry has to go to when something revolutionary like this happens. It's identical to when, you know, magazines went digital, newspapers went digital. There was a way to do it there, new way to do it here. Takes a while for it to settle, but ultimately, consumers have voted, right? Consumers have voted that they like the idea of not being encumbered by a cable package, that they like to get their media, entertainment, news in a streaming fashion because of the convenience, the price points, whatever the case may be, and advertisers need to reach those eyeballs, and so it's just a process by which the whole industry has to go through, and some of it's on the tech side, some of it's on the seller side, and some of it's on the buyer side. So let's for my last question, before I turn it over to Arthur, let's think about Geoffrey Moore's technology adoption curve, right? It's the bell curve, where you have early adopters and then the early mainstream, the late mainstream, and the holdouts. So, are there some customers where the status quo is just simply gonna be superior, you know, indefinitely, you know, and who are they? Well, listen, if you've been selling your own inventory, have a relationship with the buyer, and that's worked really well for you, you're not blowing that up tomorrow. That said, they're going to be going up against new entrants that don't have that worldview, that have a more flexible model, and that will be more appealing to buyers because they're able to do the targeting, and so I think absent of new entrants, like an Amazon, Netflix, you might be able to see status quo because it's such a concentrated group of media companies that could possibly say, "Nope, this is the way we're going to sell," but when you have global players come in like that, and these are all global, and that's the other thing. That was a very North American phenomenon, the whole upfront, right? Now you're talking about all these services in EMEA, in APAC, and it's different there, and so now you're going to have to adapt your strategy to a global strategy. So I think that you're going to see that curve as they become global, as new entrants come in. And the new entrants aren't just the household names that we know, Netflix and Amazon. It's, again, the glass guys: Samsung, LG, Vizio. Their strategies on how they go to market, the massive inventory that they hold, changes the market completely, too. Got it. All right, well, I'm going to turn it over to Arthur Chu. Arthur, introduce yourself, and I guess Arthur is going to talk about competitive positioning and the tech a little bit. Sure. Thanks, Omar. Hey, everybody, my name is Arthur Chu, and I'm an associate working with Omar at you know, responsible for BofA's video game and tech coverage. So Michael, maybe you could just dive into sort of Magnite's competitive position a little bit. In open web advertising, we think there are probably seven or eight scaled, sort of independent SSPs, you know, just outside the walled garden, probably tens, if not hundreds of smaller ones. But in CTV, it appears that the market is much more concentrated around, you know, just a few top players, like with Magnite being one of the largest ones. Maybe just for, like, investors who might not be as familiar with Magnite or, you know, just the CTV SSP ecosystem in general, how would you categorize Magnite's competitive positioning in CTV among the competition? Yeah, it's a great question, Arthur. I would say that, so we think-- we talk of our business in two buckets, right? One of them is DV+, which is the open web that you just described. It's an acronym not for DoubleVerify, which Mark didn't like when we came out with DV+, but it, Display Video Plus, so audio, digital out-of-home, everything that's not streaming. And when we say streaming, it's what appears on that big screen. It's not what appears here. And so. And then there's streaming, right? And on the DV+ side, you know, that's often thought of this kind of lumbering legacy business that's probably flattish, probably spins off a lot of cash and helps fund your streaming business. And it's anything but that. It's still in a kind of deflated ad environment. It's still growing in the high- single- digits. Last year, it grew in the double- digits, and there's areas of huge growth, whether it's mobile, as we talked about, whether it's audio, and then you have the mother of all opportunities, which is happening this September, and that's the antitrust trial for Google and their monopoly as it relates to that whole business, owning the ad server, owning the DSP, owning the exchange. I don't know what's going to come of it, but something's going to come of it. And if you look at how monstrous their share is, that even if it gets rattled and 10% of that share is up for grabs, given our strength in that marketplace, this could be an insanely growing business for the next couple of years. So very pleased with where we stand. And to your point, yes, because of the nature of how they like to sell publishers in that world, open header bidding, it used to be a world of 100. It's now, r ecently, Amazon's DSP, which is a fast-growing DSP, they said: "We're sick and tired of buying from a ton of exchanges. We're only going to buy from three." Yeah. And we were one of them. And most agencies are doing that now. And so little by little, that seven strong players is now down to three. And we love our position there because we're almost twice the size of our closest competitor. On the CTV side, we've always felt that that's winner take most, that you're never going to see that open Wild West, open header bidding. I don't care who advertises in The Handmaid's Tale. Who cares? It's money. So the inventory is going to be more precious, the avails are going to be more scarce, and you're going to, and a lot of the deals are going to be deal-based. In that respect, you just need one programmatic partner that'll probably do 80% of your business, and the other 20%, you kind of keep the guy honest, and you keep another guy hanging around the hoop. We're that player that's that 80%. It is a winner take most, and I think we're showing how you can be that player. Understood. So, yeah, so it sounds like your strategy is basically to secure your position as the dominant SSP, although there might be, like, other SSPs competing for, you know, some suppliers here and there. Let's talk about maybe the Netflix partnership. Obviously, that's the big news, you know, for the past couple of months. I think, you know, you've touched on it in your earlier conversation, which is, you know, you're seeing a lot of these newer conversations with publishers after the Netflix announcement. Like, people want to know, like, what Magnite could potentially do for them. How would you sort of, like, categorize these publishers? Are these, like, you know, sort of new publishers, new to programmatic? Are they using an existing solution, or is it just, like, existing customers of yours looking to expand or layer on additional services? Where do you see the biggest opportunity? Yeah, I think it's two buckets. One would be the latter, which you just described, because we have relationships with all the top players- Yeah. ... and because we're their preferred programmatic partner. Same-store sale growth is going to be very important to us. So more. More deals that they may have done over there that they're gonna do with us. More programmatic leaning forward, more use of our ad server, even if they have an ad server, like a FreeWheel, utilizing our ad server on top of it to do more sophisticated programmatic. So there's no question that that's going to be a big driver. But if you think about where we are globally, and we just announced a win in France, where the top broadcaster in France chose SpringServe, their programmatic ad server. Yep. In Australia, every one of the major Channel 5, Channel 9, all the major broadcasters use us right now. They're- they've always been quite advanced. You know, contrast that to the U.K., which is very slow to adopt programmatic for a lot of the reasons we were talking about, the legacy reasons. They have three TV stations that dominate the landscape. Why are we gonna do anything to screw that up? They can't control it anymore because Disney+ has now launched in the U.K., Paramount's launched in the U.K., Netflix has launched in the U.K. It's rattling the international, which used to be a very collegial tight. That's gonna happen in Germany, that's gonna happen in France, that's gonna happen in the U.K., and all of those publishers are gonna need a programmatic partner. We think that the Netflix win not only provides that halo effect for same store, globally. It's gonna have a big impact. Got it. Got it. And I think, you know, you mentioned FreeWheel, that's one of your competitors. I think Google is, you know, sort of playing in the CTV SSP space as well. I think one of the differentiations that you guys have always talked about that distinguishes, you know, Magnite from its competition, is this idea of having a CTV-first tech stack. Would you mind just explaining to the audience, like, what does it mean to have a CTV-first tech stack? How is it different from some of the other solutions out there? Yeah, I think a lot of it's just kind of timing and vision of the companies that we acquired. But, you know, FreeWheel is a heck of an ad server, and all the broadcasters use it because it was born in, you know, two thousand and eight, two thousand and nine, when all the broadcasters had abc.com, right? Yeah. Now they're doing programming on their website, and they needed an ad server that wasn't like DoubleClick. Right. ... that was specialized in video ad serving. But ad serving on the internet, on a website, is quite different than ad serving on a streaming channel on a flat screen. And we were just fortunate enough to start building technology when streaming came of age or was nascent, and acquired those companies that built that technology. So it's really purpose-built. It's built for streaming. If you wanted us to handle website traffic and video on a website, we'd suck at it. But likewise, they're having a really difficult time taking this huge enterprise software and dumbing it down and making it smarter for programmatic, you know, a TV manufacturer. And so I think we found this incredible green space, greenfield, where we've been able to take our products that are purpose-built, light touch, quick integration, easily self-serve, that quite contrast quite greatly to GAM or to FreeWheel's product. Got it. So I think what I'm hearing from you is that streaming is very specialized, so it requires specialized infrastructure. Maybe just for my last question, because we're right on time. You know, the competition that you have is, you know, Comcast and Google that we're talking about. These are like 500-pound gorillas, right? They have massive amount of resources. What prevents them from, like, replicating the technology? Is it technical challenges? Is it the market opportunity that, you know, they have a lot of different market opportunities, they might wanna prioritize the resources? Like, how do you think about that? Yeah, and keep in mind, too, that they're both owned by big media companies, and there's this reluctance necessarily to work with them, largely because any money you're giving them, you're feeding your competitor, and making them stronger by taking their tech. I would say nothing's impossible, but I would say I think what we have built is quite defensible. It's created the moat, and it wouldn't be just easy for them to roll out of bed and build the same software, and the switching costs are immense. Right. ... once you get a client up and going, and keep in mind, it's not either/or. Particularly if you have- 'Cause everyone else uses, all the broadcasters still use FreeWheel. It does things extraordinarily well. Yep. The one thing it doesn't do extraordinarily well is programmatic for streaming. And so we become that module that snaps onto FreeWheel and does the programmatic streaming. So we don't have to rip and replace. You're never gonna read a press release that says, "Magnite just won, you know, the NBCU business and ripped out FreeWheel." We are more than happy to work alongside them. They do what they do well. We do programmatic streaming exceptionally well. And, you know, I think it's very complementary, and it works for the publisher. I understand. So it's low, low cost onboarding? Yes. Cool. Omar, I think we are right about time. Do you wanna open for other- Yeah. We have seventy seconds. Any questions? DJ? Hey, you got me on the spot. Yeah, exactly. I walked in thirty seconds. All right. Well, Mike, thanks, so much- Thank you, Omar. Appreciate it. ... for speaking with us. We look forward to working with you, and quite an exciting structural opportunity ahead of Magnite, which we're closely following. Outstanding. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate it.