This is a TMT conference. Yes, but microphone technology is new and innovative. Thank you for joining us, everybody, for our next Fireside. We've got JB from Warner Bros. Discovery. We're going to talk about Max and a lot of the changes in growth over the last few years. So thank you for joining us. Happy to be here. On the earnings call, I think I wrote your quote down. It's a material inflection point this quarter. And I think you're referring to Max just really having a more sustainable profit trajectory, a more sustainable revenue growth trajectory. From a year ago, a lot has changed. And I want to talk a lot about the future of Max today. But maybe before we do that, if you could look back a little bit. It's been two and a half years, I think, now since the closing of the merger. You've been pretty busy over that time frame. So maybe just talk about some of the biggest things that have had to happen to get to where we are today. And then we'll talk about the future. Yeah. I mean, look, part of the reason why we see it as such an inflection point is when we closed in April of 2022, in that summer of August of 2022, we made our first public commentary around kind of the ambition and our beliefs on growth for the combined business from a streaming perspective. And one of the big things we said then, which is we were going to kind of leave the world of subscribers at all costs behind and move towards a, frankly, at the time, slightly revolutionary concept of profitable growth as being our North Star. And we also said we'd set out this three-year target of $20 billion of profit, roughly 130 million subscribers, and with an ambition over time to sort of be a top three global streamer as measured by profit engagement and scale, subscale, within three to five years of when we launched in any individual market. And frankly, at the time, we had that ambition. We had the belief. We had to figure out how to execute on that. And step one was developing a new platform that was robust, ability to scale globally, ability to perform in a stronger way than HBO Max's old platform had or Discovery+'s platform had historically, be able to actually generate and use multi-genre content, including live sports, live events, big entertainment, and that that would take 12 to 18 months to do. So a big part of that first chunk was redeveloping the platform, restructuring the organization, consolidating the two groups, and from a content and marketing perspective, getting much more analytical around what's working, what's not working versus the previous model, which was essentially keep everything, close all doors to everybody, keep everything on the platform, and put everything on HBO Max and hope it works, but saddle it with a ton of costs with not necessarily good analytics on what's productive. And the good news and what happened in Q3. And so between then, we'd done all that. We restructured. We rebuilt the platform. We realigned using better analytics and data, what we thought was critical in terms of the content offering, how we market. We came out in May of 2023 in the U.S. But we also came out in May of 2023 in the U.S. because we felt like we needed to get going. But we came out at probably the worst time from a content perspective in the U.S. All of our tentpole HBO series were out of cycle. We had just literally finished Succession right before we launched. We were moving from a world of three major studios and Pay-One titles to one, which was WB. And so we went from that to then a strike that further elongated and stretched out content offerings because we had to sort of move more stuff into 2024. So the first nine months of Max, from a content perspective, particularly in the U.S., were not strong. So we sort of muddled our way through it. And in intermittent quarters, we started to do profit but no growth. And then we did a little growth but no profit. And what I really meant by the inflection point, coming back to that, is Q3 was the first one where we actually delivered profitable growth. And as we look forward at the next several quarters, that's the moment where we saw this beginning of being able to actually deliver both of those things steadily, reliably on a go-forward basis after two-plus years of work, as you said. So I think you've talked about now two growth vectors to drive that profitable growth: content and international. I mean, maybe to start with content, to me, watching what happens with HBO and Max is a somewhat personal journey because I've had so much appointment viewing with HBO over the years. And recently, I was watching The Penguin every Sunday night when it came on. And I feel like a lot of my life has just been punctuated on what's on Sunday night on HBO. So that ties into, I think, what you've talked about, which is that you have to have cadence in this business. And with the strikes last year and maybe a bit of the just organizational churn of the merger, that cadence has gone through fits and starts. So can you talk about where the cadence sits today and how you feel about that cadence for 2025 since it's so important to the way Max and HBO runs? Yeah. I mean, and I'd define the cadence as multiple sub-sort of vectors. One is, obviously, when we got here, we had about four series that were doing bigger numbers, over 10 million viewers per episode basis average. And the good news is our biggest tentpole started to come back in rotation this summer with House of the Dragon. Two, we go into The White Lotus, which will come in Q1 in February next year. Then we go into The Last of Us in Q2. Then we have a new Game of Thrones series, smaller scale series that will come in over the summer. Then, as we look out even beyond that, we'll go into the third season of Euphoria, probably in early 2026 at that point. Then we get back into the House of the Dragon season three. And so we're now in a cadence of having at least two or three of our major tentpoles every year, which is one big reassuring point. The second piece is two years ago, one of the things, and credit to Casey Bloys, who's sort of my partner on the content side, what had happened in the original administration was Casey was doing HBO, and there was another team that was hired to do Max Originals. The reality is, as Max Originals, that team really was trying to sort of be HBO as well. And so they developed a lot of what I'd call prestige shows, things like Julia, which is a Julia Child series, very well reviewed, very nice. A lot of these young adult, more female-skewing things like Sex Lives of College Girls, which is on now, a reboot of Gossip Girl, Pretty Little Liars. But that was at a time designed where basically it was a little bit of a machine gun spray of, "Let's try and do everything." The reality is, at the core of the service, the service is something great for adults and families. And kids in particular and young adults, there's too many other offerings out there that are highly appealing and already have user behavior fairly well established. But that's one of the areas we said, "That's not a priority investment category for us." And so what you're starting to see now, and again, to Casey's credit, he said, "Look, I don't need more HBO, and we don't need to go into categories that are going to be very hard to dislodge behavior where people are already going to other services." So what we can do is we have one of the best IP libraries in the world. Let's mine that IP library because you have existing fan bases. You have lower marketing expense because people know what the franchises are already, and they're beloved and they're global for the most part, so that's what you're starting to see the fruits of starting this fall, which is The Penguin, obviously coming out of the Matt Reeves universe and the Batman universe, hugely successful. Dune: Prophecy, also coming on the back of obviously Dune 2 earlier this year and the success of that franchise. You're going to see an It series out of the Stephen King world. We're working on things like Crazy Rich Asians. We're in development on series like a Crazy Rich Asians series. Mining the WB library is a second vector, which, again, has already big installed bases of IP and fan love that will work everywhere around the world, which is a second helper. The third is some of it's just the basics and blocking and tackling of getting better at sequencing when we're releasing stuff. We ended up having a lot of, in the first kind of year, year and a half because of previous designs, bunching of great stuff for a month or a six-week period and then nothing for three weeks. We've gotten much better at the handoffs. You can just see it in this last four-month period between House of the Dragon in our big tentpoles, House of the Dragon going to The Penguin, going to Dune, going to The White Lotus, going to The Last of Us. Then we pepper in, obviously, new franchises, including things that we're experimenting, which will be really interesting, which we'll do coming in January, for example, on something called The Pitt, which is more of a procedural, think of it more like a broadcast procedural show that is a 15-episode series, which is way more than we usually do, obviously lower cost than a lot of the stuff we do, all about life in an ER. And it takes place a little bit like 24 back in the day on Fox, over 15 hours in an emergency room setting. And so anyway, we've got a great lineup coming over 2025, 2026. And obviously, as you look out in 2026 and into 2027, you begin a 10-year journey on the Harry Potter series, which we're super excited about. I'd argue maybe the biggest event in the streaming entertainment space ever by the time we get to that series. Is there any good way to think about how you're positioning maybe content spend on tentpoles versus franchise IP versus kind of new franchises? And I ask it from the perspective of, I think, sequel IP fatigue has certainly become something that media has experienced. It was great when you could replicate everything. Then audiences wanted to see new stuff. And I think now we're kind of in version two of, "Let's see some new stuff." So how do you balance those? I think, again, if Casey were here, he'd say two things. One is we think there was less about superhero fatigue and more about bad story fatigue. Fair. And so I think, yes, we're conscious. On the flip side is Marvel or arguably even Star Wars, but certainly Marvel in the Disney+ example, we look at it and say, "We've learned from their mistake. You probably don't need, for that fan base, you don't need four series a year or five series a year. Probably two is sufficient." So in the DC world, if you look at, we're releasing Creature Commandos, which is an animated DC series that sort of kicks off James's new DCU. We have Peacemaker. We're working on a Green Lantern. But we think probably kind of two DC series a year is probably plenty. You don't need four. You don't need five because that fan base is already pretty rabid and on the platform. And so I think that's how we think about the DC franchise. The HBO side, again, we have a pretty good sense that the HBO passionate cohorts, and we've now looked at this through our own customer segmentation, the volume we have now and we have had historically is good. Where we're trying to figure out ways is to the people who are slightly more serial watchers who come in and out a bit more is what is it else that we need to give them? And that's where these other standalone IP is. And one of the advantages we think we have, again, this is not to say anything Disney is incredible in so many ways, but their lanes are narrower. Our library of IP, there is no definite connection point between an It, which is obviously a horror franchise, and a Crazy Rich Asians, which is a comedy franchise, and a Matrix. And so the breadth of what we have to offer, you have much less of the fatigue risk you're talking about when you look at the way that we can mine our library versus others. Right. Second driver that we'll talk about is the international rollout, so I think Max was in 65 markets as of Q3. I think you're launching in seven markets, roughly in Southeast Asia, right around now, if you haven't already. We did. And then more to come, I think, Australia and others. I know every market is different. The go-to-market strategy is different in each. At the beginning, you just talked about profitable growth as kind of the new North Star for the business. Historically, it's looked like it's been tough to have a lot of profitable growth and new market launches concurrently. So how are you balancing that? Or maybe a better way to ask it is, what should we expect in terms of the impact on whether it's subscribers, revenue acceleration, profitability impact, those sorts of key metrics? I think a couple of thoughts. One is, you're right. Part of this international growth story is we're just in the early innings of it. So you're right. We were in one market, which is the U.S., as of the end of last year. Beginning of this year, we launched LATAM. We launched a number of markets in Europe. And then just a couple of weeks ago, we launched in Southeast Asia and Hong Kong and Taiwan. And so we're now at 74 markets. We look at the addressable market of broadband households in terms of markets where Max is available is about 350 million broadband households. The total opportunity in terms of markets that we can get to, if you exclude, obviously, China and Russia and even India, which is a different animal, we measure is around 650. We still think we have about 300 million, almost half the addressable market still to get after in these international launches. That's why we are big believers that we're in the early innings of a big international growth opportunity for us. If you look at our penetration in the markets we're in, which today is probably a little less, around 30% or a little less than 30%, that we've got a big opportunity over the next couple of years. In terms of the profitability portion to your comment, I think in the old days, and this is where we're just trying to be smart and pragmatic about how we launch, the view to start from zero, go only direct to consumer, and build from scratch had a very negative profitability profile. You ended up going from high-margin licensing businesses to very loss-making DTC. Our approach, and we've seen this in a handful of markets now, including France, which is our first new market that we launched since Max's existence, is we do a combination of distribution paths to market. A, partly just to be smart about the economics. B, we realize it's 2024, 2025. People's behaviors and usage, it's harder and harder to get people to try out these new products because they've been habituated by others. So we want to get the product in the hands of as many people as possible. So we do a deal where we launch on direct-to-consumer ourselves. We launch on Amazon PVC, who is also a partner who can get us in front of more customers. We launch on Canal+, which is the big pay-TV operator in France. And boom, you're in front of millions of fans day one as opposed to starting from zero and building. And so the economic profile, the benefit of that is the economic profile is not a cliff that you then start to rebuild from, but in some cases, is a gradual drop that you can go, or in some cases, it's not even a drop. It's sort of you're able to actually manage a much more continuous curve of profitability. And that's the game for us as we look at all these different markets, is trying to figure out how to get to market faster. Don't do it by creating this cliff, but ultimately smartly by accessing multiple go-to-market paths, make it a much shorter investment cycle. That's going to be a good segue because I think you've talked about three big European market launches in 2026 based on this discussion, things you just mentioned. I don't think France is one of those markets. France launched this year. Right. Yeah. So. On the other three. So the other three. No secrets, sir. And Sky has built a big brand on a lot of content that is synonymous with Max and HBO. So you have a complicated distribution relationship with Sky. How do you think about continuing to work with them as a partner as well as accessing those markets with your own brand over time? Look, I think it's to the point of the conversation we just had. There's a lot of opportunities and there's proof points we have already done with distributors who are our partners in the linear, in the licensing world, where we've effectively been able to manage both a D C presence and a partner presence. And so the same could be true with Sky. They obviously have a big installed base. Our content is critical to them. But there's also great alternatives. I mean, Amazon is big in that market and certainly eager to be more and more aggressive in that space. So, look, time will tell, but we don't look at it as in the old model. I think people would have looked at it and said, "Okay, you have to pull all your content off of Sky and only go direct to consumer." And that's where you end up in this cliff and rebuild. That's not necessarily the case. And particularly when they have obviously a big established installed base with a lot of our fans, there are very collaborative ways we can actually work together, as we've proven we can do with people like Canal, Telefónica in Spain, Claro in Brazil. And so there's a lot of different options. Is that kind of the world we live in today where there are no bad distribution deals if they're incremental? I mean, I look at what's going on, and I think you have partnerships with Disney and Hulu, Amazon Channels, DoorDash, the new Warner Bros. deal with Charter certainly includes Max as well. In all of these cases, there's customers who may be paying you a higher ARPU directly, and then there's going to be a lot of customers who now have access to the product that wouldn't have otherwise. So you mentioned that once upon a time with Sky, many of us looked at it as it needs to be one or the other, right? You go to market directly or you go to market with a partner. All those waters seem much more muddled today. What does that mean for just expanding the revenue base? I think we look at it as largely three variables that matter as you think about those. Obviously, ARPU matters. And so there's no question, obviously, if you go direct on a retail basis, it's generally going to be your highest ARPU customers, but it's also going to be your most expensive in terms of your SAC and your churn profile on those customers. So ARPU matters. And as we think about partnerships and deals with third-party partners, a lot of the discussion is, how big of a discount do you give off a retail price to make it attractive? The second is obviously the LTV assumptions in that, which is how do you think what is the churn profile of an existing subscriber like through a partner that has probably lower churn than you would have on a direct basis? And how do you measure out that ARPU versus retention benefits of those subscribers? So we look at those two. And then the third is sort of growth because the other thing that happens sometimes in those wholesale distribution partnerships is there can be sort of caps on your growth potential, either because of pricing or because of their own bases. And so it's trying to make sure you don't end up in a captive situation where your growth gets capped somehow. But we found, again, this is not a theory. This is a practice that we've done. There are absolutely ways in terms of the negotiations that you can have with those partners to be able to manage effectively ways to get all three of those. The only other consideration I'd say is we are conscious that you want to be careful of doing a variety of partnerships, but at some point also, we are a premium service. We're a premium brand. We don't want to be to a point where it sort of looks like you're everywhere, including the dollar store. And so I think that's the only other sort of more strategic trade-off that we think about. Maybe switching gears to advertising. So advertising, I'd say Max as a service is in an earlier stage than some of the peers are in terms of when it was introduced, technology that you've integrated into it. Maybe to start with the first, what I think of as the building block for AVOD, which is what are you seeing in terms of engagement on Ad-light versus your ad-free service? And then maybe we can talk a bit more about monetization. Yeah. I mean, you're right that we are up until this year, we had an ad-supported SKU only in one market, which is the U.S. And in the U.S., it was relatively recent because it was within the last three years that it was launched. And remember, it was launched off a product that historically, as HBO Max brand would tell you, people are used to it thinking about it as an ad-free experience. So you measure all those things up, and I'd say, yes, we are definitely in the earlier phases of that evolution. We've now rolled out an ad-supported SKU in a little over 45 markets around the world, all of LATAM, a handful of European markets. We don't see the opportunity right now, certainly in the Southeast Asian markets. We're not rolling out an ad-supported SKU because we don't see the premium digital ad market as being vibrant enough yet. And so we look at that as a whole new growth opportunity. The engagement numbers are good. Our ad load, generally compared to some of our peers that have been in market longer, is still lighter than most. And there again, from a growth opportunity, we see three or four different ways that we continue to grow there. Obviously, there's just that is the SKU that we are leaning into, particularly in more mature markets like the U.S. because of its lower price point. So a lot of these partnerships with the DoorDash or others of the world is with the ad-supported SKU because it enables a lower price point, entry price point for consumers. We know that's where in markets like the U.S., we need to penetrate further. There's just generally penetration growth that'll come with that. There is further engagement opportunity in terms of driving higher engagement. Part of that's product-driven, which is another separate growth factor for us. We spent a lot of time improving the product, but we went from not good to good, but we haven't yet gone from good to great. We have a long roadmap of feature improvements that will continue to drive in that direction. Engagement will improve. Our ad load is still light compared to most as we're averaging sort of closer in the three to four or four to five minutes for most, where some are in the high single digits already. Our ad formats and our ad tech stack, as you said, we've largely built and we made some small acquisitions to help us do this, to build some of that technology in-house, enabling us to actually iterate faster, but some of the ad formats, we just released shoppable ads just literally before Thanksgiving, which we're seeing some early great success with brands like Wayfair, and so ad formats are another way, and then obviously, we continue to be a driver of price. Naturally, with Max and with HBO as a content category and a brand, we want to be at the premium end of the pricing, and so we want to continue to push price as we go as well. Yeah. With so much appointment viewing, I imagine on the service, has that enabled you to get a premium CPM? Do you have any sense that you can talk about as to where you think you sit versus peers in the market on a pricing standpoint? I mean, again, I know this is going to sound self-serving, but I think based on all the data we said, we do sit at the premium end of the industry. And remembering that up until now, also within HBO content, current seasons and current series, certainly current seasons of current series, we still are only doing. There's no mid-rolls. These are only pre-roll sponsorship. And those are selling at the most premium prices in the industry where people want essentially 100% share of voice on premium properties. We're doing great integrations with brands. We did a big promotion with Cadillac. And these are also premium brands that want to be associated to the most premium brand in entertainment, which is really still HBO. In this drive to profitability, I don't think you've said too much on password sharing at this point. Do you think that's a meaningful opportunity? I do. I mean, the thing we've said is that we will kick off literally in about a week some very early gentle messaging, and this will happen to like all things. This is an art and a science of trying to figure out who is actually sharing versus who may be actually at their vacation home or on a business trip, and so it's an art and a science to try and tighten the filter of who's in there. We'll start some early messaging to people who we think are definitely in the higher tier of usage. Now, we will offer a way to essentially add a member starting in Q1. We will then start gradually, as we get the data and start figuring out with some explicit and implicit signals, whether how good we are at detecting. And then as we go through 2025, you're going to see the filters get tighter and tighter. We think that's a meaningful growth driver, likely more and sort of begins to kick in in the back half of 2025 and into 2026 even. It won't be Netflix. We haven't been in the market for 15 years. Right. Encouraging everyone. Encouraging everyone to share passwords. So I don't want to oversell the scale of it, but it is a meaningful growth driver on subs and on revenue in, as I say, I think probably beginning in the back half of 2025 and into 2026 and 2027. Cadence of price increases, at least in mature markets, is that something you feel like you need to approach with regularity at this point or more as the content swells? Yeah. I mean, I think we've done a lot of work. That's another piece of the efforts we've done over the last year and a half as we rolled out Max, which is we feel like the product was underpriced. And frankly, there were some just poor pricing decisions done by the previous administration that we are getting out of and we have gotten out of. We're not doing anymore, and so we reset the price. We want to be competitive. We think we may be, from an entry standpoint, slightly under Netflix in certain places, so we do look at them and others in the market as sort of those benchmarks, but we want to be viewed as a premium product. We are a premium product. I think on the cadence of it, we don't have a set model, but I think generally it'll still probably be in this 15, 18, 20-month, 24-month max kind of timetable where we'll constantly be evaluating whether we need to move price again. And then on profitability, so for 2025, I think initially the guidance was around $1 billion in EBITDA. Then it was above $1 billion. Now it's meaningfully above $1 billion. What does meaningfully above a billion mean to you? We've asked the IR team to give us a quantification of meaningfully above. While that's been elusive, I mean, I think what I'm curious about is just what's gotten better in the business, number one, that's given you that confidence. Then to the other piece, I know HBO Linear is within the segment. Presumably, all these international market launches are a drag on the P&L. It would imply to me that Max domestic is getting to some pretty healthy margins. So that's another one we'd love to unpack. Peter, you have to throw something at me depending on what I say and what I can and can't say. But here's what I'd say is, A, I'd say at the overall level, there are several regions and several markets that are profitable. It's not just the U.S. So, A, that's a positive. To your core question of what's changed, I wouldn't say it's so much changed as opposed to certainly our core, forget about content for a second. Our core cost base on the tech and infrastructure side, there certainly will be more investment in the product, but there's also cost productivity coming out of a platform migration. We just finished, I mean, we had an old HBO Go platform still in Southeast Asia that we just deprecated. Oh, I remember HBO Go. Yeah. So that's a so there are savings. As much as there's investment in the product, there's also equal amounts of savings coming out of better AWS deals, better leverage, all the things that we did over the last 12 to 18 months in terms of squeezing the cost base. So you're starting to get some price advantage. As you're bringing in incremental revenue, more of that money is dropping to the bottom line on the core product efficiency side. On the content investment, again, a lot of the work we did over the last year and a half and all the stories about at the time we did finish the purchase accounting of cleaning up content that we think wasn't working. We've gotten the content offering to be more productive. And then the globalization is just bringing in. Look, this is why it's a scale business and why the global matters, is we're bringing in incremental revenue where it is driving more profitability. And through the partnership conversations we were having earlier, trying to do it in ways that ultimately don't require you to take a big hit when you launch. And things like the reset on pricing have helped bring in incrementally more margin on a per-subscriber basis. So all those things are the helpful where the tailwinds are starting to kick in. In In terms of the regions overall, what meaningfully means, what meaningful means, what significant means, you're the analyst. You didn't tell me what that means. But I guess the point is more what I'd say is back to where we started. In August of 2022, so two-plus years ago, we put a stake in the ground, frankly, only five months into the deal saying $1 billion of profit in 2025, when we were losing $2.2 billion that year, just to be clear. And I think as a company, we've gotten a lot of maybe sometimes deserved it, but about overpromise, under-deliver. The reality is this is where we've done the opposite, which we've promised, and we've not only delivered, but we've actually outperformed what we said we were going to do and will outperform next year what we said we're going to do. So how much of that outperformance over the $1 billion, I don't know. I think we feel really strongly and really good about the fact that this sort of ambition we set out two years ago, we are coming to the end of the second year of that three-year ambition, and you'll see it in our Q4 results with a very good tailwind. Yeah. Maybe just lastly, so I think investors and I feel like DTC has turned this corner to the point you just made about what you're now delivering. I think you also oversee the games division. Gunnar on the last call talked about this is one of the parts of the studio that is an area for improvement. What inning do you think you're in in terms of making those improvements by focusing on the franchise IP at the games division? And kind of how much time should we reasonably expect to reposition this? I think it's kind of a three-chapter. Obviously, the games business is the longest cycle business I think we have, even longer than the theatrical business, so its real roadmap is measured on a three- to five-year time horizon plus as opposed to a one- to two- or three-year time horizon. This business historically, prior to 2023, had an incredible, frankly, 8- to 10-year track record of doing $1 billion, $1.2 billion, $1.3 billion of revenue and being a 30%-ish margin business pretty consistently. It then went into its best year ever in 2023, led by Hogwarts Legacy, and then in 2024, its worst year ever, so the bad news is this has really been a terrible year. We had kicked off, though, a year ago already a strategic refocus, which was really led by two key beliefs. Number one is they had diversified into too many IPs, too many franchises, trying to do too many things from a games type, and we said, "We got to get back to basics," and we said, "We're going to refocus." In the summer of last year, we said, "We're going to refocus on four franchises," and they're all billion-dollar proven existing fan bases, which was Harry Potter, Mortal Kombat, Game of Thrones with our Game of Thrones Conquest game, which is a billion-dollar plus mobile free-to-play game, and DC, but really focused on Batman, and potentially a few experiments outside, but if experiments, it'll be core characters or worlds like a Superman, not a Suicide Squad. So that's what we said, number one. Number two is we said we are historically too dependent on single-player console, AAA console games. We need to diversify into A, more mobile, and B, in the console games, move into a more multiplayer world because you look at the success, a lot of people, it's more social. People want to be engaged with their friends. And so that's the road that we're on. You'll see us next year, two out of our three big releases next year are mobile games. The multiplayer dynamic, that will take longer to develop. There are some live and live services games ideas that we have. And so that's sort of the two-pronged core franchises, diversify the base more into mobile and into multiplayer, not just single-player. That roadmap will take three to five years to fully execute. The flip side is we've had such a bad year in 2024. The good news is it will look much better in 2025 just by doing. Comps? The comps will look a lot better. Meaningfully better. Meaningfully better. The flip side is that profile of us saying sort of $300 to 400 million of EBITDA that the business had historically been kind of fluctuating in between. It'll probably take, particularly given this is a slate-based business. So the fact that the slate didn't work this year will hurt us a little bit in next year because we won't have a library of sales to keep kicking into it. The numbers will get meaningfully better, but we won't get back to that level of profitability for at least a couple of years. Then in the outer years, at the end of that sort of three to five-year time horizon, we think the opportunity is maybe even more significant. Great. Thank you, JB. Thank you. Thank you.