This podcast is brought to you by The Current. Ever wanted to sit down to a candid conversation with the marketing leaders of the world's biggest brands? The Current Podcast is your chance. On The Current Podcast, you'll find exclusive interviews with the experts and trendsetters who are on the front lines of digital advertising, and they always leave the adtech jargon at the door. Subscribe to The Current at www.thecurrent.com or anywhere you get your podcasts today.
This podcast is brought to you by AdRoll. AdRoll is a name a lot of advertisers are probably familiar with, a leader in high-performance digital advertising for 15 years. AdRoll is a brand you can trust to deliver strong ROI across display, native, and paid social campaigns in one platform. Get in touch with an account expert or create a self-service account at adroll.com today. That's adroll.com today.
Welcome to the Marketecture podcast. We have a really exciting one today with Rich Greenfield from LightShed. We're going to abandon our normal format of just an interview and then news of the week, and we're just doing news of the week because there's so much news. Eric, you must be pretty psyched for all this stuff.
Oh my God. So we are going to cover TTD's launch, Venta, the operating system. We're going to cover Comcast looking to spin off cable networks. We're going to cover MediaOcean buying Innovid and a couple more things. And I could not think of a guest to have here to talk about some of these like big moves in TV and streaming than Rich, who's just, you know, so deep in this. This is gonna be awesome.
Yeah, like Rich is, you know how some people say like, I've got a, I've got a, you know, a guy, I got a guy who does my roof or I've got a guy who does, who is my car guy. Well, Rich is like, got guys. Rich is like my traditional TV guy, you know. Um, so we have some pretty big news. This is the 99th episode of Marketecture, which means next week is the 100th episode. Woohoo! Um, very exciting. Um, we are publishing on Tuesday of next week before Thanksgiving, and we have a special guest for the 100th episode, Michael Kassan, who is a legend in our industry, and he has Eric and I just laughing our asses off in this recording. It's hysterical, right?
It was so good. And apropos the hundredth episode, we have something special for everybody, and we're posting on Tuesday so you have time to listen to it before you spend time with the family.
Yeah, exactly. Um, and one other thing going on, which is on Monday of Thanksgiving week, I will be in my favorite place, which is the Virginia Federal Courthouse, um, where I'm going to be taking notes at the closing arguments in the Google adtech case. Um, so I will be posting, um, everyone's favorite snarky newsletter on Monday evening about what I heard in the final arguments, uh, in that case. It's not a decision, it'll be the final arguments, and then based on that, the judge and her clerks will come up with the decision we expect before the end of the year. It's a lookout for a special issue of the Monopoly Report newsletter coming out on Monday. All right, that's a lot going on. Let's dive in with Rich.
And we're here with Rich Greenfield from LightShed. LightShed is an investment research company and early-stage investors in startups. This is his second appearance on the Marketecture podcast, so he's going to get a purple blazer out of this. Rich, thank you so much for being here.
A purple blazer? I would just settle for a t-shirt. Maybe, you know, a t-shirt would be fine.
We're working on a merch store. We'll probably have more to say about merch soon. So we're going to mess up this format. We're not going to do our usual interview and then news of the week because there's so much news. We're just going to do news, news, news, and more news. Um, so Eric, you want to kick us off with the Trade Desk operating system?
Yeah, absolutely. And part of the reason why we're doing this is, um, all of the news that we're going to talk about this week is squarely in the sights of Rich in terms of his expertise around streaming and TV and the future of it all. So we'll start from the top. The Trade Desk announced Venta, a revolutionary streaming TV OS. So the plan here is to partner with OEMs and aggregators to give them a new CTV operating system. Um, the headlines from the announcement were basically two things. So first, they say it's going to be a better UX. Um, so if you've ever had that problem of trying to find something to watch because discovery is, you know, really crappy on streaming, like apparently they're going after that from a user perspective, and then obviously from an ads perspective, touting a cleaner supply chain, less hops, integration with OpenPath and UID 2.0. So let's talk about this, Rich. Apparently, you were very surprised that this thing happened.
Um, this was one of the worst-kept secrets in the advertising or, you know, TV advertising world. It's sort of shocking. I don't know why yesterday. I mean, it's actually interesting. Like, what was, like, why was yesterday? You know, I heard Jeff Green named Venta after, like, where, you know, he was from and all that, his kids grew up. I get that, but like, what was yesterday? Like, was that a kid's birthday yesterday? Like, I'm not sure, like, why it was unveiled yesterday versus six months ago or even a year ago. But look, it doesn't surprise me that everyone is trying to control the TV OS. When you think of sort of the power of the TV, the big screen device in the living room, it makes a lot of sense for everyone to want to control that, you know, the sort of center of your home media life. And we've seen big companies, right, Google and Amazon, obviously Roku in recent years, like lots of companies are trying to dominate the living room. The interesting thing is, like, this is not a new phenomenon, right? Like the TV OS world we've been, you know, living in with lots of TV OSs for a long time now. It's, you know, I remember walking the, you know, the trade floor at CES a decade ago, and you would walk around. I'm sure, Ari, you know, you probably remember this experience. You'd walk up to, like, Samsung and you'd, like, vomit how bad the interface was, and you'd walk over to LG and the remote control was horrifying, and then you'd walk over to Roku and you're like, oh, this is pretty easy to use, up, down, left, right with a purple button. Um, and like the simplicity was a huge advantage. But it's like, it doesn't surprise me that someone's trying to get into the TV OS space at all. Obviously, the interesting thing is, like, why now? Like, you waited, like, a long, long time to get in. That's what's really interesting, of like the why now for Trade Desk.
Yeah, I'll build on that a little bit, which is it does feel a little late. Probably if it was two years ago, it might have had a little more OEM excitement around it. But I think it's worth noting that if you think about on a global basis, the TV OS business is actually kind of fragmented. There are a lot of little OSs out there, a lot of little manufacturers out there. I think we covered a couple weeks ago that there was this deal where Tremor, which has a new name, Nexxen, I guess, has exclusive rights to data for some TV OSs I'd never heard of in Eastern Europe. There's like a lot of weird stuff out there in this market.
Yeah, so Sonos is the one that they keep bringing up as, you know, somebody who has an OS, which, you know, was somewhat surprising. But look, when you go back in time, we were beating up on Comcast, which also had some news this week, but we were beating up on Comcast for years. Why don't you buy Roku? Why don't you get involved in this space? Like, you know, you're so powerful in broadband, why don't you want to own the TV OS? And then finally, like, big lumbering company never executes quickly. Like, it's just not the style of legacy media companies. It's like finally a couple years ago they, you know, announced sort of the Xumo push and what they're doing with Xumo. So it doesn't surprise me when big legacy media companies are a decade late. It's surprising to see Trade Desk and people look at it and go, well, what is Trade Desk doing? How are they going to get any distribution? This seems silly. This seems like as silly as Comcast. But it's hard to think of Jeff Green and put him in that context of like he has to see something because I can't imagine he's okay just being an irrelevant player in the space. Like Xumo is not the market leader, and there's no clear... I don't have any clarity that's going to make me believe that Xumo is going to be a market leader. It's hard to understand why Trade Desk wants to be a small player in this space. I find it unlikely that, you know, someone like a Samsung is going to switch operating systems on its devices. I think it's more about the niches. I think it's more about muscling its way in, either to players like Sonos who may not have a strong investment in this area, maybe it's trying to convince someone like Comcast to use this instead of their homegrown one, maybe it's white-label TVs with some manufacturers. There's a lot of ways to kind of muscle in to get a couple percent share here and there. And also he has money to play with because if you just, you have to assume this operating system just monetizes better than other operating systems because that's why they built it. It's got UID2 in it, it's got contextual, it's got all this stuff that I'm guessing that's why they built it. So if it monetizes better, you have money, you have money.
But let's have a little debate, okay? Is he doing this to grow to be like, is this, you know, Roku has what, I don't know, tens of millions of U.S. households have a Roku, you know, device sitting in them. Obviously, some are dongles in second bedrooms, but there are tens of millions of Rokus that are sort of dominant in living rooms around this country. Is the goal to be Roku and to really compete head-on, or is the goal to get some first-party data, have a little bit of market share, not ever be a major player, but just have a lot of incremental first-party data that informs the auction, makes them that much stronger, sort like an AppLovin in terms of what they've been able to do by getting a little first-party to leverage it into what they do for third parties? Like, I'm sort of conflicted. Like, how bold is this? Like, is there a reason that this is there, or does he actually want to take over and dominate the TV OS space?
I think part of the goal is to get across the table from people who don't have an otherwise reason to get across the table from him. Fire TV, you get a meeting with the Fire TV people. We have, you know, let's just throw the number, we have 5% market share of TVs, and you want your Fire TV app on our system? Okay, great. What sort of resale rights do we get? That's a conversation they don't really have a right to have today because Amazon could just show them the hand and say, nope, sorry, we're a walled garden. So that's my thinking is get leverage on the distribution channels.
Okay, how do you make a better TV OS? When you think about discovery, you know, I think you mentioned the word already, discovery. I open up my Fire TV and it's got a row of Netflix series, but it doesn't have Netflix content interspersed with all the other content because Netflix doesn't allow that, right? Like, I guess the question is, is Jeff Green going to get a TV interface that allows him to do things deal-wise that nobody else can do? Because the problem with discovery is not a, I don't think it's a technology problem, meaning I don't think it's like Google doesn't want to do this or that. It is the programmers who are still dictating the rules.
Yeah, I think that that makes sense. I wonder if the opportunity to improve discovery X Netflix X Amazon Prime creates an opening for that, right? So it's like you take TTD, they're the champions of the premium internet, aka the open web. You know, is there enough on the open web of CTV, right, the non-walled garden CTV, where they can just, you know, create something that is the thing that sits next to the walled gardens? I don't know. I find it difficult to, you know, fully kind of say that credibly with a straight face. Like, is Google going to let them literally unbundle YouTube content and put MrBeast right next to Squid Game, right next to Citadel, like all of these shows? Like, if you can't do all of that, and if we're saying the top three or four CTV applications are not going to be available to unbundle and mix and match individual pieces of content, is better better? Like, I don't know, it just, that seems sort of hard to imagine to me.
No, this better product thing is just not even important. Like, they're not better UI, sure, whatever, maybe, maybe not, who knows, it doesn't matter. What matters is money. We're at a bargaining table and they have a chip other people don't have, which is absolute dominance, the demand for CTV. And so if you're, if you're LG, I don't want to speak for LG, I'm just saying if you're an OEM that has an ad business and you are in negotiations with, say, Amazon, all you really have is distribution. You're like, your app, it'll be front and center, you'll get distribution, and we want resale rights, and we'll do our best to give you a $15 CPM. Great. Jeff Green and team comes in and says, we have, you know, call it 10, 20 billion of liquid demand that we could point wherever we feel like it. So how about you give us better access to your data and we won't SPO you out of the ads business, or we will give you a certain amount of demand, or we'll guarantee a certain amount of demand. It's a large amount of money that he has on the table that other people don't.
And could a piece of it be, hey, Amazon Prime doesn't use Trade Desk today, right? He doesn't have the ability, it's a walled garden that Jeff hates. You know, if you can build up enough TV OS market share where Prime Video actually needs your access to your TV OS, does that open a larger conversation where you can no longer avoid us?
Yeah, there's also the financial advantage. It's built-in SPO as well. So let's say Sonos uses his OS instead of buying the Sonos inventory through Magnite, he's buying it himself and he has better data, so it monetizes even better. And it's part of what the Trade Desk has been doing over the last four or five years is sort of a federated walled garden. Like brick by brick, he's building the wall. He doesn't have the O&O that the other people do, but what he's doing is he brings in data like Walmart that's exclusive, so you can only really get it through Trade Desk. And then he does OpenPath, so he has inventory that's not exclusive but better, and more retail data, CTV deals, things like that. And it sort of becomes like a half-walled garden or a partial walled garden, and you have to use them.
I think we can sort of all agree, the three of us, that scaling this Venta initiative has real long-term benefits to Trade Desk.
Okay, so we're all, all three of us agree on that. Now the question is, that's all nice and fine and good, Sonos is not getting you market share. How do you do it? Right. Like, the question is, I can do it over a decade, right? You know, X number of TVs, sign up TCL, Hisense, and, you know, fight and be aggressive in retail and try to get onto endcaps and all. But like, it is a very slow, cumbersome, brutal process that has, you know, I mean, you're fighting Roku, Amazon, Google, Samsung, you know, at these retail stores. How do you do it? Like, how do you actually get, I mean, like I'm saying, how do you get 5 million, let alone 10 or 15 million devices in the next few years? And also, what's the effect on the stock price when you start investing large amounts of money in either marketing or distribution or whatever it is in advance of revenue, which is not a pattern that's been the case for that stock previously?
Data point you asked about, Rich, the Roku households, it's 85.5 million as of a global number. That's a global number, and it does include dongles. So it's a big market. And I think, Ari, you answered the question with respect to how do they get distribution. It's wielding their number one asset, which is all of the CTV demand that they have. And, you know, barring contracts with OEMs and platforms that just have penalties or kind of long-term agreements that we don't know, this could just be about using the demand to help accelerate their path to distribution. I could see a straight-line path to it.
Yeah, it could also be a global strategy. You know, there could be more. We don't know what's going on inside the company or inside Jeff's head. But this could be real for Jeff. The real money for Jeff has to be U.S. ad dollars.
You would think so, yeah.
I mean, at least U.S., Europe, I mean, at least developed Europe. Like, yeah, I don't know. I just, is there anyone they could partner with? Like, does LG really want to be in the TV OS business? Like, you know, I know Samsung's built an interface. Like, are there players that go, like, why are we actually in this business? Like, are we actually good at this? Is this a good use, or is there a better way? And look, it is interesting how much Jeff has focused on throughout his whole business model on being conflict-free. And there's no doubt when you open up any of these devices, they always preference their own content. I mean, Netflix certainly preferences the content it owns, right, in the hero image when you open up the Netflix app. You know, when you look across any of the platforms, Roku channels, obviously, you know, promoted pretty aggressively in the, you know, Roku Sports Hub or whatever it may be. They promote all of these things and use up home screen real estate and menu real estate. It'll be interesting when Trade Desk says they're going to be fully neutral and just serve the customer, what does it end up looking like? And does it actually lead to, because I think this will be the interesting, does it lead to better and different engagement than what you're seeing today? Like, right, I don't know.
Well, let's thought experiment once again. Let's say you're an OEM with an ad business. You're LG, let's say. The Trade Desk BD people come to you and say, swap out your OS for ours. We give you the OS. It's customizable. You can change the colors. You can change the priorities. You could promote your own apps. It's an OS. You could do whatever you want with it. So it's like the Android model. And it will monetize better throughout. We guarantee you every single channel on that app is going to monetize better than it did previously. And we're going to pay you $10 per device as a royalty for using our app instead of you paying a dev team to build your OS. We're going to pay you $10 per device you sell, and maybe also guarantee you a certain amount of media spend on your media business.
My initial knee-jerk reaction is you violated in the first sentence the first principle that Jeff's trying to get at, which is they don't want to prioritize content, right? Like the whole premise seems to be we're going to be, we're doing this to be neutral. And so I don't know if he would do a deal. I think it would be more of, hey, LG, we'll give you a cut of revenue, meaningful cut of revenue, but you can't, you know, get out of the FAST business, get out of that business because you're creating a supply chain conflict. Get out of that business and let us run it, and we'll just cut you a check because we're going to monetize better than anyone else.
I don't know about that strategy. I don't know if anyone cares about this supposed conflict of interest. There's a conflict of interest on the ad side, but I think on the content side, you know, I have no problem with having a Samsung TV try to get me to install the Samsung channel. It seems like a perfectly fine use of the system.
I'm not disagreeing with you, but I'm saying listening to Jeff, that seemed to be a very key piece of this.
Yeah, and also on the AdTech.God podcast, which was really good, he did like a little emergency podcast yesterday. The LG guy, I forget his name, the guy who was on the podcast from LG, he was like, Jeff, stop with this neutrality talk. It doesn't make any sense. That was the thing that really got up his ass. He was like, this neutrality thing, it makes no sense. Stop talking about it.
But that makes sense. He would say that. I can see this being an attractive proposition, also, you know, to take the other side of this, attractive to the TV manufacturer to be class.
Yeah, because how do you truly scale an advertising business? You have to scale it with people. You have to scale it with operations. So if they can have, you know, the best of an ads business in terms of the profit, in terms of, you know, all the things that TTD can bring to them, and, you know, kind of keep a core team that, you know, does high-level direct sales and account service, not only will you have probably a larger advertising business, but it'll be even more profitable.
It's a good point. I think we still have to get to millions of devices.
All right, let's move on. Let's talk Comcast. Like, we've beaten Trade Desk to death, right?
Yes. So Comcast plans to spin off cable networks. So some of the cable networks that were once the entertainment giant's star performers, like USA, Oxygen, E!, Sci-Fi, CNBC, and MSNBC, the plan is to spin them off. This is about $7 billion in total revenue, so it's not small. And this is clearly a move that reflects the general conversation we're having here, which is the future is streaming and CTV. What do you think of this one?
$7 billion of revenue, but let's just be very clear, in secular decline. Yeah, a melting ice cube. Yeah, really important, right? A melting ice cube, probably accelerating in terms of the temperature on the ice cube is being turned up. I'm open to debate on this, but I would assume there aren't many people on planet Earth anymore truly believe there's a way you could grow revenue out of those assets. Meaning you're not going to get more viewers, you're not going to get, you know, more advertising dollars, you're going to lose subscribers who are cutting the cord. Like, there is no obvious way to grow those businesses. And this is not a Comcast-specific challenge. This is whether we could be talking Paramount, we could be talking, you know, Disney's cable networks. Like, the one common theme over the last 18 months is everybody's trying to get out of cable networks. Like, sure, Jeff Bewkes sold his to AT&T. He was really smart. Rupert Murdoch sold the vast majority of his to Disney. One of the worst transactions in corporate history, one of, you know, really one of those terrible transactions was Fox. But from the standpoint of everybody else, everyone's now waking up going, we got to get out. Like, there's no way, we're probably running out of cost cutting, like how much cost we can cut, and the revenue keeps going down. And so you run into the sort of historic strategy of, hey, let's spin off this stuff we can't fix, and hopefully we can do enough M&A as a standalone to keep enough opportunity in the cost structure to create cash as this thing dies a slow, long, painful death.
Well, the exciting thing is that the spinoff then could become a sinkhole for everybody else's cable networks. So it could basically clean up the balance sheet of all the major media companies by just, you know, take Disney's channels and take, I guess, Paramount's, like Viacom or whatever it's called now. I can't even keep track of that. But like, you know, put MTV in this thing, put VH1 in this thing, just like keep pouring all these channels that no one under the age of 40 has ever watched into one giant company. And maybe there's some synergy, maybe there's some increased carriage fees you can get if you own every single channel on the dial. Could be creative entrepreneurship to make this thing melt slower.
It's hard because at the end of the day, you know, if you think about things like FX, it's hard when FX is so tightly integrated into Hulu. It's the reason why Bravo wasn't in that list, Eric, that you mentioned, is because Bravo is intimately tied into Peacock. ESPN, they're launching DTC and bundling it in with, you know, ABC or with Disney Plus and Hulu and creating sort of tiles inside of it. And so separating out these assets is difficult. Like Warner Brothers Discovery, everyone who's invested in Warner Brothers would love them to be just Max, HBO, and the studio. It's nice in theory, but billions upon billions of cash flow comes out of the cable networks, and very little cash flow comes out of studio and Max. And so separating these assets is not as easy as it looks. I would say Comcast, what I think people haven't focused on, Comcast is uniquely advantaged because the core of Comcast has nothing to do with basic cable networks, right? Comcast's balance sheet is all about broadband, increasingly wireless connectivity. Like, even video distribution isn't even, you know, a core component of Comcast anymore. And so sure, they have theme parks and they have studio. Like, the basic cable at $7 billion that you mentioned, Eric, call it a 30% margin, a couple billion dollars of cash flow, like, it's so insignificant in the Comcast story that spinning out that cash flow makes no difference to Comcast. And so it's very easy for them, whether it creates a good stock or not, they don't care at the end of the day. It's an easy thing for them to separate out. Maybe there's some M&A, maybe not. Maybe it just dies on its own. I don't, you know, like, we'll see. My guess is there will be some assets to pick up over time. Maybe not companies to buy, but maybe individual networks that people, you know, Paramount's talked about selling BET. Could WBD sell something like Food Network or HGTV? Like, I think there'll be one-offs that they accumulate. But creating a standalone company just...
To be clear, this is not a save to this business. It's just a, I'm tired of looking at this being a disaster. Maybe YouTube will buy it. They already are one of the largest distributors of the through YouTube TV. They get all the old archives. One of the funnier subplots of this is that the MSNBC network, which is by the way just like absolutely cratering after the election, they now have a name made up of two different companies. They have nothing to do with Microsoft and NBC. And there was some reporting that they may be forced to change the name of the whole channel. At the end of the day, these are not assets.
I saw the Nielsen chart yesterday or two days ago. The latest Nielsen gauge came out and the overall cable TV piece had fallen to like 23 or 24% of total TV time spent from 36 just a few years ago. And remember, we're in an election year, so if anything, like cable news has a really unnatural benefit in that October month. Like you think about, like we're probably now in the low 20s organically. I don't know if it's 21 or 22 organically, but like this is a really dramatic drop in just a few years. And it's obvious why, right? Like less people have cable TV, but all the best programming is now on streaming. People are getting more and more comfortable. We just talked about TVs, right? There's more and more content that I can watch. These, you know, we can debate how good or bad discovery on these platforms, but there is a lot of content to watch that doesn't require going into an MVPD or to your traditional MVPD to watch content.
And these channels, other than the Golf Channel, really just don't have a lot of sports on them, and sports is what's keeping a lot of traditional media alive. We're going to find out, is a little bit of EPL, SmackDown, you know, WWE SmackDown, and some news, is that enough to keep you alive? And the honest answer, I'll be honest, Comcast certainly believes it is, and I'm sure Mark Lazarus, who's going from NBCUniversal over to run this new company, I guarantee he believes it. And certainly there is no short-term deals coming up that is problematic, like they've done most of their deals. And so the timing of this is clearly timed for major deals are done. They don't have like 50% of their distribution up next year, but you know, over the next five years, is this enough to stay alive? I don't know.
This podcast is brought to you by Sabio, a leading CTV advertising platform purpose-built to help brands effectively reach, engage, and validate streaming audiences. For over a decade, Sabio's platform has combined deep industry expertise with innovative technology to meet the needs of an evolving media landscape. Ready to unlock the power of CTV advertising? Learn more at sabio.ws/podcast. That's Sabio.ws/podcast.
Okay, I want to jump to a new topic that is a little out of order, which is, you know, boxing on Netflix. Do you guys watch it? The Jake Paul night of boxing, it was painful. Not because my stream was technically challenged, it was painful because it was boring. It was very boring. As you know, combat sports are my thing, so you know that this was a big weekend both in terms of Netflix and then UFC 309 the next day. I was at 309, it was amazing. Did we learn anything on the business side about the Netflix event, it being live, making, make paid? I don't know what the budget was, $80 million or something was paid to the boxers. Rich, what's your take on it?
If 60 million is global, I'm saying if you look at the US peak was 38 million, global peak was 65. Let's just say similar discount from peak to average. If you believe like 35 million households turned on Netflix on Friday night between 11 and midnight, let's even say it was 20 million households. Let's just say the data is wrong, it's like less than that. What do you think the last time 20 million people turned on a television at 11:30 at night on a Friday? Like my guess is that like never happens. A point of view, never, ever, never. So the ability to, if I was sitting there at a league or any content platform and going and just looking at my social media feed the next day, everybody was talking about it, like either hating on it, taking pictures of their TV, right? We're talking like everybody was talking about it. I think that's sort of the wakeup call to every content owner of like, holy, the reach, engagement, and distribution creates an incredible opportunity to take advantage of.
And it wasn't just doing the live event on Friday night. If you notice, they had a three-episode like type of get excited, like the buildup episode series. Like they did a really good job of getting you excited and getting you into it, putting the actual weigh-in on YouTube. Like there was definitely a really good strategy. But I think everyone, not just sports leagues, should be thinking about like how do you take advantage of this massive reach. You know, if I was on the Netflix advertising team, I would have been saying, why the aren't we putting ads in this thing? I don't care about our tiering, it's a live event, put some ads in it. I think Netflix will move away from the black or white, you know, it's either tiered or it's not, and you get ads on the ad tier, you don't on the other. I think live will be the area where they cross the streams and start putting some ads. Obviously you're going to see that for football in a few weeks. But I would say the reason why you didn't see ads, and again I don't know anything, but I presume the actual reason you didn't see ads, Ari, is that ads adds another layer of complexity. This was by far the biggest streaming event they've ever done, and why add even more complexity in terms of ad serving.
It's true, it's true. They built their own ad server, and live streaming is the hardest problem in advertising. I can guarantee you that. Yeah, over at The Town podcast, which I listen to religiously, they're just hyping up the Netflix Christmas game like crazy. So they have a football game on Christmas. I think it's two good teams, maybe Kansas City and somebody, and they have Beyonce doing the halftime show. And it's just like if I was at a competitor, I'd be like, why the hell aren't we doing this? Do we not have enough money? Do we not have enough capabilities? Why are we letting Netflix just run the table here?
