Broadcast Strategy, Paramount/WBD deal explained and the Cost-Cutting Trap

Speaker 0 · 0:01

Hello. Welcome to Media Unfiltered podcast. I'm here as ever with Ian Whittaker, and it's an interesting one this week because I'm actually on holiday in Maui, which is absolutely lovely, but we're still doing it. We're dedicated to it. So this week, very much gonna be leaning on Ian as he's had his ear to the ground. He is still working the streets, and he's got a lot to say on various updates in the market. So last week, we had an excellent podcast with Justin Sampson, who's the current CEO of Barb. Had quite a lot of feedback from that, Ian, actually. A few TV companies from around the world got in touch with me and said they really enjoyed, Justin's view of the world, but they are also thinking, what's the point? If so much money is pouring out of non regulated and transparent networks that jigs and mocks offer, why bother? It's an interesting point of view, isn't it? We had that I've had that from a two different, broadcasters from around the world. Do you think TV should just not bother? And based on what Justin said last year sorry, last week about having a trusted institute, if you like, of counting, do you think it's really worth all the bother if if, advertisers are voting with their wallets?

Speaker 1 · 1:15

Well, look. I mean, yeah, a couple of things first to say. I mean, first of all, I'm not in Maui. Wish it was, but, anyway, in sort of London. But never mind. Never mind that. I thought that was getting back to the topic, I thought sort of Justin was excellent last week. So the, Justin Sampson, obviously, yourself as well. And I thought that he made his points in a very, very sort of measured, but absolutely correct way way. I mean, in answer to that question, should broadcasters bother, the answer is absolutely they should bother. I mean, if you look at what is happening in terms of the general trends within media and tech at the moment, particularly with the visor of AI, trust and verification are never gonna be more valuable sort of than in the future. And for the broadcasters, one of their strongest defenses about losing significant share to other platforms will be the trust that they actually provide to advertisers. And a key component of that trust is that you have a measurement system that has been developed over several decades and also as well has been adapted to change. I think this is an important point. You know, often we look at these things and think, well, actually, you know, is it outdated? Absolutely not. I mean, yes, things are changing the way the audience is looking at things are changing, but that doesn't mean that, essentially, the system can't change as well. And to go to the idea that effectively you should get rid of an independent measurement system, and in effect, rely on on what sort of all the players in the market sort of tell you is is the state of play. Not only do I think that's a very bad idea, but I think advertisers very much would would rebel against that. I think one thing would say, and I think we may have mentioned it last week. One of the things that has been you know, there was an interesting thing in the Wall Street Journal article that came came out a few weeks back that was looking, for example, why YouTube hadn't been able to take significant show of TV ad revenues. One of the key points it made in the in there in the article was that, you know, CFOs, quite frankly, don't see YouTube as TV and therefore won't shift the budgets. And I think a core reason for that is implicitly, they trust TV. And on the key components, the key pillars of that trust is the measurement system. So, the short answer is, you know, the people who came back to you, I think what they should do is don't be so pessimistic. You know? Yeah. That's the that's the message.

Speaker 0 · 3:49

Yeah. No. And and I I agree with all that. The the challenge is that many of the broadcasters around the world are looking at ways of saving money. They're they're seeing the trend. They're seeing so much money being spent outside of these transparent networks, and they're wondering why bother. Clients do not hold digital to the same standard as television, so why should they pay so much money in order to build the systems that, Justin was talking about last week. Some other news as well, we we've talked a lot about the Sky ITV deal. Carolyn McCall just came out. They've had their results as well, which has come out in the Feet talking about how they're working on the deal. So it sounds like it is progressing like we discussed. Any update from you on that one?

Speaker 1 · 4:31

No. I mean, they had the results. Today. Yeah. They had the results. I mean, the results actually were better than expected, and and the guidance since 2026 was probably better than expected as well. I mean, they were saying that q one total ad revenue is probably down too, which ITV was saying was better than they're forecasting. But they were actively saying that advertisers are shifting spend into q two and q three around the World Cup. So it sounds though those quart those quarters will be will be a lot stronger. So I think from the overall business standpoint, actually, a decent set of results and also as well sort of good guidance, and the shares were sort of off the back of that. I think just in terms of what Callan McCall said, do bear in mind that in The UK, she had the interview with the Feet, and she said the the talks are actively progressing. Quite frankly, you're not gonna get anything else because Mhmm. Under the regulation, you know, under the rules, the law, you essentially you have to update the the markets when there's been a material change. So, yeah, I think what we can read from that statement is essentially talks are still progressing. My view is still the same as, as it has been is that, you know, I think that a deal eventually gets done. However, the key sticking point is the separation out of the studio's business from the broadcast assets, and that's, you know, that is quite a complex operation. And that will take a significant amount of time to probably do. There's one other point I'm actually saying. It also links back to what you just talked about in terms of the interview we had with with Justin Samson last week. In that, you know, I think this attitude of broadcasters and you you kinda sort of in the ITV statements as well, focusing very much on their cost savings. My view of things is actually the broadcasters need to start getting out of that mentality. Because when investors in the markets hear businesses talk about cost savings and talking a lot about the the sort of savings they're making, implicitly, it sends a message that those businesses are quite frankly in decline. And I would say that actually, you know, ITV and the broadcasting industry in general is probably in a better position than what most people think. And I think some of the argument now needs to switch from an emphasis on cost saving to actually saying, you know, well, where are areas that we can invest in? There's a huge amount of both legacy, current, and arguably future IP that sits within the broadcasters that can be monetized across different platforms and monetized in various ways. Maybe sort of of the way to look at things moving forward is to focus on that rather than give the message all the time and the amount of cost savings you make.

Speaker 0 · 7:18

Yeah. It's a good point. We're also hearing that a lot from the agency side of the business as well, which is odd because when you look at the overall media spend in advertising, it continues to grow. Yet we are constantly hearing about cost saving measures and what AI will bring and all the rest of it, and hearing that from media owners as well does make you sound it makes you sound defensive, and it doesn't make you sound like you're putting one step further one step forward and have confidence in your product. I agree with that. One other thing that's occurred in the last couple of weeks is obviously the deal with between Netflix, Paramount, and WBD. It's turned out Paramount have have won that bid. It's quite complicated what they've put together in terms of the the debt load against the asset in order to buy it. Can you explain that to our listeners? Because I don't fully understand it, and I'm sure you can I'm sure you can you can you can illustrate it in a in a very clear clear way for our listeners.

Speaker 1 · 8:17

I'll try. I'll try. You know, I'll make sure I don't get into too too jargon y for the finance talk. So, I mean, if you if you look at the the transaction value, it's approximately, let's say, $110,000,000,000. And in terms of the the financing structure, you know, what it looks like is that roughly half of that is debt. In terms of debt financing, you probably got another, you know, maybe 40%, roughly 40%, which is equity guarantees associated with Larry Ellison. Ellison Stanley, who's Mann's Oracle. And then you've got some additional capital that, you know, will come through the raising of equity and so forth. As a structure, that is actually it's not uncommon. Deals I mean, this is not a small deal. Yeah. A $110,000,000,000 is a very big transaction for the market. And one would say with this I think where there's perhaps been sort of a lot of too much focus on this is you're saying, well, you're gonna get the new entities gonna be over six times levered, and therefore, that what's gonna happen is that because they're so levered, they need to bring it down, and that will involve actually sort of massive amounts of cost savings. Now there's no doubt there's gonna be synergies within this within this deal. That's already been been talked about. But I think there's a couple of points that that have been missed here. One is that if you look at the financial backing for this deal, it's very strong. I mean, you've got Larry Ellison and Oracle, which is several $100,000,000,000 in terms of the market cap. You've also got financing of as well from several of the sovereign wealth funds in The Middle East. Here as well including Saudi Arabia and and The UAE. They are not investing in this to essentially run it as a massive cost saving and synergy operation. Mhmm. They will be looking, yeah, for growth and also as well bear in mind with those with those organizations, part of the reason why they are investing in Western media assets is because they want to increase the soft power of The Middle East. And, again, you don't do that through massive hostility and essentially getting the business. But also as well, you know, with that sort of leverage, it doesn't really become about sort of of the amount of debt. It's whether you can actually pay the interest charges, and then also as well, can you refinance when necessary. Now I think in the answer to both those questions when it comes to w b, the Paramount WBDs deal is yes. You know, the yeah. I wouldn't have I mean, this might be famous last words, but in my view, I wouldn't have particular concerns about actually the financial structure of this deal. What I think is more interesting here is really what's the end game when it comes to what Paramount, are looking to do. And I think that's a lot sort of, that's a lot more interesting. And I think what we are going to see and this is something that I think has been hasn't really been explored that much in the discussion of the deal, but I think we will see in several years time, it will turn out to be absolutely crucial, is the technology angle here. You know, one of the key sort of of issues that the broadcasters have had, additional broadcasters, when it comes to facing competition from the platforms and indeed competitors like Netflix is they are a disadvantage when it comes to technology just simply because it's not their forte. Now what you have is a combined powerhouse that essentially is backed by somebody who has been at the heart of technology for several decades. And I think what you're going to see here is that there's gonna be a lot of the so whether it's doing with AI, cloud infrastructure, data, the way it's managed, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. That sort of expertise is gonna be brought into the world of, yeah, not only sort of what Warner and Paramount do today, but also the vast amount of IP catalog that they have. And so from my standpoint, what I would say is, I think actually buckle up because I think there's gonna be a lot of interesting things that come comes out for the new entity over the next several years. Some of which, quite frankly, won't be in a position to forecast now. But I do think that when it comes to it, technology and probably in its pure sense, the exploitation of the available IP will be at the heart of new business.

Speaker 0 · 12:49

I think you're absolutely right. You combine Oracle with a massive content provider, and what you're gonna get is a platform like competition globally to to the actual platforms themselves. And they'll wanna own and operate, a system globally to actually challenge the platforms at their own game is my view. And, you I I think I think you're right. And the guys involved, the money involved, the the businesses as well, like Oracle as a tech partner, combine that with the the power of all that content that they've just acquired and the rights, you're you're going to have a very powerful service or platform there to compete with the big digital tech players. Absolutely. You can see that. And that's I think you're I think you're apps you are I know you're absolutely bang on that that's part of the plan. And that's why they continued to race, if you like, for this acquisition and perhaps overpay for it as well because they needed that component

Speaker 1 · 13:51

for the whole package to work. Do you think they overpaid for it, by the way? I've I've I've thrown that out there because it does seem like it's very expensive. Do do you think they're I mean, if you if you were to look at it on, you know, typical multiples and and the price and, also, as well look at what they originally bid and then and then ended up with you. So, sure. I mean, this is a yeah. It's a very expensive transaction. I mean, it's over $100,100,000,000,000 dollars. Do I think they overpaid? You know, I guess, you know, is this is this gonna be something like, for example, when people talked about sort of Comcast buying Sky several years ago. No. I don't I don't think it will. And I think there's a difference sort of, there's a key difference here. One of the again, if you look at WBD, it has had its own debt issues and has been highly levered, and then also as well was struggling to pay off its debt. Did a good job of debt reduction. But when you are constantly looking over your shoulder and thinking about how you can pay down your debt, that naturally inhibits companies from fully exploiting what they've got on their books. Mhmm. And I think this is gonna be a bit I suspect what we're gonna see here with this new entity is a bit like the old Donald Wurmstfeld quote. Yeah. If you you have your known knowns, your unknown knowns, and your unknowns unknowns. And I think it'll be the case when it comes to this. We're gonna have the sort of obvious things that and this will be able to model into their numbers. The cost savings, your potential greater scale that you've got with advertising as well. The known unknowns will come through, which will be the exploitation of IP, legacy IP that you've got across different platforms in many different ways. But then I think there's potentially with this deal. There's gonna be also as well several unknown unknowns that quite frankly, we're just not in the position to actually guess at the moment where where they'll come out. Mhmm. But we could look back in six, seven years' time and say they were arguably the the sort of most valuable parts of the transaction. It's like where they go, I suspect that, you know, any of the unknown unknowns will really sort of have a technology lead to them, obviously, in conjunction with the content. So it's hard really to say that, you know, they've overpaid for the asset. As I say, if you look at it on traditional multiples and then and you look at what hadn't happened in the bidding process, you'd say, yeah. Absolutely. They were determined to to get this asset at any price. Potentially, what could be done with those assets? I mean, this could be yeah. They may make a complete mess of it. Mhmm. On the other hand, it could be truly transformational. And in that regard, it's really hard to actually say, you know, whether they have overpaid or not.

Speaker 0 · 16:35

Well, one area that, we we don't talk about enough is is the content world, the studio world. And really, it's quite interesting because when I go around the world talking to buyers and advertisers, they've got a lot of faith in the traditional local broadcast world, and they're they're they're just dying for more content to hit the demos that they need, more engagement content, more things for people to sit around the television and actually enjoy together. And you see it with some big big hits. Traitors is massive in our household. You've seen it with the figures Wow. In The UK. What a show. Need more of that. And there's been an announcement this week. All three media and Banerjee have have, they've combined. It's it's a JV, is it? Fifty fifty j JV? That's a powerhouse, isn't it, together? That's that's a pretty big deal, isn't it, in the content world?

Speaker 1 · 17:29

Absolutely. And I mean, you look at this. So, I mean, it's fights. It's a fifty fifty JV between Banjo and Taiman. I mean, one thing just to to highlight on this, when people think of Banjo, they think of, obviously, the production arm. But actually Banjo now is if you look at it, it splits a profit, the significant amount actually comes from gambling because it's been making major acquisitions. So what we're really talking about here is the Banji Entertainment and the live assets. But on that note, I mean, you're looking sort of pro form a of businesses around €4,400,000,000 of revenues, around nearly €700,000,000 of EBITDA. I mean Mhmm. As you say, it is huge. I think here I mean, there's obviously a scale angle here because you've got a catalog that is over 260,000 of content across 25 territories. You know? So it's gonna be able to better sort of deal with the the global streamers and, you know, who are putting pressure on production companies everywhere. Personally, I don't think scale is really the story here. I think what sort of this deal signals is actually how the economics around content are changing. And if you think about how television production has mainly been, many years was really a fee based model. You delivered a program, you earned a production margin, and and then you went on to the next commission if you were a producer. The thing is is that model actually has limited upside, especially when the other side of the equation is increasingly dominated by global players who have a lot more scale and influence. So, actually, now the real value really fits in owning and exploiting the IP over time. And it's a similar sort of, point making sort of just now with Paramount and WBD. Yet increasingly because of what's happening, you can actually monetize the IP across different platforms. And so what you essentially get here is more of a flywheel effect that comes through. And if you take the deal, I mean, I think it's a it's a very good deal. It it's it's a 50 deal. All three Media, there's been a financial contribution that has gone into Ballinger into the JV as part of the deal. But you got Ballinger, which is very, very strong in terms of global and scripted formats. You've got All three Media, which is strong in terms of premium scripts and factual program. And a lot in The UK, which is still one of the most exportable content markets that you you've got out there. It's gonna be a very powerful business. The thing is what's interesting, this is not a deal for cost synergies. I mean, the the €50,000,000 of efficiencies are not that much in the scheme of things. Really, this deal is about is actually on the revenue side and exploiting the IP. And, again, if they get it right, potentially, this could really transform their business into a much much higher quality Mhmm. Sort of of AM business, which means, of course, that in terms of the valuation, investors are willing to pay a much high multiple.

Speaker 0 · 20:28

Yeah. Not not too dissimilar to the Paramount deal as well, where they're they're looking obviously to exploit the IP of all the assets from HBO and all the other stuff from, WBD. Interestingly, in the content world, we look at sometimes overall content spend and we think, oh yeah, it's it's going up. Actually a lot of content, extra content spend is going into sports, just because sports rights have gone through the roof recently, so actually production in new originals, scripted, non scripted, all this sort of stuff, has actually, has actually gone down, which is a shame, but maybe, maybe that's partly why this deal is put together, but, you know, talking to advertisers and looking at it from a sort of a local angle broadcasters, it'd be good to see a sort of reinvestment in in content and shows that bring audiences and families together around the TV screen. Because that that's really ultimately what's missing. What we've learned as well with the explosion of digital platforms, audiences aren't driven to a platform, they're driven to the content. You know, if it's live, linear, and it's good, they'll watch it in live and linear. If it's good quality content, it's available digitally and on whatever platform, they'll go to it. And, I think we need to get back to that for in in for a lot of markets around the world and, start producing content for all ages as well. You know, one thing that you content you commented on not so long ago, we were looking at what broadcasters do, but more content for younger audiences as well. Those those audiences that have been fleeing, if you like, broadcasters, and, hopefully, we can get back to that.

Speaker 1 · 22:06

Can I just try just just one oh, sorry, Justin? Just before you Go on. Carry on. Yeah. What I was gonna say I mean, it's you know, that whole thing, I mean, this is you know, again, we've talked about this sort of I sort of I mentioned it sort of of quite a bit of my my sort of commentary as well. You know, this whole sort of argument about whether audiences go to platforms or whether audiences go you know, do they watch platforms or do they watch content? You know, it's really if you if you think about it, it's really at the heart of the debate of thinking about where the industry develops. Not just not just broadcasting, but the media industry and the tech industry in general. You know, for tech platforms, arguably, in terms of their business model, in terms of the economies of scale, what they would love is essentially content that is, yeah, at the lowest standard denominator. Because quite frankly, you don't have extra cost associated with it, and you can leverage that content across multiple markets and the margins are very, very high. Yeah. And that's that's been the argument we've heard for several years that, essentially, what people are doing is they're actually watching the platforms. My view, your view, which we discussed before, is actually that's not the case that people do watch do watch content. And I think the sort of point that I would say there is that I think broadcasters in particular have got themselves into some of their thinking over the past couple of years has been driven by the idea that essentially viewing is driven by platforms and therefore their decline is inevitable Mhmm. Because audiences are shifting across. But if you take the view that essentially the primary driver of what audiences do is the content and the quality of the content that's on there, then that actually puts the broadcasters in a much better position. And again, it's a theme that we talked about throughout this whole podcast. Mhmm. You know, the need for investment, the need to leverage off the IP, the need sort of of to deliver in new ways and actually bring back the audiences. I mean, this is not rocket science. It's essentially at the heart of what broadcasters used to do for several decades. And I'd argue that actually, like I did back on the stage in December 2024, future TV, that actually the biggest underlying issue that broadcasters have at the moment that's really underpins a lot of things is actually a lack of confidence.

Speaker 0 · 24:28

Yeah. No. You make a very good point there. And over the years, actually, Thinkbox tell the industry this. Almost every time they get on stage, they they say stability continues. And if you actually look at viewing patterns, I believe over the last year, it's changed a bit. But typically, audiences in premium environments, which is a long form television and streaming environments, switch between the two. What I mean by that is that viewing time over the last ten years has been relatively stable. It hasn't gone down. If we sit here and think, god, they're gonna go to platforms, they're gonna go to short form, UCG, and all this sort of stuff. It's just not true. And if that entire industry doesn't get back to producing great content, yeah, then we're all gonna suffer. The entire TV and premium video industry will suffer, and it and it and it's just not true. In fact, one of the challenges that broadcasters have, and let's call it the traditional community, is that linear didn't decline in the ways that we thought it would. When you look at all the predictions ten, fifteen years ago, it just isn't. So why is that a problem? Well, it's still the number one driver of income. Right? So it's still a massive driver of income, a massive driver of viewership, and now we're in this situation where we're like, okay, what do you do about it now? Because it's it's it's kind of the declines on it are are slowing, and we're seeing a sort of almost a a plateau, if you like. And now it's about monetizing it together. So broadcasters typically have have actually reduced rates in in linear and jacked up b vod. And we've seen it in various markets where advertisers have actually overspent in digital world, CTV and b vod, and are actually coming back to linear going, actually, there's huge audiences there. There's huge efficiencies. And in some markets, it's on bloody sale. Right? I'm I'm fortunate enough to go to the New Zealand market. Linea is the same price as YouTube in that market from a CPA perspective, which is bloody crazy. So a rebalance is gonna have to happen there. Being able to light it up with data, make it addressable, sell it together is gonna be a a key sort of facet as we go forward. But it it's, you know true. Sorry to interject. And that's true. But

Speaker 1 · 26:45

the central point is that and, again, this is only an outsider's point of view that is probably, you know, that is maybe ill informed. But, you know, all those things need to be done, but they are secondary to the key point, which is essentially, if you produce some great content. And if you produce great content, then actually, it's lightheaded audiences will come. And I think one of the advance one of the big advantages you're gonna see with AI is that one of the reasons why broadcasters, anyone with with you know, who is constrained in terms of capital, you know, maybe don't push formats, you know, new formats so aggressively. It is because, yeah, it's risk management. They're scared of the cost. They're scared of what happens if it fails. Well, actually, AI, one of the beauties of it sort of in reducing the cost of production sort of, immensely, is that it probably allows you to actually sort of play, sort of reimagine formats in a much sort of less potentially sort of, of negative way. And so if I think for the broadcasting industry, I'd say one of the great benefits that AI could bring is essentially that what it would allow them to do is play with a lot more formats than they would have thought previously just simply because the cost sort of of the cost of of taking risks has come down.

Speaker 0 · 28:10

One one, end with two points here. One, you mentioned that broadcasters should get into shorts and and operate almost like some of the social platforms. And I'm a subscriber to the New York Times. I think the way that they've reengineered their business model is crazy. I mean, like, if you go back fifteen years or maybe further, that, you know, 90% of their business would have been been ad revenue or maybe maybe a little bit less, maybe 80. And, now that's completely re engineered. It's like it's like 20 to 30, subscription business, but they also have a social media scroll like service for to read the news. And I love it because it's very much like using social, but it's in a trusted premium environment. So you're not being fed crap, and you're not listening to someone go on about their fucking cat or something. And TV could do that. They could do you could do the shorts. You could you could do short form content, and you could actually, like, you know, do that sort of dopamine hit like services in a trusted environment. So have a look at New York Times as as a model. And then the final point I'm gonna make is, I talked to an advertiser. This is totally off the record, so I'm not gonna say who it was. And, he said to me, Justin, I'd love to buy more broadcast. He's like, the fact fact is, I maxed out my demo on two different programs, and then there's just not the audience. So I have to put my money elsewhere. You talk about trusted, regulated premium environments, I want more of it. So I'm hearing that a bit by bit. So advertisers want this. TV companies need to get braver and invest in this content that will drive the audiences. And, you know, as a plus point, look at TV four in Sweden. They have I've mentioned this a few times, but they have very progressive digital market. They had broadband adoption there, probably one of the first in in Europe to have high speed broadband in everyone's home. And TV four are the number one streaming service in that country, so they they are bigger than all the competition to all the global platforms, and it's the traditional broadcaster TV four. So things will change, won't they, Ian? And, if we sit here and just think because you're going down now, it's gonna be like that in years to come. I don't think that's the case, and that shouldn't be the mentality of these TV companies. Absolutely not. Absolutely. You know, they actually, they're doing a far better position than LinkedIn. Yeah. Huge brands as well. Yeah. Yeah. Huge brands too. And, they they need they need to leverage that and get their confidence back. Well, we've done this. I'm on holiday. That's great. And we'll do another one next week while when I'll still be on holiday. Ian, I appreciate you, keeping your ear to the ground. I'll do the best I can to be informed and,

Speaker 1 · 30:49

and keep up with you No. But you know while I'm here. Justin, before you sign off, there's one other thing that I just wanted to raise as well, and it came out. Okay. Yeah. So that I don't want people to sort of have to listen to this for now. I don't know if you saw what, the BBC said, when it came to the sort of, you know, because, obviously, there there's been a review of the BBC launch, you know, with the renewal of the the broad charter and so forth. And, actually, in the chartered review consultation response today, what the corporation said was, and I quote, we do not envisage a major commercial upside in terms of of making more YouTube first shows. And what they said was because due to limited revenues on offer from video sharing platforms.

Speaker 0 · 31:41

Mhmm.

Speaker 1 · 31:42

And I think that should, you you know, that quote should maybe make those who sort of claim that the solution for the broadcasters is to go out, not just on YouTube, but all the social media platforms and video sharing platforms. With deals, you know, my argument is and it goes back to this point about, you know, people watch content, not necessarily platforms. Yet the economics are far, far better if you can get those audiences to your own streaming services. I

Speaker 0 · 32:10

think I think we can be clear on this. You can't make money by shipping your content on these platforms. You can make tiny amounts, audience extension stuff fine. But look how Netflix is here. I love how Netflix distribute all their stuff. So we we are Huntrix fans in this in this in the you go on to Spotify and you play those songs, which we have to every time we get in the effing car with the kids. And it's Netflix branded Netflix branded. You go on, look at how they use YouTube. They use YouTube to feed into their platforms. They don't put their long form content on there. You bloody crazy, but they do the interviews, they do the feeds, and if you ever look at Barb's data, which they obviously can't offer now, Netflix are huge on YouTube. I think they were number one one week in the way that Barb Barb measured it. So, yeah, audience extension, little bit of money here and there. It is not a business model going forward. And for the BBC to come out and say you can't make significant money based on the social platforms, they are totally right. None of them are doing it, but as audience extension, fair enough. I get it. And to feed them back into your own environments, it is the only way.

Speaker 1 · 33:21

Yeah. Absolutely spot. And anyway, you've got to get back to your holiday.

Speaker 0 · 33:26

I do. We're going going to the beach in about half an hour. And the and the missus is she's doing very well actually keeping the kids away from this room. So I'm going to go. Ian, I appreciate you doing this and and for the audiences as well. Do you wanna do the sign off?

Speaker 1 · 33:40

As usual, this is not investment advice.

Speaker 0 · 33:43

Brilliant.

Speaker 1 · 33:44

Cheers, mate. Take care. Alright. You too. Bye, everyone.