So, we'll see what started with what ends with.
You know, it happens to all of us, Michael.
It did.
It's just not fun to go through.
No.
Okay, how are we doing on time? We are right on time. Okay, I'm going to get started. I'm Laura Martin. I'm the Senior Media and Advertising Analyst at Needham & Company, and I'm introducing Michael Barrett, who's my next speaker. He's the President and Chief Executive Officer of Magnite, the world's largest independent sell-side advertising platform that powers programmatic monetization across digital, video, and connected TV channels. Michael has helmed the company since 2017, leading the integration of Rubicon Project and Telaria into Magnite and driving strategic growth through expanded connected television capabilities and acquisitions like SpotX. Michael brings more than three decades of leadership in digital advertising technology with prior CEO roles at Millennial Media and Admeld and senior revenue positions at Yahoo and other major media companies. Michael's experience positions him at the forefront of the transformation of programmatic and addressable advertising in a privacy-centric cross-screen ecosystem.
Wow.
Okay, that's you.
That's nice.
That's you, I know, and it wasn't even written by ChatGPT. Okay, so you've announced a lot of great customer wins at Magnite, particularly in connected television. What can we expect to see these new partners scale on Magnite's revenue line?
Well, I think you're already seeing it, Laura. I mean, every quarter we talk about our fastest growing clients, and they change sometimes, but generally speaking, you're talking about the largest streamers in the globe. And so you're talking about the Disneys of the world, the Netflix, Warner Bros. Discovery, Paramount. And then on the device manufacturer side, you have LG, Samsung, Vizio, Roku. So I think that, you know, the takeaway is we are doing business with all the top leading streamers in the CTV category, and our business grows with their businesses, and obviously they're growing quite fast. The interesting aspect to it as well is the international story. Obviously, a lot has been talked about Netflix going international, but at the same time, Disney Plus has, Paramount has, Warner Bros. Discovery has. And so we get to enjoy those relationships as they go international.
We're a global company. We help them source the local DSPs that can help their programmatic efforts, and the knock-on effect is when someone like a Disney and a Netflix enters a market like the U.K. that's been very insular for a very long time, three ad-supported TV competitors kind of carved up the market, very averse to programmatic because it's against what they've been doing. All of a sudden, you have these big global streamers come in, open up the door for programmatic. Guess what happens? Now, all of a sudden, they want to do programmatic, and so we're in a very good position from an international perspective going forward because we're in very early stages of programmatic.
I hate international. We're not going to talk about international.
Forget about international.
Anyway, but I do want to talk about there's a really big trend going on. I had Andrew Casale of Index Exchange on yesterday.
Yes.
He’s like a big, like, buy SSPs. DSPs are like losing power. I wanted to talk about curation or this notion that we’re moving data from the DSP to the SSP because I think this is an inside baseball value driver for SSPs that a lot of people are missing around the noise of CTV. Let’s talk about what that is, how that drives value for SSPs, and how I would argue there’s a power shift away from DSPs towards SSPs in this, you know, tactic, I would say.
Yeah, and I think to dimensionalize it, if we just curation is a big umbrella.
Yeah, I think it's a jargony word, so why don't we explain it?
Yes. Yeah, so I would say if you take the early days of retail media, or we refer to it as commerce media. But in the early days, it was a no-brainer that if you're a Walmart, you're going to take all that valuable data, and you're going to put it into a DSP partner of choice, or you're going to build your own or white label it, and you're going to make your partners come and use that DSP to be able to access that wonderful data to make their ad campaign work better. 180 going forward, you're now watching the Best Buys of the world, the, you know, Western Unions, the PayPals, all want their data closer to home, keep it on the supply side. So work with the Magnite, put the data in Magnite, and then say, hey, bring whatever DSP you want.
I'm not going to force you to use my DSP. Use whatever DSP you'd like.
But they already do that. They already use their own DSP.
Not in commerce media. You had to use the one where the data was. Right. So now I think if you look at it through that trend change, right, from storing the data at a DSP level to storing it at the SSP level, that's very much akin to what Andrew was talking about from a curation standpoint. When you built your advertising targets in the DSP, that was generally a third-party cookie world, right? It was all about third-party cookies and used third-party data to be able to build that audience profile to reach the moms with young kids that you wanted to reach. These days, the data is so strong on the supply side. Third-party cookies are waning. Disney has unbelievable data because they have subscribers. Paramount, unbelievable data. Warner Bros., et cetera, et cetera. All of that data now is being stored.
This is relevant in DV+ too. Isn't it relevant across your whole revenue footprint?
Very much so, but super relevant in CTV. So in CTV, you're seeing that audience creation is now being done on the supply side. And then in the DV+ world, little by little, you've watched the decline in third-party cookies and the rise of these companies that are building audience packages on the backs of SSPs so that DSPs can then just come and buy that as opposed to building them within the DSP level. So on many fronts, you're seeing this change, and it just doesn't have to be called curation. It's commerce media. It's CTV. It's DV+ and curation.
All right. So I want to summarize what I think is what Michael's trying to describe. If BMW comes to Trade Desk and uses data to create segment markets, Trade Desk charges 15% for that data on top of the data fee. If that same data provider moves its data down to Magnite, on the SSP side, Magnite doesn't charge. So you still have to pay the data fee, but Magnite doesn't take a cut. And then the way Magnite uses it, or an SSP, if I understand this, is Magnite serves to the DSP already a pre, I'm going to call it curated, a pre-selected number of ad units that are young women with kids at home because that's what the ad unit will get the most CPM for.
So the DSP doesn't see all of the ad units or only sees the ad units that have already driven through the data to audience, a narrower audience target. Is that fair?
Yeah, very fair. Yeah.
Okay. And this is really important because it shifts power. Suddenly, Trade Desk and DSPs make less money because they're not getting the markup on the third-party data that they used to get. They're only getting the take rate of the purchase. But in the case of Trade Desk specifically, we break that out every quarter. They tell us they have a 20% take rate. We think, based on our channel checks, that the cost of their DSP alone is 13%-15%, which means the data upside, where they were getting 15% of the data layer, is about 500 basis points of growth. And that's now moving to the SSPs. You guys aren't getting the revenue upside, but it is driving, I don't even know, I think it's just lost money to the ecosystem, right?
Yeah, it's making it more efficient and putting more dollars to work in terms of working media. Yeah.
Right. So I think there's an overall goal to get take rates down. No one wants to give up their own take rate.
Right.
But in a way, this is getting overall take rates down from the 40% level, probably maybe saving as much as three or five hundred basis points.
Right.
Why did you guys not decide to charge for data? Since they were getting 15% up at the Trade Desk level, why didn't you charge 5% or 2%? Why didn't you charge when they moved the data down to the SSP?
All data isn't created equal, and we do make money on data.
How do you do that?
Just a simple, we could work with someone like LG, who has great automated content recognition data, the ACR data, where they know what you're watching because they own the glass. That's very valuable data. They use that to dress their impressions when you buy LG inventory.
But that's first-party data. That isn't what we're talking about on this data layer that's moving down. First-party data has always been used to make their own ad units.
Yeah, but we can participate in first-party data in that instance where if we use their ACR data and we use it on non-LG sites and chase LG users on non-LG sites, that's a way we participate in the data economics because we increase the cost of the CPM vis-à-vis the data.
So it's not via data. It's via having a higher CPM outside the LG universe.
Yeah, and then split that delta in terms of that layer. But with curators, you know, the term of, you know, think of these as companies that used to have to build their own sales teams to go to publishers, build their own sales teams to go to buyers. Now they can come to someone like a Magnite and basically use our infrastructure and offer their creative unit that might be special. That's part of curation. Data unit that might be special and put it on our platform. We definitely charge them for the right to put it on our platform. So we are making direct money from them as a data provider.
And do you think this can add, this call it curation layer, just to give it a label, even though I think that's so jargony, does this add 100 basis points to revenue growth, 200 basis points? Like, what's the magnitude of what this could add to Magnite's growth, this trend, this inside baseball trend?
Yeah, I think it will be substantial. I don't think you'll see a world where you can turn a 13% take rate into a 20% take rate. But I do think that it will be a substantial contributor to our revenue going forward.
Okay. And is this trend irreversible? I mean, is this basically all data is moving to the SSP because that's a better mousetrap?
It definitely is the trend line. And again, I point out it's happening in commerce media. It's happening in DV+. And I do believe that that obviously it makes more sense. You're bringing it closer to the supply, adding less friction to it, and democratizing it so that any DSP can buy that data segment as opposed to that data segment existing in just one DSP and advertisers having to switch DSPs to the next.
If it comes out of the SSP, it's a more standardized segmentation.
Yeah.
Okay. Yeah, I think that's really interesting. And so one of the things the Viant guys say is this has been going on forever. Like, curation is not a new idea. But I sort of feel like this is a new idea. I mean.
The business model has changed dramatically. So all those curating companies used to be standalone businesses that had their own supply side and demand side. What they've realized is buyers, the big agencies, want to buy from fewer partners. So what they've done is instead of trying to beat a path to my door, I'll put my audience segment on Magnite, and I will still tell WPP, hey, you can find it on Magnite. And so it's a different business model where we are getting to its advantage to us. We're participating in economics. Right.
All right. Fair enough. So from a DSP's point of view, they're like, oh, curation's been around for a long time.
Right.
From an SSP point of view, this is new revenue to you for the first time.
That's correct.
Okay. So when you think about political midterm elections, how big could that be in the second half of the year? They're saying $10 billion in midterm election spending.
We're only going to take like $8 billion of it.
Yeah. Okay. Good. That's good. I know it was like 400 basis points down in the intervening year that was like 2025. Do you think it can be that big again, or do you think we have to wait for the next presidential for it to be as meaningful to Magnite?
We think it could be around half of what a national election would be. 2024 for us was close to 20 million. Maybe 10 million plus.
In the second half of the year.
Yeah, very backloaded rate.
Fourth, mostly.
Correct.
Okay. So one of the things you came on my stage, I think it was three years ago, Michael, and you're like, oh, DV+, I'm pulling my hair out. I have to go. Like, you basically like, I have to go back to work in the trenches. And in a year, you turned it all around. It was doing negative growth, and you turned it all around. What's going on with DV+ today? Is it healthy, and does it need more acquisitions? What does it need at DV+ to keep it at least neutral so that the CTV growth is masked by a downdraft?
As you know, it's done better than neutral. It was actually punched well above its weight this whole past year. I think we were pretty clear to say some of this might be a bit of an anomaly, but it's by no means a business that we're riding to zero to slightly negative and just milking cash off of it. If you think of DV+, certainly we have exposure to the Open Web, browser-based, desktop display. But you have to keep in mind that's also our mobile app inventory. It's our audio inventory. It's our digital out-of-home inventory. It's a mixed portfolio.
What's the percent of Open Web, which is exposed to this trend from Google search to moving away from links to answers?
I would say 40% of our DV+ business.
Is Open Web?
Less. Yeah.
35?
A third of our total.
A third of our total.
Yeah.
And are you a believer in this thesis that Wall Street has that these links getting replaced by answers is going to sort of lower overall impression growth at the open internet structurally?
Oh, I think we've already seen that.
Yeah, we have.
And particularly in certain categories like recipes, health, news, sports, just a sports result. But within those categories, you have folks that are outsized in terms of building a brand, folks bookmark them, folks still go to them. And those kind of look like our clients. And so we have always prided ourselves on being highly selective on the publishers we represent so that we can turn to buyers and say this is a highly curated marketplace. So we'll do 2 trillion ad requests today. We'll only be able to try to monetize 400 billion of them. So you're talking about throwing a trillion and a half to the floor anyway.
So if you see a world where you have a contraction in the open web, there's a very good chance that it's the lower value sites that will perish and that the sites that consumers think of as a destination will.
Like brands, like a brand identity.
We'll more than survive, and so if our impression volume goes down and we still bring, I believe, budgets will still be directed toward it. They'll just be concentrated on smaller, healthier brand-focused sites, and I think that positions our clients well and us well, notwithstanding there are headwinds and it's a secular change that we're going to have to muscle through for the next couple of quarters.
Okay. So here's a question that Wall Street's worried a lot about right now. Yeah. And that is that we're funding, we're in the midst of funding round numbers, $2-$3 trillion in these LLM, five LLM companies that are building LLMs. And we might be wrong, but assuming we're right, they basically have to each add like 15% incremental revenue to pay off this $2 trillion dollar investment for 30 years. Right? And if we get it wrong, they have to add it for 20 years. So Wall Street's looking around and saying, who loses? What markets are big enough? Because GDP is only 2% a year, so that's not enough to add 15% growth to these cloud businesses. And one of the markets that's big enough is digital advertising. Right? Round numbers in America alone, $350 billion.
So even if it lost 50 or 100 billion and moved that over to LLMs, that's enough to pay for this need of an extra 15% to these five companies that we're funding. My question is, do you think the open internet can survive the onslaught of new tools and technologies coming out of the LLMs and generative AI?
I think it will create some headwinds for them. It already has in terms of referral traffic that they've seen decline, but I think from a Magnite perspective, it'd be crazy to think that all those companies are going to deploy and build a sales team that resembles Google, and so I think they're going to lean in very early to third-party demand from DSPs and SSP bringing in DSP demand. I think that there's no way they can play catch-up to what Gemini is doing, and so they're going to have to think about it slightly different.
So, you're saying if OpenAI adds advertising, you benefit from that, so that's strange.
Very good possibility.
It's a whole new entrant into the programmatic ecosystem.
Yeah. They're different-looking Open Web companies than have existed before.
Yeah, that's true. That's true. And so, only Meta and Google are two of them, and they don't need new stuff, but everybody else might need new stuff to do advertising. Yeah. And advertising is so hard to do. All these people think, oh, it's so easy. It's so hard to do.
Yeah. If you try to replicate what Google has been able to build over 20 years, that isn't going to solve your 15% increase in revenue problem on an annual basis. That's going to put you in the hole for another five years to then play ahead.
Okay. So what are the customer announcements you've made in DV+ now, and how are they ramping?
I mean, they're all. They say, you know, they're getting it cheaper, my value propositions eroded. I think what they all go through the exercise is that they've been calling on way too many clients. They should narrow it to 200 top clients and bring a value proposition that can't be replicated in programmatic. And then let programmatic do the heavy lifting for all the other slots.
For the standardized slots.
Exactly.
They can put, if you're exclusive, he can put a floor.
Yeah.
Like Pinterest can say, you can't go below $20 CPMs because, and there's accountability. If some ad unit shows up out there at $10, they know it's Magnite's fault because they're the only programmatic seller. So I think that's been happening for you and CTV. They don't want their data out there.
That's right.
They want someone to yell out if it goes wrong.
Yeah. And that's why you want one neck to choke, and that's why you start with a Magnite, and Magnite builds your exchange for you. So you come to the Pinterest exchange powered by Magnite, and that's how you buy the inventory.
But in fairness, CTV was almost always exclusive.
Yes.
This is new. This DV+ where Pinterest is exclusively yours, that's a new thing.
I think that's the trend you're starting to see in these commerce plays. I would think Pinterest is a commerce play. Spotify is a good example of that. I think.
Commerce, I mean, into the exclusive also.
It's exclusive where they want to create their own exchange. They want to have complete control. They want to know who's buying. They want to know what levels. And you can't do that having six different SSP partners bringing in all this different demand. You see it with United. Their Kinective Media Group picking Magnite as their exclusive. So I do think that for these companies that are making forays, the new announcements that we made, this is far more the approach that they're taking versus the Wild West, like header bidding, eight SSPs, bid on whatever you want, doesn't matter to me.
Is this based on, remember how Disney came in and you had to build a tech stack for Disney, and every time Disney wants to change something, they say it's theirs, D is what they call it. But it's really you guys powering everything behind it. Is that model what Pinterest and Spotify and United are using where they're building their own tech stack?
I think they very much go to market extolling their tech stack.
Even though it's yours.
There are elements that they have, the elements that we build, elements we will build for them. But the good news in that is any of these special builds, our agreement is that we're allowed to then commercialize that over a window of time. Let's just say they have a six-month head start in the industry, but then we're able to take and so if someone says, hey, I want to ingest a bunch of ad creatives, and I don't want to manually look at them, can you build this ingest tool for us? Then that becomes part of our tech stack six months down the road, and we're able to take that to market.
And go to somebody else and do it. Okay. But what's the margin? This to me feels like lower margin than when you're just taking a percent of ad dollars on a platform you already own. If you're building a tech stack specifically for Pinterest or a tech stack for Google.
Yeah, just think of it as these are one-time builds that are creative to your take rate, but you still have a take rate model. So in other words, we have.
Why are they creative? Seems like.
Well, because we have in our agreement, the water's flowing through the pipes. I get a take rate on all the demand that comes through. And then they come to me and say, can you build me this bell or whistle over here? Yeah, I'll pay you to do it. Yeah. And then once that's lit up, if that generates more demand, it rings the register that way. So you make a little bit of money on the statement of work, and then you're able to improve your tech stack and make more money through the demand coming through.
How long so far? I don't think these deals you've done like Disney, none of them end. I mean, they sort of have like, I'm trying to think of average life. I'm trying to think of average lifetime value per customer. It feels like when you build one of these, it's going to be there like 10 years. You've never had one substituted out, have you?
No, I think that that's the exciting part when you do these exclusive or winner take most, that the stickiness of it is quite different than what we're used to in a normal SSP.
Where somebody can just move their ad campaigns and they're done with the SSP.
You've ingrained yourself so much in the technology. The partnership is so deep that breaking it apart comes with big costs.
What's so interesting about this is I'm interviewing Mark Penn, who's the CEO of Stagwell, and their core business is like this Accenture thing where you go in and it's called like technology innovation where you're moving old companies, big companies to be more tech efficient. You're sort of doing that behind under the covers with these sort of exclusive companies with potentially 10-year timeframes and all the money. The low margin stuff is done in the first six months, and then after that, you have this exclusive right to a take rate, and then plus the statement of work that you're adding, which is like a new revenue stream, even if it's low margin, it's really a different revenue stream. But the exclusivity is a really big deal that you're not competing with seven other SSPs.
Yeah, I think it's a sea change of the way folks view ad tech, and particularly the supply side of the SSPs, that folks are literally building their programmatic businesses on Magnite's rails. And sometimes it's highly customized. Sometimes it's just modular. But it is modular in the sense that we may have this menu of options and you can take A, C, and F, and someone else can take D and E. And you just use that and you build your business on that. It provides far greater stickiness. It's much more enterprise level than it is just a transient.
It's like a digital transformation, I think is what they call it.
What do they trade at? Do I want to be Accenture?
I don't know. I'm not sure. But it is a new revenue stream. And we like multiple revenue streams that have different core listings.
We do. Yes.
Have you guys thought about doing anything with e-commerce take rates? Not take rates in advertising, but like e-commerce rev shares. That's what I'm asking.
The only time that would ever occur is if someone backed that into a CPM. So in other words, someone was buying on that basis, but they bought the exchange based on that and they're taking the risk on that. And so they're buying $2 CPM, hoping that it converts.
$4 of sales.
That's exactly right.
But one of the things that I think Wall Street is negative on is CPM-based businesses. I think we think that performance-based advertising is the wave of the future. Ideally, performance being the word meaning incremental sale. And so to the extent you're all in the CPM business, like Wall Street doesn't like that. It doesn't feel performative to us.
I think where you see it kind of excel is in owned and operated. So if you owned and operated your own inventory, I think you have a lot more leeway as to how you can price it and the knowledge that you have and the signals that you get from that. I think it'd be a long stretch for us to try to get into that business where we have this huge portfolio of inventory and for us to try to make assumptions based upon performance. We don't control the ad creative. Yeah, it'd be quite different. We do CPC, but again, it's all computed to a CPM. It's the only way an auction works when you have that many players. There has to be the lowest common denominator unit. And so everything's bid on by a CPM basis.
Okay. How is AI affecting your business today? And how do you feel you compare with your peers in the integration of generative AI? You're hiring people, which I don't like, so.
We don't like them either, but no. Some of it came from an acquisition, Streamer AI. I love our position as it relates to AI, but then there's the industry AI, right? So we talked about that a little bit. The referral traffic being choked by these answer engines. It's a headwind for all of us to muscle through, including our publisher partners. As it relates to AI, ad tech specific and Magnite specific, love our position there. I think we've done the appropriate amount of investment. We haven't over-levered on it. I think it's going to be a huge story for 2026. I don't think it's going to be huge revenue for 2026.
What's the story?
The story is this, that it's broken today. It's too complicated today.
Ad tech.
Ad tech. It's a mess. It's a mess. You look at the landscape and you're just like, what does that person do? What does that person do? What if I just had a buyer agent and I said, find me young moms that have been to Disney in the last five years, and I had a buyer agent that I asked that question to, and I could, the seller agent could talk to the buyer agent, and it's all done. It's easy, and there's no dashboards. There's no, no, there's dashboards. Just click on this, click on that, drop that into that basket. So it's just clearing up this whole interface.
Makes it more black boxy even than it is today.
There's a downside to that. Like, how do I know it even ran on those sites? And so what we've come to the conclusion is a lot of folks have come up with ideas like that, and they're meaningful, and we are leaning into it. But no matter what idea anyone's come up with, whatever protocol, whether it's ad CP, whether it's the IAB Tech Lab, the bottom line is the existing infrastructure is invaluable. The idea of routing the inventory from the right partner, it's truly Disney inventory. I'm vouching for it. The collection of payment, the being on the hook for the payment, making sure that it's not bot, making sure that it's quality. All the infrastructure that exists today exists in the future world.
So we feel very confident about our role going forward in a pure agentic world, and we're so far away from a pure agentic world. But what have we done in the interim? Leaned into it. We've adopted the two protocols that are out there. We built seller agents, and we were processing money through it. So we're very well positioned for a world that might come, but I don't think in 2026 that's something you should be penciling in for Q4 numbers.
Okay. Great story. Revenue to come. Okay. Questions from the audience for Magnite? Anything people want to know about? Okay. One of the things I hate that you talk about on your call, so I'm going to ask you about it because I hate it so much. Google litigation. So basically, they got found guilty of being a monopoly, and then the government did nothing. So that's how people think the ad tech thing might work out too. So how does the Google litigation and regulation landscape affect 2026 for Magnite?
Big difference, right? In search, it was not an illegal monopoly that they were found guilty of. Ad tech, they were found guilty of running an illegal monopoly. That begins and ends. It's factually accurate. Where structural was never going to be the case in the search trial, in the ad tech trial, structural was always front and center because it was ruled illegal. We don't personally believe it will be structural. We think it will be behavioral. I don't think anyone who got into the story thinking structural was the only way they were going to win, we were going to win, they were incorrect. The behavioral remedies are meaningful. They can be quickly enacted, and they can have a significant impact. No, they haven't.
Still waiting to see.
No, but we have a pretty clear idea of what the DOJ has talked about, of what Google has talked about, and what the judge has opined about, and so in that intersection, there is a basket of very positive outcomes for Magnite and.
Wouldn't those clients be moving now if this was going to affect you positively?
No, because a lot of it's policy and some of it is technology. So some of the longer-term behavioral will involve Google having to rewrite stuff. Some of the short-term stuff is policy, which they can't do now, but if the policy was lifted, they could do it right away.
Okay. And so you think, you know, best case, everything goes your way and the Google, how much would that affect your business, your revenue line, and how fast? Let's assume that by June 30th, they give us a result on Google.
Yeah, it would have contribution to 2026. It's not built into any numbers. Almost impossible to gauge how big it would be.
I hate this topic. You know, it's just so.
You brought it up.
You don't know when. You don't know when, you don't know how, you don't know how much. It's all horrible, and it depends on the courts. I find the courts so unreliable. They're so unreliable.
This judge has been phenomenal. Have you seen her at all? She's superb, yeah.
You know, when they call it a monopoly and then they do nothing.
It's different. They've found them illegal monopoly.
Again, courts are worse.
My vast corporate law experience. I think we have a question over here.
Yeah, go.
Thank you very much. To follow up on that, I think there were some metrics around market share, each 10% market share that you would gain once this is resolved. What that would mean to you. Can you just walk us through without any timeframe so we can understand incrementally how much that would benefit you in terms of revenue?
Yeah, so it was for every 1% share of gain, it would.
That Google loses.
From anyone, but assuming it's Google, would be a $50 million in terms of revenue to the company with a very high flow-through to the company.
Which is what's the current base again? This is no longer based on what?
So if you were to look at market share from all the studies that have been done, we pegged Google's market share at roughly 60%. And then if you would look at our market share in that equation, it would be.
Mid- to high-single digits.
Call it 70%.
I was just going to say.
We are by far the largest in that group. In other words, you're probably double whoever else is there. If you were to proportionately play it out.
If this were to manifest the way that it sounds like it will in the court, given the ask that you described, how would you conceptualize what would be a successful market share gain for you without any particular timeframe?
Yeah, that's challenging. It's something that we really haven't spoken to just given the magnitude of what that could mean. I think what we have been very clear about is that we already see this inventory. We already bring this inventory to auction, and we lose most of the time when it goes up against Google. If that playing field is leveled, we're not lifting another finger. We're already seeing the inventory. We're just winning more at auction. Therefore, it's such a high margin. So really difficult to calculate.
Five is the number we're hoping for, 5% share gain or 10%. But what I think is important to take away is how quickly it could impact just given the fact that the system is in place. We don't have to build it. We don't have to do it. We don't have to get into the business. We're there. And so.
We just have to wait for the courts to see if they do anything this time. I mean.
You're down on the courts.
I am really down on the courts. I have two lawyers in my house, and I'm really down on the courts. Anyway, any other question for Michael? Okay. I'm going to call it there because we're up against time.
Great.
So thank you very much.
Thanks a lot.