Hey, thank you everybody for joining us today. My name is Vik Kesavabhotla. I lead our research coverage of internet and media here at Baird. Actually, I might just close this door real quick. All right. That's better. I'm Vik Kesavabhotla. I lead our internet and media coverage. Excited to be hosting the conference this week, and right now it's my pleasure to welcome Starz Entertainment to the event. Joining me up here is the CEO, Jeff Hirsch. I think we have about 30 minutes scheduled for this conversation. A lot to talk about, a lot happening in the business, the industry, and the world. We'll try to get through it all. Jeff, maybe for the benefit of those who are not as familiar with the company, first, if you could start off giving an overview of Starz-
Sure
The type of content that you offer.
Yeah. Starz is a premium add-on service, much like there was back in the linear days, HBO, Showtime, and Starz. We are premium. We're adults. We don't serve kids. We don't do weather. We don't do sports. We don't have ads. We really are positioned as a premium add-on to all the broad-based providers out there, whether it's Comcast or DirecTV, whether it's Amazon or Hulu. We are sold on top of all those services. Our content is specific. We focus on two core demos. We focus on women and underrepresented audiences, and we do that better and at scale than anybody else. It makes us a really valuable, complementary service in the ecosystem that you see today.
Yeah. One of the big things that has changed in the last year is that you've separated from Lionsgate. I think you just passed the one-year anniversary about a month ago. What has changed about the way you're running the business now that you're a standalone company?
Yeah, it's been a little over a year. I think the business has performed really, really well. I think the business today is structurally stronger than it was after being part of Lionsgate for the last nine years. We've spent the better part of the last year unwinding a lot of the ownership limits that were put on us by a studio. Now we are managing our own cash for the first time. I think if you saw after the first quarter, we had about $136 million better year-over-year in cash. We've been shrinking the cash gap between cash content spend and cash amort. That when the business is aligned and you green light a show, you put it on the air, and you pay for the show, that should actually almost be one to one.
Long term, I think coming out of 2028 into 2029, you'll start to see our free cash flow conversion be north of 70%. It's a real good cash flow generator for the business. We're really focusing on the metrics that matter for a network, right? OTT revenue growth, adjusted EBITDA growth, free cash flow growth, and delevering. I think you've seen over the last year that we've done all that really well. We either met or beat all of our metrics on those.
Yeah. On that topic of metrics, one of the metrics that you've stopped disclosing to the street is your quarterly subscriber number. It'd be great if you could talk more about the rationale behind that decision and why you decided to make that change.
Yeah, look, I think there was a world where everybody was chasing Netflix and subscriber metric, and that was a really key. The one thing that Starz has done over the last 10 years is we've made the digital transition from linear to digital profitably. We've never not been profitable as we've switched over. When I started in 2015, 100% of our revenue came from the linear business. Today, 72% of our revenue comes from digital, we look more like Netflix than we do look like an A&E network, so to speak. We've done that with a 15% profit margin. The one thing that chasing that quarterly sub metric does is it makes you do things that are not in the best interests of long-term revenue growth, because you're chasing a kind of quarterly metric.
You put on a lot of low price subs to hit a metric that you know are going to come off and you have to replace. You end up thrashing the business quarterly versus worrying about long-term revenue growth. I've been in the subscription business for almost 30 years now, and the one thing that's really great is once you get the ships, these are real oil tankers. Once you get them moving in the right direction, they're very hard to turn off. When you thrash the business, it's hard to get it moving. What you saw last quarter, sequential OTT revenue growth, you'll start to see that accelerate because we're building slow and steady revenue growth. One of the things we were talking about earlier today, we have 10 years of revenue data from our app.
We've built an AI model sitting top of our revenue model. When you look at a one-year revenue kind of perspective, you do things fundamentally differently to the business than if you look at a two-year revenue growth business. We now, because we're not worrying about quarterly subs or looking at a two-year horizon on revenue growth and planning our business, so offers that we put into the market today, we know will have better long-term revenue growth for the business. It allows us to really grow top-line revenue on OTT in a way we haven't been able to before, which ultimately translates into more profit, which ultimately translates into more free cash flow and ultimately less leverage.
Yeah. I think you referenced this a little bit with talking about the OTT revenue, but we're a quarter or so out since you kind of made that decision. Do you feel like you're seeing signs in the business that have validated that change?
Oh, yeah. I mean, one, if you look at just the marketing spend in the first quarter, the marketing spend's down, right? We're not trying to get subs on that we spend money to get them on. We lose them in two months. You're starting to see the revenue business really start to accelerate. I think quarter's off to a great start. We're already seeing it. I think the other thing it does, it calms the business down, right? There's more long-term focus and less short-term focus. Everybody's really aligning the business and the building in the right way to grow the business long term.
Yeah. This probably relates to that answer, but you also raised price in April.
Talk about what led you to make that decision, and what are you seeing in response to that so far?
As a complementary service, we always want to be greatly priced below the broad-based streamers, right? We watch whether Netflix or Hulu or Amazon, DirecTV, all these guys are raising their prices. As long as their price is significantly higher than our price, it gives us room to follow them up. If you look at the broad base, they've done two or three rate increases in the last 14 months. Some of them have done $3.00. Netflix today, their non-ad supported tier, I think is $24, $26. We thought we had some room to take some growth there. What we're seeing so far as we compare it to the 2024 and 2023 increases, we're 25% better in terms of retention of folks that got the rate increase.
We feel like it was the right decision, that the customer base can handle that rate at this point. We also have some of the biggest content we've ever had on the air, that helps, right? "The Housemaid" from Lionsgate, it was as big as any of our originals. Michael's coming, we've got great movies. We've got "Raising Kanan" coming June 12th. We have our new show, "Fightland" that I think will be one of the biggest shows on the network July 31st, rolling into "P-Valley," which is one of our biggest hits. We have a really good content slate coming, it allows you in front of that to actually do some rate.
Yeah. It's probably a mix of all those things, but as you think about the pricing going forward. What's going to be the signals that help you raise price over a longer-term time frame? Is it mostly going to be reflective of where the industry is, or how do you think about that?
I think it's a combination of where the industry is in maintaining that complementary gap between the broad-based streamers and us. I think it's where we think the economy is and where we think our subscriber base is a piece. I also think where it is in the rest of the space. I think there's a kind of second wave of distribution upside coming for us. You see people like Peacock talking about selling third-party products on top of Peacock. My guess is we'll be sold on top of Peacock this year. That's 62 million households that we haven't really had access to be sold within that. That's a big opportunity for us. If you look at our penetration against most of our partners, we're 20% penetrated, so that's an opportunity for us to grow there.
I think when Warner and Paramount close that deal, they will sell third parties on top of Paramount+. That's another 60 million households that we can get to. Hulu, which we're sold on top of already today, is getting merged into Disney+. We've never been sold in Disney+ before. We now will be sold inside Disney+. Those three are just massive amount of universes that we've never been able to sell in before. As those launch and we have another kind of wave of new forest to farm, it may allow us not to do rate increases for a long period of time. We'll look at all that depending on where we see sub growth and that kind of opportunity. We may do both.
Yeah.
It just depends on how we feel about driving the business.
Yeah. I'm sure one of the other things that you monitor as part of that is member engagement and behavior on-.
Yeah
the platform as well. What are you seeing on that front as you look at the business today?
Yeah, I think it's great. A lot of the industry is struggling with engagement right now. Our engagement's up 8% year-over-year. It continues to go. "Outlander," season eight, the finale had a huge engagement. "The Housemaid" was a massive movie. I think it's the biggest movie we've ever had. That brought first titles, new customers in, viewership. Engagement for us up is 8%, which is really huge, and we'll think that continues. We're coming into our strongest slate now, so I couldn't be more excited about the year right now. The quarter's off to a strong start. The content's performing really well, and I think our cash position at the end of first quarter was very strong. Everything that we've guided to, we've hit or beat, and I think that will continue.
Yeah. Within that 8% or even just broadly speaking too, anything else standing out to you in terms of the type of content that people are watching on the platform or just behavior?
It's interesting. They watch these Pay 1 movies. Shelter was on last week, and Shelter was, I like to say, somebody wrongs somebody good, and evil wrongs good, and good wins. You can put Jason Statham on an island. You can put him in The Beekeeper. You can put him in a workshop. As long as somebody was wrong, Jason Statham, and he wins, people watch that stuff. Shelter over the weekend had a phenomenal weekend. It was a weekend where we're kind of in between big content, but Shelter put on almost as big a weekend as the mid part of Outlander. We're seeing action movies like that work really well for us. Big titles like The Housemaid. Michael's going to be a huge hit for us when it comes to us.
The content slate is really robust, and what we have in development is some of the best content we've ever seen.
Yeah. Staying on that topic of the content slate, when you think about the rest of this year, what are some of the other big tentpoles that are coming out? I think you referenced a few of them so far.
Yeah. Fightland's our first kind of Starz produced, I would say, Starz produced originals. It's the first time we've produced our own originals since 2017, because we were producing originals before we were acquired by Lionsgate, and we're back doing it again. That's a show that is based in the world, the dangerous world of boxing in the U.K., 50's attached to it. I've seen it. It's as good as the original Power, and I think that will kick off our originals in a really strong way. P-Valley comes back after almost a two and a half to three-year hiatus. That's one of our biggest shows. That is a super-sized season. I think every episode is long. It is a brilliantly done show this year, and the fan base is itching for that.
We come back with the "Outlander" prequel, "Blood of My Blood." We expect now that "Outlander" core is done, that will continue to grow. Then, we're shooting "Origins," which is the "Power" reboot, origin story in New Jersey right now. It's 18 episodes. That'll come on. I'm excited about that. We'll have an announcement next week where we'll have another "Power" show that we'll announce that actually, working with Lionsgate, we'll co-own it. Again, ownership is important for us, having ownership of IP, well, that will be, I think, a good surprise to folks. We've announced an untitled "Black Rodeo" show. If anybody is from Houston, there's these Black family-owned rodeos in Houston. It's a real thing. We'll give people access to what goes on there.
Of course, as any true Starz drama, the family does really bad things behind the rodeo, and that will be an interesting show. We've got a D.C. kind of political drama called "Kingmaker" that Beau Willimon from "House of Cards" is helping to drive. The slate's robust. The future looks great. "All Fours" continues, which is a huge book for the 40-plus something women in America. We just assigned a writer and a showrunner to that. That's exciting. We've gotten a number of books that fit into this romantic-y dramas that we haven't announced yet, but I'm super excited about what's coming from a content point of view.
Yeah. A couple of things that I wanted to unpack as it relates to a bunch of those shows that you laid out. Maybe first on some of these series that are returning for their latest seasons, how do you think about the potential performance of those versus the most recent seasons of those shows, "Blood of My Blood" and "Raising Kanan" and "P-Valley"? What can you share about how those things have performed in the past and how you think about the upcoming season?
I mean, "P-Valley" is one of the biggest shows we've ever had on the network, right? This one is the last season, I think what you find when you say to the showrunners is, or they say this is the last season, is they leave it kind of all out in the field, right? If you look at "Force" finale, you look at "Kanan", you'll see the intensity around the last seasons. A lot of people say these are the best seasons yet because they know they're riding the last. We always look at the data, right? I mean, we are a data-driven company. Everything we do is data-based, right? We will look at the last season to the season. We'll look at the premiere episode to the second episode.
We'll look at the second episode to the 10th episode, look at cost per minute viewed, we look at completion percentage. All of those go into whether we keep a series going or not, and whether there's a return on that investment. Ultimately, what we'll do is, we'll take Kanan, which is the last season of Kanan, which then leads into another show that we haven't announced yet. We've transitioned that, but we'll launch Fightland out of the last two episodes of Kanan. All that audience that's watching Kanan, which is, again, one of our biggest shows, will then see the first two episodes of Fightland as we lean into that. When we've done that historically, 80%-85% of the audience has come across and stayed for the other show.
We know by scheduling and the content type is unique and is special to that audience, we can actually generate hits based on how we do that.
Yeah. You talked about owning more of the content going forward. When you think about the shows that you're working on now and shows you're evaluating going forward, if you could talk about the guidelines that are influencing your green lighting process, and the types of shows that you're looking to make?
It's very simple, right?
Yeah.
We're going to own it and produce it ourselves, and if it's from a third party, if we don't love it, we're not going to do it. Right? Ownership is imperative. We've talked about how we moved our 20% margin guide from 28- 27. A big piece of that is getting ownership back on the network. One of the things that we negotiate with Lionsgate on the show we haven't announced yet is ownership, right? That's a way for us to get $40 million-$60 million of cost out of the business just on our originals line, because we're controlling the entry point of the show and we're getting international sales. We changed our Canadian business to a licensing that turns profitability there, that helps us reduce the cost of shows.
We have Sky as a co-commission partner on "Fightland." They took a big piece of the budget to have it as a Sky original in the U.K. That brings down the cost of the show. If you think about, call it, on a scale, 80 hours of TV, anywhere between $1 million-$3 million per hour savings, it's really meaningful on our business. That's the key priority for us.
Yeah. You talked about getting to that kind of 20% adjusted EBITDA margin level next year. Part of that is owning more of the content. What are some of the other drivers that help you get to that margin expansion?
The biggest piece was exiting the Universal Pay-2 deal. We announced that on the last call. We had entered in 2020 to get, for those in the room that don't, there's a Pay-1 and a Pay-1 . Pay-1 basically means we get movies from Lionsgate right after they come out of the theater in the first window. They basically go to Amazon. Generally they come to somebody else in the second window, which is the Pay-2 . We had negotiated with Universal in 2020 to take their movies in that second window. What happened is after we negotiated a deal, Universal actually split their Pay-1 to have Peacock have the first four months, Amazon has the next 10, Peacock has the next four. Then it comes to us.
Amazon is our single biggest distributor, so the amount of customers that sit on Amazon in the Pay- 1B, and then it comes to us, when they see the movies at Amazon, by the time it gets to us, it's been really beat up by our customers on Amazon first. We are paying for Pay- 2 dollars, but we are getting library performance or much lower performance. Based on all the analytics and data that we have, we know we can go out into the marketplace and buy library to replace viewership and subscribers based on what they are. We kind of money balled this whole thing, and so we went back to Universal, and rightly so, they allowed us to exit the thing. We do have a payment to them for a certain part of it through 2027 and 2028.
That coming off the books and reinvesting a piece of it and putting the rest to the bottom line is a huge piece of how we get there. It's why we're very confident that we'll have free cash flow growth, and it's why we're very confident that when we come to 2029 and those payments stop, the cash conversion from adjusted EBITDA to equity free cash flow will be north of 70%.
Yeah. How do you go about replacing that content on the platform?
We're out buying library from all over the place. We have a library today from all the other studios, whether it's Lionsgate, Sony, Disney. There's a lot of library to be sold, and we go out and we say, okay, based on we know that the first title streams are X. We go, "Okay, let's go." We've had this movie before. It generates this. We've had that movie before and it's literally back to the movie. It's like we're not looking to replace Jason Giambi. We're trying to get his on-base percentage, and so we'll get Scott Hatteberg instead. I mean, it's that simple if anybody knows the movies. There's a lot of content out there. We have all the data on all the content, and so we're able to cobble together the performance of Universal, right?
At a much-reduced price, because the performance wasn't what we were paying for.
Yeah.
Yeah.
As you work towards that 20% EBITDA margin, what does that also mean for cash flow and the balance sheet and leverage?
It means free cash flow growth.
Yeah.
Right. It starts growing to that 70% conversion. Leverage comes down significantly. We started off around, I think we were at 3.4 when we separated from Lionsgate. We ended last year at 2.9. It spiked to 3.1 in the first quarter just because we had a big quarter falling off on the 12 months. We've guided to 2.7 for the end of the year, and I think we'll probably get there and beat that. I think by the end of 2027, when we hit that 20% margin, it should be closer to two, maybe low twos.
Maybe we could spend another minute just talking about the broader industry, and you referenced this a little bit in some of your prior answers, but when you think about the consolidation that's taking place and all the moving pieces, how do you think all this is going to affect Starz's position in the industry?
I think we're uniquely positioned that way. I think you're going to have four or five big broad-based streamers really competing with each other, much like, call them digital cable companies that they were. You're going to have Amazon, Netflix, probably Disney+, Peacock, Paramount. I'm sure I'm forgetting somebody. We want to be sold on top of all of them, right? We are for the most part. As Peacock really kind of steps in to compete on scale with Warner, we'll be sold on top of their Peacock, same thing. That puts us uniquely positioned to be the premium add-on to all these services, which means we become a very valuable partner in that space.
As they compete with each other and they compete for sports, more budgets go to sports than unscripted, that means what we do on a scripted basis, the lane becomes clearer for us because more money's going away from where we are into things that we don't do. It makes us even more valuable because we can replace those scripted shows for people when they're looking at sports. If you think about the way the economics work, when we're sold as an add-on, if it's $10, they take a piece of that $10. Actually, the more they sell Starz, they're making money off of us also. It's a way to get our, call it $500 million-$700 million of content spend to their consumers, and instead of them spending it, we spend it, and they make a little piece on it.
The economics really work in our favor that way. I also think as these services get bigger and bigger, some of the pieces that they don't find as interesting that I find interesting can fall out at a reasonable multiple. I may be able to scale our business around women and underrepresented audiences by taking some of the linear networks that sit at these companies that they don't focus on, that I would focus on, and build an AVOD business around our SVOD business. When you close Warner and Paramount, they'll have 52 cable networks, right? My guess is they're focused on all 52 cable networks. There's a lot of networks in that portfolio, those Scripps Networks that focus on women that I'm really interested in, that they may not be.
We'll have that conversation when they close that deal and see if they're willing to. I think there's a real opportunity to stay focused on women and underrepresented audiences on a scripted basis, actually launch an advertising tier with that content. If you think about that content, most of these networks were built by the same people years ago, right? I was in the cable business for 15 years. That's how we did it. The back ends of all these cable networks are the same. If you look at our G&A versus somebody else's G&A, it's a one-to-one match. As you bring these in, you can strip out that cost. What you're really doing is buying ad-supported content that's wrapped in linear cost that we don't need. There's an ability to drive revenue, diversify revenue at Starz while taking cost out of both businesses.
Yeah. On that point, it seems like part of what allows you to do that or think about that is you've been successful making this transition from linear to digital. Why do you think you guys have been able to navigate that so well, and what's unique about your approach on technology there that has enabled that?
I think it's two things. One, we started much earlier than anybody else. Two, I think we took a much different approach. I think most people looked at the D2C business as a new business and said, "We're going to set up a separate P&L. We're going to give it a budget over here, and we're going to spend it." We looked at that as the natural evolution of technology in the space. First there was cable, then there was satellite, then there was telco, and now there's IP. IP, the only difference is you can self-distribute, so you have your own D2C product. What we said was it's just as the consumer moves one to the next, we just need to be there. The Starz product, our D2C product, our Amazon product, is exactly the same product that's on Comcast, on DirecTV.
When satellite came in, we didn't say, "Oh, we need to give a whole separate set of content and spend more money for satellite." As the consumer moved and took their dollars to a different platform, we needed to be there. We took a distribution agnostic approach. We didn't spend crazy amounts on content for digital versus linear. It was the same product both places. That allowed us to stay profitable. We just then built a wonderful data stack. The third surprise when I got to Starz was we had this incredible digital team in Denver. We were able to build our own app. We were able to build our own data stack. For the first time, we had so much data, we could actually run the business.
We actually brought digital buying in-house six years ago so that we actually manage money in terms of digital acquisition. Most places use an agency and give them a budget. We give our guys a cost per sale, and as long as they're below that cost per sale that's profitable, they can just spend. We're just harvesting profitably. The fact that we were able to add the content portfolio was another revenue stream on a fixed cost business, and we controlled the data, we were able to then take, as one customer came down on linear, we were able to replace it with one or two on the other side. If you look at our business over the last 10 years, there's a great line that looks like this. Revenue was flat.
While the industry was down 12%, our revenue was flat during that 10-year period because we systematically replaced from one side to the other using our own data, our own stack, and the cost basis. We didn't move costs on the business at all.
Yeah. One of the other things you mentioned earlier in this conversation that caught my attention was the marketing efficiency that's been playing out, and it sounds like in the last quarter as well. What has changed about the marketing strategy or what's evolving that's allowing you to be more efficient there?
Well, it's not reporting subs.
Yeah.
Not having to chase subs quarterly allows you to be much more efficient. You can acquire "Outlander," when we launched "Outlander," our offer in the marketplace was $7 for three months. That's $4 or $3 higher than we'd ever been before. You're acquiring subs that can afford it, that stay longer and have a better lifetime value. What you don't have to do is then replace that sub three months later. If you go back to the holiday season, we have a lot of our partners, and we're wholesale-driven, do a $0.99 offer for two months for the holidays. We know in February, most of those $0.99 subs will roll off $0.99 and won't take $11.
Yeah.
They either disconnect or they look for another offer. If they disconnect, we have to then replace them in the old world, plus one, to hit a sub number. Now we're spending marketing money to replace a short. You're churning your back end to drive volume just for a quarterly metric. Now that that metric's out and it's about long-term revenue growth, we're acquiring customers at higher ARPU, and ARPU is up sequentially significantly. The lifetime churn's at the lowest it's ever been in the business. It is at a historical low because, pardon my French, but crap in is crap out.
Yeah.
If you're acquiring cheap subs on the front, they're going to come out. That spins the business, which means you're spending more marketing to replace them. If churn's at an all-time low and you're acquiring a longer lifetime value customers, you just don't have to spend as much to grow your business.
Yeah.
Generally speaking, on the churn side, the ARPU on a churn customer is a lot higher than it is on the front end. If you're keeping more customers at retail, you can drive ARPU by just not losing subs.
Yeah.
It's been really healthy for the business.
Yeah. Maybe just staying on that marketing topic, in a year like this where you have such a heavy content slate coming on board, how do you think about adapting your marketing strategy overall to drive discovery around these shows that are coming out?
Yeah. We're going to put a lot of money behind our shows, but that was always in the plan. We will be really opportunistic about it. If we see the business organically growing without a lot of spend, then we'll pull back spend. We saw that in the first quarter. I think we sat on a bunch of marketing spend. I think the business has been underserved from a brand point of view, so we may reinvest a little bit in that also. The way we schedule content allows us not to have to spend a boat of money like our peers to launch new shows because we focus on two demos. All our shows are really focused on that. Kanan and Fightland, both Curtis Jackson shows. 50's out promoting Kanan, he's also promoting Fightland now.
Yeah.
Because we schedule the overlap, where at the end of one we go into the other and we can pull the audience, we can spend a lot more money on making sure we get new customers to come in versus existing customers to watch. There's a lot of tools because we're not launching "Kanan" and then launching "Off Campus" which is a totally different type. It's not our show. That was the point is you're not going from the mom in the house to the kid in the house or to the husband in the house where sports comes on, because we're consistently going every week with the same type of content for the same demo. It allows us to be really efficient in our marketing spend.
Yeah. Maybe just staying on the expense thought process as well. Another big topic at the conference throughout this week is AI.
are using that. How are you guys using AI internally at Starz?
We're using it everywhere. If you listen to my last quarterly earnings speech, Nilay put the speech into an AI tool and asked it for a grade, and then it came back and told me where I was good and bad. We got it to a good place. It basically said the investors will like this if you can read it correctly. That was interesting. It actually came back and said, "Here are the 10 questions you're going to get asked by investors. Do you want answers?" We're like, "Sure." I think that's been helpful. I haven't used it to read it yet, but I think somebody else in the industry did that last quarter. I've been actually gaming out, if we go by this or do this, and it's been interesting. I think the obvious piece is in content.
Spartacus," we used a lot of AI to do some of the big sites. "Fightland," some of the big London shots are from AI. Look, everybody's going to figure out how to reduce the cost of programming based on AI, and I think we'll be a fast follower there, and the studios will. There's training. California has a bunch of regulatory training that we all have to do. You can do that through an AI tool. It should save money there. I think the biggest thing for us is on the revenue side, and this is the non-sexy part of it, but we've been in the direct consumer business since 2015.
We probably have 1 billion data points over the last 10 or 11 years of customer acquisition, what ad they clicked on, what channel it came from, what was the price point, what content they watched, how did you schedule content, what's lifetime value, what's a retention offer, would they take? I think that there's such wonderful efficiencies in all that data. It's just too much data for us to look at. We've been building tools around that. As we talked about coming in, we have a pricing model that actually recommends, based on the slate and historical performance, what offers we should put in the marketplace. We've built an AI tool on top of all that, and now daily, we're looking at the business and saying, are we maximized for growth or not based on a two-year revenue window versus a one-year revenue?
I can tell you from this past weekend, we went into the weekend with "Shelter" on the air, and the tool said we were underspending marketing by about $450,000 to maximize subscribers. We leaned into that, and it was spot on, within 2%. We're using it as a real tool to maximize the revenue side of the business. We still have a long way to go. We have so much data. It's helping us figure out how to schedule the network, because we know if you watch "Outlander" and two other movies, your lifetime value is longer. What are those two other movies that we have in the portfolio? What are those two other movies we don't have that we need to go buy so that when we launch "Outlander," we can schedule those movies behind them to drive lifetime value.
The scheduling of the network, the content, putting it together, it's all interesting. That's how we're using it. We're using it on the revenue side of the business and the scale.
Yeah. I think we're slightly over time.
Okay
That might be a good place for us to wrap up. Jeff, thanks so much for joining us today.
No, thanks to you.
Appreciate it.