How to Build a Profitable Media Company in 3 years, with Semafor’s Justin Smith

Support for this show comes from Indeed. If you're looking to hire top-tier talent with expertise in your field, Indeed says they can help. Indeed Sponsored Jobs gives your job the best chance at standing out and grants you access to quality candidates who can drive the results you need. Spend more time interviewing candidates who check all your boxes. Less stress, less time, more results, now with Indeed Sponsored Jobs. And listeners of this show will get a $75 Sponsored Job Credit to help get your job that premium status it deserves at Indeed.com/voxbusiness. Just go to Indeed.com/voxbusiness right now and support our show by saying you heard about Indeed on this podcast. Indeed.com/voxbusiness, terms and conditions apply. Hiring, do it the right way, with Indeed. Support for the show comes from Public, the investing platform for those who take it seriously. On Public, you can build a multi-asset portfolio of stocks, bonds and options and now generated assets which allow you to turn any idea into an investable index with AI. Go to public.com/podcast and earn an uncapped 1% bonus when you transfer your portfolio. That's public.com/podcast. Paid for by Public Investing, brokerage services by open to the Public Investing Inc. member Finra and SIPC. Advise-reservice by Public Advisors LLC, SEC Registered Advisor. Generated assets as an interactive analysis tool output is for informational purposes only and is not an investment recommendation or advice. Complete disclosures available at public.com/disclosures. Security program on spreadsheets, new regulations piling up and audit dread. It's time for Vanta. Vanta automates security and compliance, brings evidence into one place and cuts audit prep by 82%. Less manual work, clear visibility, faster deals, zero chaos. Call it compliance or call it "com-pliance". Get it? Join the 15,000 companies using Vanta to prove trust. Go to vant.com/com. From the Vox Media Podcast Network, this is channels of Peter Kafka. That is me. I'm also chief correspondent at Business Insider. We've had quite a bit of gloom these days. On this show as well. So let's have a bit of positivity this time around. There is a new media business out there and it is doing well. That new media business is Semaphore, which is a mere three years old, targeted towards the global leadership class and it says it is now turning a profit. So today I'm talking to Justin Smith, semaphores co-founder and CEO, who built the business with Ben Smith, who you've often heard on this podcast and is not related to Justin Smith. That never gets less exhausting. I'm not surprised to learn that Semaphore built a successful events business because they are the kind of media outlet that does very well at events. Almost like they were built for it. They target business and government leaders, people who want to influence them, particularly people with business to do in Washington, D.C. But I am surprised the scale and speed which they pulled this off. So this is a conversation about how they did that. Here's me talking to Justin Smith. I'm here with Justin Smith. He is the CEO of Semaphore. You have heard of it because you listen to this podcast. It is three years old. Amazingly, it is profitable. Justin Smith is here to talk about how he has created a profitable media business in three years. Justin is impressively. He says it is one that is immune from Google Zero and other platform dependency. Congratulations. You solved all the world's problems and one go. Welcome Justin. Listen, thank you Peter. It is wonderful to be back on the show with you. I think the last time we spoke I was at Bloomberg and we talked about podcasts. Did you say we are a terrible business? I did say we are a terrible business. Now you are in the podcast. We had a healthy debate. I will say you are intro. I don't quite recall saying we solved all the Google Zero post distributed web problems. You have suggested you have. Let's talk about it. Let's do the numbers quickly. They are interesting numbers to me. You raise $30 million. That brings you to $65 million. 64 to be precise. In your third year last year you guys made $2 million in profit or at least EBITDA. 24,040 million in revenue. Amazing. First of all, if you are profitable or EBITDA profitable, why go raise more money? I thought one of the lessons all of us digital media people learned over the last decade was don't go raise more money. You don't need to raise money and raising money has come with all kinds of problems. You also, if you have been in the media business for 30 years, you know that the media business is pretty unpredictable. You have had a good couple of years and you have developed. We think is a really interesting model. I think if there is a chance to raise money with good long-term investors to accelerate the things that are working, it is a good idea. That is why we did it. We are thrilled with the outcome. We feel like it has taken three years. We have got the foundation of what we believe is an interesting, I wouldn't say it is a massive innovation in the media space. It is a new formula that is working and we feel like we can extend it across the world and across new markets. That is what we are going to use the new capital for. I think you guys from the get go, I think partly because you probably didn't have any choice and partly because you wanted to intentionally weren't raising money from traditional VCs, people who would say need this need to go 10X and 5 or 7 years. Good memory. So much of semaphores founding was based on ideology or thinking around long-term horizons. Ben and I when we first started semaphore, the first decision beyond deciding to work together that we made was actually that we would work for 10 years together. As the first chapter and actually our entire company at this point, everyone is a shareholder in the company and the entire company is structured on a 10-year vesting plan. So I think that long term. If you don't follow this stuff closely, normally you vest over 2-4 years as you start. 4 years is a traditional Silicon Valley model. But anyway, the reason we chose that 10-year horizon was both of us, and I think especially me, I'm a little bit older than Ben, you look back at your careers, you say, well what are the meaningful things that you've done across your career? And you realize in hindsight that it takes a while to do meaningful, significant things. It takes 6, 7, 8, 10 years to transform something, to build something from scratch. And we did not start semaphore, unlike I think a lot of other entrepreneurs just in order to sell it. We started it because we wanted to build what we hope will be one of the most meaningful and purposeful, independent, high-quality global news brands. So let's talk about what those investors have bought into. You said global news brand, you sort of pitch it as global leadership. I think about the economists, financial times, the journal bosses. Essentially bosses, people who are going to be bosses one way or another. Yeah, there's no really good language for it. We sometimes use the jargon, the leadership class, or C-suite executives and public sector leaders. But yes, that's the market that we're focused on. And that $40 million, you said half of it is from events, half of it is from advertising. That really surprised me. I would assume the bulk of it would have come from events, just because that's kind of maybe the easiest thing to scale up compared to advertising, especially in this climate. Is that, am I missing something? No, that's a big $20 million on newsletter ads and website ads. No, no. Honestly, I think a lot of people, we've gotten a lot of attention for our events innovation strategy because one of the things we did is we decided to put the events business sort of at the center of the company, at the center of our newsroom in particular, which is very different from a lot of traditional news organizations. So people have often sort of said, "Oh, semaphore is an events business." With a website, I used to work at one of those. But in fact, the truth is that semaphore is really a journalism business at its heart, at its core. The journalism powers everything. Obviously, the news and the news briefings and newsletters, we have 11 newsletters. We publish, by the United States, we publish in Sub-Saharan Africa, we publish now in the Gulf. And the advertising business is built around premium, largely corporate affairs advertising against those audiences of leaders in those markets. It's really the US market, like many global publishing businesses is the dominant market. But with that, we're going to be talking about the US market. But the journalism also powers, and this is novel and different compared to our competitors, is it really powers the convenings, which is why we call them live journalism convenings. Our journalists, even our biggest star journalists, we joke that Ben is not just the editor-in-chief of Semaphore. He's the editor-in-chief of Semaphore's live journalism, and our top journalistic talent designed the convening content, they moderate the content, we treat them as news-breaking opportunities, news-breaking moments. And that is a different approach than a lot of our competitors, and it's allowed us to build something to build it in events business more quickly and more powerfully, I think than others have tried in the past. I want to come back to that again one second, but just to be sure, when you say you have the business split between advertising and the other half is events, is that 20 million advertising is that tethered to the events if someone's buying a sponsorship from you, you're also selling them display advertising, newsletter advertising. The reality is, this is an integrated multi-platform news media model, and both on the product side, which is deeply integrated, as I mentioned, the journalism is deeply integrated, but also on the business side. Not only are the event partners, commercial partners, sponsors also advertising, but many of the advertisers are also sponsoring events. I think I'd say nearly 90% or more of our commercial partners on the events business are also advertisers in the media business. So it's a fully, fully integrated approach, and it makes sense because the news briefings and news media products deliver a kind of audience of decision makers and leaders in Washington and Wall Street, Silicon Valley. These are not very large-scale audiences, they're very targeted audiences. And so the notion that when you have a segment of audience, it's not that big, you actually can convene them quite easily. And that combination of convening and very targeted precision-based advertising is the model that we've developed. So you mentioned the idea that Ben's not just the editor, he's also the chief show pony and has to do all the big events. And I think that's considered standard for a lot of media companies nowadays, that their biggest stars are multi-platform. But when it comes to events, that's also potentially a limiter, right? Because Ben Smith can only be on stage one place at one time, and he can only do so many events a year. What do you think about scaling that business? Well, yeah, no, but I think that, I mean, honestly, I think that obviously everyone's in many journalists are expected to be multi-platform these days. But in truth, in real practice, I don't think that the events businesses are deeply, deeply integrated into the heart of these newsrooms. I mean, you have a few stars who may be given a podcast, they may be given their own event program. But on a day-to-day kind of business, architecture, content, product, architecture basis, having these two things live together and breathe together, that's actually quite a different thing. As for Ben's time, well, Ben, as you know, works 24 hours a day, seven days a week, so he's a bad example because he can do everything. But he can still only be at one conference at a time. You can't have a Ben conference. You can have a conference that he attends every day. You can't do it probably once a week, right? Yes, but the thing is, we're also one of the things we do. We did do almost 100 events this year. But a lot of the energy and the focus of our event strategy is around some of the bigger convenings that we do. And I would say that as we go forward, the idea is not necessarily to go from 100 to 200 to 300 events. I mean, it may grow as we grow geographically around the world. But the strategy is much more likely to be to build a series of tent poles that themselves become larger, more significant, more valuable, commercially, more influential, editorally. So that's how you scale it. Some of the press I've seen about your raise in your business has you guys trying to take on Davos, which is happening in a week or two, directly to build your own convening of the biggest, fanciest, most expensive people in the world and get them all in one place. Is that a real ambition? Is that a 10-year ambition or am I misguided? No, I mean, listen, when we started semifor, actually, in the original business plan deck, and we saw an opportunity that to build a leading CEO convening in the United States. We looked at the US market and we thought it's interesting. This is the largest economy in the world, and this is 2023-2022. And there is not a dominant leading CEO convening platform. And in fact, Davos was and still remains to this day the sort of the preeminent gathering for global CEOs. And we thought that was an interesting fact, and one which presented an opportunity. So we, from the very beginning, envision building this from scratch. And we identified Washington, D.C. as the best location to do this, which was also a little bit of an unusual choice. D.C.'s historically not been a place where CEOs travel. It's not been historically a center of business, but that, of course, has been changing across the last five to seven years. The role of geopolitics in the boardroom, the rise of regulation, all these different trends have converged and now CEOs from both the United States and across the world find themselves in Washington three, four, five, ten times a year, some of them. And we were fortunate because we made that bet. And in the first year, we had five Fortune 500 CEOs. And in the second, we had 25, the third year, we had 200 Fortune 500 CEOs. And this coming year, in April, 2026, we're expecting over 400, which really makes it the single largest CEO convening in this country. And probably second to Davos globally. And of course, that's not just a great moment to do a lot of journalism because much of these conversations, if not all of them are on the record and all the conversations are led by our journalists. But it's clearly an interesting and powerful commercial opportunity to connect different brands and companies who are interested in reaching this. That was my next question to flesh out how that business actually works. When you gather all those CEOs in Washington, April, you're making most of your money selling tickets to those CEOs with a ticket cost. And then how much are you and how much of your revenue comes from selling access to those folks to advertisers? We are right now, we're not charging any delegate fees to the CEOs. I mean, we pay to be in the audience if you're not a CEO. Yeah. And honestly, it's obvious that the CEOs are the core of the audience, the core of the products idea and proposition. So virtually 100% of the revenue that we have generated so far has been companies who want to reach CEOs. So these are the big global Fortune 100 B2B companies who, whether they're banks or consulting firms who want to reach CEOs because CEOs control big corporate budgets. And anyway, so that's been the nature of the business. I think over time, as we build it and scale it, we're hoping to be on 2026 if we can go from 400 to maybe 600 or 700 next year and really get on par with the market leader. We think many other revenue opportunities will emerge given the value of that type of audience. And when you're selling a Pfizer, however, a sponsorship for a specifically event like that, right? But when I've dipped into the conference business, the thing you always hear from potential sponsors is they want to be in the thought leadership space. They essentially want to be on stage. They want to be on a panel or they want to give a speech. Even if you allow them to do that, it doesn't seem like they get a ton of value out of that. It seems like the real value they're getting is the chance to be up close and personal with statesmen X and Y and CEO Z. How do you make your advertisers happy when they sponsor an event? You know, I think different advertisers and different sponsors have different motivations for being involved. Some are very focused on building their business. They want to sell more software to CEOs. And so getting their brand in front of that audience, getting their content in front of that audience is actually valuable for them. Some other companies are not, this is looking to sell their products per se, but want to tell a story about their corporate brand to people who matter, just stakeholders who may influence different aspects of their business ecosystem. And so that tends to be sort of a more ethereal you know, as you say, thought leadership, messaging, corporate brand, messaging, more of a content-based thing. So it just really depends on the client. We'll be right back, but first word from a sponsor. This is Advertiser Content brought to you by Stonyfield Organic. Our cows, them going out to pasture, they love it. They're so excited to go out every day. They wait-rated the door. In fact, we milk them and we just open up the laneway and let them just go right out to pasture. I'm Rhonda Miller Goodrich and I'm a dairy farmer in Cabot Vermont. Our farm is Molliebrook Farm. We're an organic dairy farm and we are a supplier to Stonyfield. Molliebrook Farm has been in my husband's family since 1835. We started our organic transition in 2015. We had 53 acres of corn ground and of course we had to use herbicides and pesticides and the soil was dead, really for all intense purposes. We stopped growing corn and stopped using herbicides and pesticides and we seeded that down to perennial grasses. After that we begin to see biodiversity in that soil again. To be organic certified, our cows need to be in pasture at least 120 days. I think the organic practices really benefit our animals. You know, having good feed, good water, a nice light area, that's what's important to us and that's what's important to Stonyfield. Visit Stonyfield.com to find Stonyfield Organic Yogurt near you. Support for this show comes from Atio, the AI CRM for modern businesses. There are teams closing deals twice as fast as everyone else. Always one step ahead. Always prepared. But how are they doing that? Come to find out they're using Atio. Atio connects your email, calls, product data and more so you always have complete contacts on every customer. You can then ask Atio to plan your next move, draft outreach, spot deals at risk and find out where anything stands. Ask more from your CRM. Ask Atio. You can go to atio.com/vox and you'll get 15% off your first year. That's attio.com/vox. When you think about wealth inequality in America, there's probably one man whose name comes to mind. And yes, he did compare America's billionaire era to the Guilded Age. We're living in a moment where the top 1% owns more wealth in the bottom 93%, where one man Elon Musk owns more wealth than the bottom 53% of American households, where while 60% of our people are living paycheck to paycheck, the billionaire class has seen its wealth increase by a trillion and a half dollars since Trump was elected. How's that? They're doing pretty well. I talked to Senator Bernie Sanders about his latest bill for a wealth tax and his call for a moratorium on AI data centers. Plus, how much he uses AI himself. Today explained every weekday and now on Saturdays 2. And we're back. You've been describing a business that's very DC based. You are based in DC. It's only striking to me that some of the most successful media startups of the last few years. You guys, Axios, Punchbull, to some extent, Puck are all making money or trying to make money in Washington in that same market's corporate responsibility, whatever you want to call it. He's a matching advertiser with powerful people. Why had no one tapped into that previously and how much bigger can that market get? Is it saturated now? Well, you got to think of it. It's effectively a B2B marketplace. I think this is what's different and what's sometimes confusing to people is that many of these news properties, including SEMF4, are consumer facing. They're consumer web pages and consumer focused newsletters. But since the audience that they're appealing to is this segment of this leadership audience, both public sector and private sector, it allows for a much more targeted type of business monetization. In this case, it's the corporate affairs market, which is largely corporate reputation, which I mentioned before. This also a bit of advocacy advertising, which is advertisers looking to advocate different positions. Facebook is saying, here's why we believe healthy regulations are a great idea. Exactly. The truth is, this market has existed for a long time, and there was a whole predecessor group of brands before Politico and Axios. You may remember roll call or the Hill or National Journal. In fact, when I was at the Atlantic and was in the Brand Atlantic Media Company, we had a property called National Journal, which was deeply in this space. Even back then, in the early knots, those were some of the most successful and profitable and commercially viable media businesses around. I think obviously these new digital disruptors came along and stole the market from those legacy players. But then I think what also happened is that the market grew. I think it grew really, really dramatically because I think the intersection of government and business has become more and more pronounced and more and more intense. I think the stakes have gotten higher and higher for companies operating in the US. Their needs to communicate their corporate brand positions have just gotten more and more urgent. I remember hearing early on from Ben, I think, that you guys were going to try to create essentially your own Sunday show, which is also very much fueled that economy is fueled with those same dollars on TV, but same kind of advertisers. And those were some of the most profitable TV shows on television back in the day. Unless I miss it. And they probably still are today. Unless I miss it, you guys have not launched your version of a Sunday show. Do you think that's something you'll try? Well, we actually started with a video investment. We had a couple of people that we hired at the beginning because we thought, let's see if we can produce this opinion leader video, this leadership class video. Ultimately, we tried, we were unable to really, really figure it out early on. And we ended up killing it within six months or so because as a startup, I think that's probably one of the better decisions we made was just to focus on the stuff that's working and stop doing this stuff that's not working. So I said, you guys are a success story. I just rattled off a few other new media success stories, digital media success stories. There's lots and lots of digital media and just overall media failure. Is there are there lessons from your quick success that can apply to people who aren't in the Washington DC media complex? Either you've got an existing media business or you wanted to start something new, but you don't want to have salons in Washington as your core business. Well, one way of thinking about it, this is a basic idea in corporate strategy, which is if you can map and look at the existing revenue and profit pools of the existing leading players in a certain marketplace. In this instance, we've been talking a lot about Washington DC, and 7/4 is very, very active there, but we're looking to build across the whole globe and building this opinion leader, this business decision maker model across the world. So if you map the global market for reaching business decision makers and you look at the global news market, you get brands like the, as you mentioned, the financial times. You get brands like the economists. You get brands like the Wall Street Journal. These are companies that have really transitioned successfully through the digital process. They're largely very big subscription revenue streams, very robust advertising revenue streams, strong events businesses, and they're seeing significant growth. It's actually a very healthy segment of the news market. So people say, "Oh, news, news, news is terrible." Well, that's too much of a generalization. The business news, the professional news, the premium news, whatever we want to put it, is extremely healthy. And so yet they also are legacy players. They're also operating kind of with playbooks that have been in place for a long time. And there's other opportunities for young upstarts to do things better and to attack and disrupt those models. And so I guess my advice to those who don't want to build a business like this in Washington and do salons is to map out an existing market where there The economics are strong, where there's significant revenue streams, significant profit streams, and then build a 21st century version of it. And that could be, it's most likely going to be, honestly, in the B2B space. I think the consumer space is certainly for news and information is much more challenged. But there are definitely opportunities. You can see this across different B2B categories that UNI know well. We're right back, but first, who are the two from our sponsors? For a brief period of time, in the beginning of the pandemic, a time that I'm very sorry to make you have to remember, there was this hot new app that promised to reinvent the way that we thought about social media forever. Clubhouse was going to be the thing. And this week on version history, our chat show about the most interesting and important and best and worst products in tech history, we're talking about why Clubhouse took off, and then ultimately, why it went away. That's on version history, available on YouTube and wherever you get podcasts. And we're back. One of the reasons people, or one of the reasons people say it uses in trouble, media's in trouble, like I mentioned up top, is the vicissitudes of being dependent on platforms, whether it's with the very old days, AOL and Yahoo, and then Google and then Facebook. And now back to Google again, we're talking about Google zero, and you marry that with AI. And the idea that the big platforms are one never going to be reliable sources of traffic and distribution. And two, may entirely dry up altogether, right? All the things you used to do via Google might all happen now in a chat GPT box. I don't think you guys were anticipating the AI boom when you guys launched this. And so in some ways, I think you're maybe accidentally successful by avoiding that. But how are you thinking about platform dependency and AI? Because it still is going to affect you, right? Yeah. But listen, naturally, we launched in 2022. The writing was on the wall about the platforms. We'd already seen that whole wave of the rise in the fall of distributed platforms. But even that, I remember Ben said, poor timing for us to launch as Elon was destroying Twitter as a useful distributor of news. Yes. No, it's true. And I have to say, it did concentrate the mind a little bit that your post, the crash of those broader, broader distributed models, that it was really, really important to develop a direct relationship with audiences. Everyone, that was the big idea. And I think from in 2022, 2023, as we saw these changes, obviously AI was not happening quite yet, it did concentrate the mind. And I think it did, we did, I think, focus our editorial model, focus our audience model, our distribution model quite intentionally towards more specific audiences that we could have a direct relationship with that, that wouldn't necessarily be competitive with social media. And I think that if you think about that, what does that mean when you're making product, when you're doing journalism? Well, it means, if you're a CEO or a leader of a division of a company and you're trying to understand the impact of geopolitics, global geopolitics on your supply chain or on interest rates, directions. You're not going to go to Facebook, you're not going to go to Google, you're not going to go to Twitter, even. I mean, you're going to be looking for expert insight and you're going to be looking for trusted voices or trusted brands that present that information and you're going to be looking for a direct relationship to get that content. And that's the nature of professional content. And I think it's, I wouldn't say it's totally immune from all these changes. Obviously, the AI revolution is adding a set of different challenges to that. But certainly, vis-a-vis the distributed social revolution, this type of professional consumer looking for insight, looking for intelligence, looking for really, really high quality trusted content is not going to go through the social platform. So all that makes sense, but presumably all of your CEOs are swearing up and down how much they love AI and they're desperate to use it and they're installing it across all their companies. So presumably, they are going to get some kind of AI-generated news product that's going to go out and get them all the best information about a supply chain or whatever. How do you make sure some of our participants -- I mean, we talk to a lot of CEOs. It's one of our core audiences. And you know what you hear from CEOs is I'm so sick of not being able to trust the news that is produced for me by what are supposed to be professional trusted news organizations. The loss of trust in some of the journalism-based professional news brands is staggering. It's staggering. And in fact, when we started the company, we -- trying to restore trust, trying to innovate in our product, in our editorial to restore trust was actually really something that Ben and I really tried to prioritize. We came up with this idea of the SEMA form, which is a new article format, which separates news from analysis and opinion, presents counter-vailing opinions. And I can't tell you the number of CEOs or C-suite executives who -- now, this is three years in, we've had time to build it and refine it, who say, "Thank you so much for your content because you are right, right up to middle." And your commitment and your purpose around trying to create more balanced, less ideological, more fact-based news is very, very welcome. And it's interesting that this trust question, particularly with the decision-maker sort of audience, is especially acute because they're obviously taking this information to do things with it in a very, in profound ways. But to be specific, I was asking you how you deal with the notion that your stuff may be pulled into a chat GPD-produced news summary for those busy executives, or if not chat GPD, someone is going to do some sort of -- and then the people will expect that is brilliant as SEMA 4 is, that will be one thing that they get as part of a bigger package. And so how do you get them to make sure -- I mean, we'll never -- >>Bisitting you and paying you or -- >>Number one, we don't let the LLMs take SEMA 4's content. We don't have any deals with the LLMs at this point. So we try to protect from that. Number two, I think it's actually the opposite. I think that the further up the ladder you go, and whether it's in a company or an organization or just someone's level of education or discernment, I think that there is a sort of a counter-reaction happening where AI summaries are sort of -- seem to be invading the inbox and invading people sort of, you know, mind share like a weed and you're spotting it everywhere. It actually has this dumbing down effect where you feel like, wait a minute, this is -- >>So you're getting the real uncut stuff from SEMA 4 and it's kind of a status marker in the same way that Brooklyn kids are supposedly ditching phones. >>You know, I mean, maybe there'll be a point at which the AI is so powerful that it's actually able to sort of mimic truly authentic human artisanal journalism. And that would be -- that would be an interesting day. I think -- I do think that the AI and the prevalence and the broadening of the AI revolution and everything being turned, you know, being turned into some form of aggregated content is going to create opportunities for more human-centric, more artisanal, much, much more custom and directed types of content. So we'll see. I think the other thing was interesting about our model is since, you know, half our business right now is in the live convening space. You know, we think that's also going to be pretty relatively safe from the AI disruption because -- and may actually, in fact, it may be the tailwind because, you know, as technology takes over our lives and becomes so much more prevalent, I think there will be a natural human reaction to want to spend more time in person together. >>We've been praising your success. Let's -- for balance sake, tell me something you got wrong. In the launch and the thinking about it and the execution, what's something you'd do over? >>Well, I think, you know, I mean, we definitely did not made the absolutely wrong decision on video. That was probably our biggest mistake. We spent too much on it too early. We thought that we could -- we thought that we could sort of invent as a new market, which was a digital video, kind of corporate affairs advertising market. Honestly, the media buying structure is that existed for that, just didn't exist and didn't work. And so that was probably the singular thing. I think, I'm proud of what the teams accomplished. I think we've built a really, really strong talent culture. I think that the folks at SEMIFOR represent really some of the most talented people in the industry. We've built a very, very collaborative, and I think really team-based environment. I know I'm going back onto our successes now, but there's been lots of smaller mistakes along the way, and obviously ups and downs, but overall, it's been a good three years. All right, well, no need to parate you about failures if you've just been killing a year after year, said with a bit of argeness in my voice, but I think you had done well. So congratulations. Thank you. Thank you, Plexer, for taking time. Appreciate it. OK, all the bets. Thanks again to Justin Smith. Thanks again to Charlotte Silver. Thanks again to our advertisers. Thanks again to you guys. We have some more fun shows coming up. See you soon. [MUSIC PLAYING]