Jason Robins: And proximity inflection. Yes, yes. So I think you’re absolutely correct. One of the implications of faster ramping with new states, that the inflection to profitability and the degree of operating leverage that you get earlier is greater than what we had seen in some of the earlier states that launched in more of the 2018, ’19, ’20 time frame. So, there is that implication, and I think that could potentially have an effect not just with the states we’re seeing launch in recent months as well as Massachusetts, but with future states that launched that again, something I think we’ll address at the Investor Day. But in a nutshell, to answer your question directly, I do think it brings in the time line to path to profitability for a new state. And we’ll be providing a more specific update on that later this year.
Jason Park: I just want to be clear, Robin, that 2024 EBITDA does include an assumption of more states legalized.
Jason Robins: Yes. Sorry. So, ’23 does not. ’24, we have assumed 7% to 9% or 7% to 8%, I forget, if the population launches for sports betting and 3% to 4% for iGaming.
Robin Farley: Okay. So, that would be some new states in this legislative session, right, would have to…
Jason Robins: That would be, yes. And the implication, if that comes in high or low or if it’s less so, while it may mean less TAM, it actually means we’re probably going to have faster profitability ramp. So, I think either way, it’s a good story for the Company. But obviously, we’re pushing hard to get more legislation passed.
Robin Farley: And then also, that would mean that your 2023 guidance includes the losses from those new states, right? If the profitability is in your ’24 guidance, the losses would be in the ’23 guidance already. In theory, that would be the part of it.
Jason Robins: No, no, sorry. We did not — no. We assumed, other than Massachusetts, no more state launches in ’23. So there will be no effect in ’23 if that occurs. If we do see more states launch in ’23, yes, that will happen. But what I was referring to was launches in ’24. So what that would mean is that the investment period for those states would be in ’24. And it would have a downward — sorry, if there were not launches, would have a positive impact on EBITDA in 2024.
Operator: Thank you. And our next question comes from Joe Greff with JPMorgan. Your line is open.
Joe Greff: Just with regard to the incremental benefit in ’23 — or ’23 updated guidance versus three months ago and the benefit coming from more efficient promotional activity and more efficient promotional reinvestment, how broad-based is that? Or how market concentrated is that? And then how much of a benefit from a market like New York is driving that improvement?
Jason Robins: Well, the bulk of our guidance increase on the EBITDA side came from direct management. So about half of it came — or about $50 million of it, I should say, came from compensation expense, about $50 million came from marketing. So, definitely a big impact there, some of the revenue increase was hold rate and promotion optimization. Some of it was some underlying handle/retention metrics we’re seeing in our cohorts. As far as state by state, I don’t think there’s anything in particular at the state level that’s different. States are maturing as expected. And the increases we’re seeing, the hold rate are happening across the board. We do see in some of the newer states that we’ve launched that we have faster adoption of parlays and same-game parlays.
