And by not having a conflict of interest, we help them to buy objectively across the entire media landscape, especially the most perfectly fragmented portion of that which is in CTV. The best way for us to stay ahead and I say this to our team all the time, is to do the very same things that got us here. We align our interest with our clients, we maintain our objectivity and we innovate like hell. And that’s what we’ve been doing all this year. That’s what we expect to continue to do. That becomes even easier to do from an IR standpoint as times get better and better. But we’ve been doing it now. We’ll keep doing it in the future. That’s what got us here. That’s what’s going to get us to the future that we know we can obtain if we just keep executing.
Operator: The next question comes from Chris Kuntarich with UBS.
Chris Kuntarich: Maybe one here for Laura, just going back to the guide. Can you give us a sense for how fast or if we were growing in October? And just kind of how we should be thinking about kind of what’s implied potentially if it were an exit rate in December in that 18% growth where was October potentially kind of if it was growing, say, 10% in October and we’re talking about a stabilization potentially around where the full year guide, could we be exiting in kind of that low 20s growth that you talked about where the guide implies where you would be for the full quarter ex political?
Laura Schenkein: Chris, I appreciate the question. We actually aren’t going to provide further guidance on exact year-over-year growth figures, both with and without election spend in the base for October, the first week of November or exiting the year. But you know correctly that we did see that drop-off in the second week of October and stabilization going into November. So all of that is factored into that guide.
Chris Kuntarich: Okay. So was — any color, was October actually growing that you could share?
Laura Schenkein: Of course, it was growing. I’m smiling as I say that.
Operator: The next question comes from Laura Martin with Needham.
Laura Martin: I’ll just ask one on CTV. When I talk to Disney and Paramount and Fox and they are always saying they have direct sales forces. They think they get a higher price point selling content which is not substitutable. And they’re definitely afraid of the third bucket that you talk about which is — which you think is the final destination which is biddable programmatic because they’ve seen what’s happened in mobile and desktop and it’s sort of a race to the bottom because of unlimited supply. So can you speak to the fact of why — like, by the way, Michael Barrett yesterday on Magnite call said, he completely disagrees with you, that it’s all going to stay in those first 2 buckets. So can you explain why you think the final destination is all going to be biddable when that is not what I’m hearing from my premium content owners.
Jeffrey Green: Yes. So I suppose it depends on who you ask inside of those premium content owners. But to me, the math is fairly obvious and even conceptually, it’s fairly obvious. And I know that Michael Barrett’s business can’t really participate on the buy-side decisioning that is that third bucket. So it’s natural for him to focus on the first 2 and talk about the things that are great about those 2 buckets. But if you step back, the third bucket which is fully-decisioned programmatic is the one where the advertiser gets to bring their own data to the equation, is the one where they say, “These are the users that I want.” It’s the one where it realizes the potential of CTV advertising because the ads are relevant. Every single person here or hearing this has seen television ads that are not relevant to them.
And that’s driven by a system that has historically always been focused on content, where I want to match this advertiser with this content and just sort of spray and pray. That isn’t what will happen in the future. That isn’t what’s happening in that third bucket today which is that you can bring your own data and show ads that are highly relevant so that you don’t just use the show as a proxy for audience. The show was always used as proxy for audience. And sometimes, it lines up really nicely which is most people who watch football are more likely to drink beer. And so as a result, those 2 have been married really well. And that’s part of the reason why ESPN content is some of the most expensive. But if you can take an ID and make certain that the ad is relevant and customize that and make it so that you’re only showing ads to those that are relevant, only then can you make it so that these 4 minutes per 60 that are being used for ads which is what, 1/4 of what happens in traditional television, only then can you make the CPMs go up high enough to justify the additional cost.
So long-term, we’re all heading to that last bucket. It’s the only place where the math makes sense. It’s the only place where you really get the benefits of digital. And inside of all of those big content companies, there are groups of people that understand that, that’s where we’re all heading, even though not necessarily everybody gets that the traditional models of selling are not the best ways to monetize television going forward.
Chris Toth: Thanks, Laura. Operator, you can close out the call.
Operator: This concludes today’s conference and you may disconnect your lines at this time. Thank you for your participation.
