The media's year of 'change or die'

Hey everybody, Jeff Bennett here and welcome to another episode of Settle In from PBS News.

There's been a lot of turmoil in the media and entertainment business lately,

from the takeover of CBS and Warner Brothers by the Ellison family to mass layoffs at news

organizations like The Washington Post, to allegations of censorship by late-night talk show hosts

and yes to the federal funding cuts in public media. Our guests today will help us understand

all of this tumult and what it all means for the future of media. He's Evan Shapiro,

an Emmy and Peabody winning producer who now writes about the industry on his sub-stack called

Media War in Peace. He's also become known as Media's unofficial cartographer for his graphic

charting the size and ownership of media companies. So, settle in and enjoy our conversation with Evan

Shapiro. Evan Shapiro, thanks for joining us. Thank you so much for having me. Yeah, of course.

You've had this really fascinating career that runs from creative work to executive leadership

to now essentially mapping and critiquing the entire media ecosystem. How did that evolution happen?

I got fired by Comcast and at that point, I had been speaking inside companies for a while

about the changes that were coming and really getting a bit agitated that the change was not

coming from within these companies who have all of this power and all these resources,

but rather was being made around them and they weren't reacting in real time quick enough. I really

had an existential crisis of why I got into the business in the first place and what I realized

it was to make stuff. And so, I started writing my own column first on LinkedIn then on sub-stack,

which really wasn't a thing prior to when this was all occurring. And as I was putting my thoughts

out there, all based on data first, by the way, not just opinions based on my own impulses,

but based on what I think is the voice of the audience, which is the data around their usage,

people seem to be gravitating towards it. And then about six months into that experiment,

I dropped this map of the media universe that I still make every month and remake every month.

And it kind of blew up into this new kind of creator mindset that I now operate on.

Yeah, I want to talk more about the map in a second, but was there a specific moment when you

realized that you were more interested in understanding the media system, the media ecosystem,

than working inside it, apart from being let go by Comcast.

I just really started to appreciate the ability to wake up every day and not have to think about

operating a business, but in thinking about the business ecosystem writ large.

And frankly, the feedback loop from the audience that I was serving was really satisfying,

more satisfying to be blunt than the kind of internal naval gazing that was really the practice

of most media companies up until that point and still today. And so this was, it was an evolution

that started about 20 years ago as I was teaching these classes. And I've now taught two

different generations of college students, millennials and Gen Zers. And watching their consumption

evolution over that period really just, it excites me. The more I delved into it on an ongoing

basis, the more enjoyable I found it. And frankly, after I left or was asked to leave Comcast,

the ability to put my thoughts out there without having to run it by HR or a PR department,

without having to run my thoughts up the flagpole before I articulated them,

that really gave me more joy and satisfaction than at any point in my career. And you know,

I've won Emmys and Peabodies and I've done all these other things, but so much of the business is

about the business as opposed to about the audience. And now my practice is all about really trying

to represent the audiences once needs and desires to these executives and frankly to the creators

who are operating outside the ecosystem. So, you know, it started 20 years ago and picked up speed

from there. The Media Universe map that you mentioned that you created. Where did the idea for

that come from? You know, I had been making PowerPoint since before PowerPoint was really a thing.

And so I started, you know, messing around with it on PowerPoint. And then I just threw it all out

and started from scratch. And the first one took me six months to complete from front end to finish.

And it was my love-hate relationship with PowerPoint that, you know, frankly, gave me the inspiration

for it. And we should say this is a map that charts who owns what in the global media landscape.

What about it took six months? Why did it take that long? Well, first you have to understand

what the X and Y access is. And then, you know, just determining what the scale was.

So, you know, there's a temptation to do it around viewership or user base or any number of

different metrics. But those things, you know, tend not to be reported very accurately. And a lot

of them tend to be somewhat subjective. I think monthly average users is dumb metric. I don't think

it really represents anything important. And so it took me a minute just to land on market

capitalization as the X access of the chart itself. And then understanding the groupings,

understanding which companies to include and which companies not to include, then understanding

what data to include on each planet on the map itself. I do include user base and subscribers,

but that's not the size of the planet. The most controversial choice I made was putting Apple

and Microsoft and Meta and Google on the same map with Netflix and Disney and Warner Brothers,

now Warner Brothers Discovery, or as I call them disco bros, and Paramount, which at the time was

called Viacom. You know, putting them all in the same map together, people got angry about that.

Why would you do that? They don't really work in media. They dabble in it at a loss leader

to steal share from us. And my point was, yeah, yes, that's exactly the race that we're in right now.

So it was a lot of choosing what to include and what not to include the shape and all that kind of

stuff. And then once I determined that, now I updated the map this weekend for March,

2026, and it took me two hours. When you step back, though, and look at the map,

is there something that stands out to you about who actually owns or should say controls,

the information and entertainment economy? I think the larger point is,

as much as people like to say, there are these small number of companies that control the media

on the planet earth. It's actually not so much true now, as it was, let's say, when I started

doing this, when truly six companies, seven companies controlled 90% of media on the planet earth.

Now, because of things like Apple and YouTube and Meta and TikTok and Spotify and Roblox and

all these other things, I think it's actually more decentralized now than it's ever been. I also

have had a theory that since the middle of last year that the public media sector,

and by that, I don't necessarily mean PBS. I mean true public media, and that's not an offense

meant towards PBS, more in offense to the way America treats its public media. But the BBC's,

the ZDF's, the France televisions of the world, their revenues tend to stay pretty normalized

on an ongoing basis. Now, there are governmental threats against those platforms around the rest

of the world, but the regional masters, so the regional public media still control a massive

amount of share of voice in the markets where they're at. And I don't think that the Netflix's

and the Amazon's in particular have necessarily been able to cut into that. So I do think

we have this perception that very few people control the media. That is less and less true

on an ongoing basis, especially when you consider that YouTube is now the biggest channel on TV sets

in the US, and everyone says, well, they're the big tech, they control so much voice.

And reality YouTube is 4.6 million different channels, and a million of them control a lot of

the voice there, but that's still a million channels. So in my mind, fragmentation is now the most

important factor in media. And so I think I like to say that when I was rising up in media,

it was a lot easier because your competition was a few other channels. Now your competition is

everybody, all seven billion people on the planet earth were the smartphone. The good news is

that back when I was coming up in media, there were only a few buyers of the stuff that you would

make. Now, there are seven billion, eight billion buyers of the media you make. So the control

has shifted from these ivory towers, who think they're still in charge, to the consumer themselves,

who really do control the media in their system settings whenever they touch that piece of glass

that they pick up first thing in the morning. You recently gave a talk called The Year of Change

or Die, which is pretty stark framing. What did you mean by that? So this is the year that

the combination of the creator, economy, and mainstream media will really intersect in a way that

they hadn't before. And you see this in Proctor and Gamble, producing a Microsoft for TikTok and

Instagram. You see this in Mr. Beast being on Amazon, Ms. Rachel being on Netflix. And so the folks

who operate their businesses by the vanity metrics of Eras past, they're going to find it more

and more difficult to succeed. The best example I'll give you is last year all premium streamers

on the face of the earth. So these are the paid streaming platforms like Amazon Prime and Netflix

and Disney Plus and Hulu and the rest. They gained 175 million new subscribers.

Hooray. They also lost 158 million subscribers. The retention has been, it's a third of what it was

five years ago. It's half of what it was four years ago. They're going to get to a zero retention

in the next couple of years. And then suddenly premium streaming, the thing that was going to save

television, right, is going to be in the same place cable is losing subscribers, revenues,

shrinking instead of growing. And in reality, at the same time, these social media platforms,

social video, things like YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, Snap, these are now where people under the

age of 50, not under 30, not under 20, under the age of 50, they're spending much more time

there than they are on other platforms. The fastest growing segment of viewers of YouTube

on television are people 55 plus. I did a report that's going to come out soon on the children's

television or content landscape. 88% of two to five year olds would prefer to watch YouTube over

any streaming service. And so if you don't read, I gave this speech and I talk about this all the time

in the fourth quarter of last year, Barb, which is the Nielsen of the UK, reported that VBC surpassed

the BBC in total reach for the entire quarter of fourth quarter. Right now, fewer than half of

Britain's are reached by BBC news on a weekly basis, 44%. 90% of the public touch YouTube

in some form of fashion. And yet, when I say that to people in the British UK television system,

they tell me I'm out of my mind as if the data isn't real, that YouTube is not television. People

are, they don't treat it the same way. They absolutely are. Frontline puts its full feature documentaries

on YouTube the same week it's on PBS. And they get massive audiences, two, three generations younger

than your television audience does. And so when you see that happening, you have to go out there

and ring the bell and say, now's the moment. You've been delaying and bracing social video

as the new form of broadcast. But you can still accomplish what you want to accomplish if you

understand the rules of changed and the audience is now in charge. And so this year, where retention

in 2025 was 11% for premium streaming, where YouTube is now bigger than BBC on many given days

in the UK, when the number one channel on TVs in the United States is YouTube. This is the moment

to change. And if you don't, as Paramount and Warner Brothers combine and make fewer movies and

fire tens of thousands of people, if you don't change this year, by the end of this decade,

you're going to find yourself out of a job or out of a business.

When you say that the traditional media companies are making a mistake in looking at the vanity

metrics, what's a better metric if it's not subscribers or viewers, engagement? How do you measure

engagement in a meaningful way? Engagement is at the root of it. I call it the affinity economy.

So it is about love. You know, you're interviewing me, right? Why? I don't have a,

I don't have a million followers. I don't have a million sub-stack readers, right? I have,

at most, 100,000, 150,000 people who follow me in any given time or month. But they love what I do.

They are rabid about my content. They talk about me when I'm not in the room. And so that affinity

is driven me to a business model that works substantially better for me personally than when

I was working in a Comcast, getting paid, you know, and getting bonuses and getting shares of the

company. So affinity is, to me, the key metric that you need to focus on. Reach is not important

because passive reach just doesn't buy you anything. But cult members, loyalists, passionate people

who will wear your brand out in public, whether they subscribe and never cancel dropout. I don't

know if you know what dropout is. It's what college humor became. Dropout recently raised their

prices and their million subscribers got angry at them for not asking for more money. That's

passion. That's affinity. Angel Studios, which is a faith-based family content film studio that made

sound of freedom. They just came out with David, which is an animated film. They have a 1.5 million

members. The executives at Angel do not choose the films to green light. The members do. Angel has

the highest box office per film release average in an all of independent film on the face of the

earth, higher than A24. The what studio everyone talks about, right? That's an affinity metric.

They did a Reg A offering, which is a way to offer a security without going public. Last summer,

they raised $50 million from 40,000 people in 18 days. They could have raised more, but they were

capped. That's affinity metrics. To me, it's about the loyalty and engagement of a community. It

isn't about pure reach and frequency. Let's talk about news because I take your point about

the fragmentation across the broader media landscape. As you know, Larry Ellison and his family

now control CBS news. Barry Weiss was brought in. There's been a lot of debate about the editorial

direction of CBS news and 60 minutes. From your vantage point, I'll start with the micro,

just about CBS. Do you see a longer-term strategy there? Yeah. What is it?

Feelty to the guy in the lighthouse. I mean, that is clear. There is no other logic behind the

$110 billion acquisition that they're making of Warner Bros. Discovery aka Disco Bros. There's

just no logic. There's no mathematical logic to it. It is about the daddy and son buying CNN

to please dear leader. That is very clear. The choices they've been making at CBS,

whether it's editing and censoring 60 minutes and the story that they were doing,

or telling Stephen Colbert that he can't interview a Senate candidate or firing Stephen Colbert.

All of media and tech has decided to bend the knee to this guy. I don't know why. There is this

quid pro quo that is clearly going on between the Ellison family and the Trump family.

It started with donations, but there are a lot of ins and outs. The current conflict in the

Middle East is part of this. Oracle is a major contractor to the military industrial complex

in this country, but it goes the TikTok deal itself, handing the back end of that to Larry Ellison.

There's the opportunity to control the data behind TikTok, but in reality, what wound up

happening there is $40 billion goes right into Larry Ellison's pocket as a result of that deal,

because Oracle now provides the back end infrastructure and management of that platform in the US,

and they're getting paid by the company to do that. That is an obvious quid pro quo. There is no

question that the Ellison's made a deal with the White House to fire Stephen Colbert in order to

get their FCC approval for the deal that they were doing to buy Paramount in the first place.

I mean, the order of things just dictates it very clearly. So it is about a monolithic set of voices

in the news era. David Ellison also has always wanted to be a media mogul since he was in diapers,

and so this is kind of a dream realization for the sun in that case.

But I will say, there's one point there, which is Barry Weiss would not be running CBS

if she hadn't left the New York Times to start her own sub-stack, which didn't have 10 million

subscribers. It just had the right pool of people. So the affinity economy shows exactly

the power of a very strong community like that. Sorry, I interrupted you.

No, it's fine. I was going to ask, you answered the question. I was going to ask what the bigger

prize was for the Ellisons if they're not invested in the editorial independence of CBS news,

or CNN, potentially, if that deal closes. But I hear you say it's getting access to,

for instance, TikTok and building this empire. Yeah, and don't sleep on the oracle of it all.

Handing, spending $110 billion to buy one or both his discovery disk airbrows

is kind of a drop in the bucket to the trillion dollars that Oracle can take in over the next

decade. Let's talk about print media, namely the New York Times versus the Washington Post,

because the Times now has more than 12 million digital subscribers. It keeps expanding into games

and cooking and podcasts. That is really what is keeping the news side afloat.

Meantime, you've got the Washington Post. They've had these layoffs, all sorts of internal turmoil.

What explains those two institutions moving in two very different directions?

The New York Times is to me the greatest case study of old media transformation into new media.

And I wrote about this, I think four years ago, I started writing about the New York Times.

It's funny this past week, they hit the highest market capitalization they've ever had,

over $12 billion. And so what they decided, Mark Thompson was the first CEO,

Meredith Coppadelevid is now, you know, she's the CEO. The two of them together really

transformed that business. And when you look at what they did, they made a decision to upend

everything without getting rid of the mission, where they started was with their users.

They didn't say, hey, let's get into gaming. They didn't say that. They didn't say, hey,

let's get into cooking. They didn't say that. They didn't say, hey, let's get into podcasting.

They said, what does our audience like? They got into gaming because their audience is

rabid about the crossword puzzle. And so they got into these puzzle games on mobile, which is the,

by the way, puzzle games on mobile is the number one genre and way that gamers like to play

in the world. And so they started building that and then they bought Wordl for a steal.

They got into podcasting, not because they wanted to get into podcasting, but because they

asked their users, how do you get your news beside the New York Times? And they said podcasts.

They also changed the nature of podcasting. The daily was the first daily podcast.

It was much shorter than all other podcasts out there. And so they really upended that.

And then they focused on a lifestyle. This is how they described themselves. The

lifestyle suite of services that centers around user passions, cooking. They bought the athletic,

which filled a massive hole at the New York Times. Their sports section was always terrible.

Now it's one of the better ones in the world. It also came with millions of subscribers.

So they reconstituted the entire enterprise around the needs, wants desires and interests of their

best highest average revenue per user users. The Washington Post was about Jeff Bezos proving that

his *** still works. That's the major difference between those two. I mean, it took, it took

what was a real brilliant business person and turned them into the divorce dad that everybody hates.

And that's how he's treating the Washington Post. Hey, kid, let's have a chat. No, no, Jeff,

support journalism, you know, back the enterprise that brought down Nixon for Pete's sake.

You know, what Catherine Graham built there was one of the most important

journalistic institutions in the history of the Republic. And in less than five years,

he's absolutely destroyed it, not just from an integrity standpoint. That's that can be

opinion. But the business is just disintegrating. They're bleeding subscribers. Their revenues are

not headed in the right direction. And so when someone does something out of personal ego or out of,

you know, their own belief in their own supremacy, it typically turns into these types of things.

Whereas Mark and Meredith have really focused on the survival of the enterprise, the transformation

of the platform and super, super serving. Remember, the New York Times is now at their

all-time high market capitalization. They don't have 300 million subscribers. They don't have

100 million subscribers. They don't have 20 million subscribers. As you just said, they have 12

million. And they've shifted from a paper product that was mostly advertising delivered by

diesel trucks into the, I think, the greatest digital lifestyle suite on the planet.

Well, we can't talk about media under pressure without inferrenous talking about public media.

What lessons do you think PBS can learn from other just best practices given the defunding

situation? It's interesting. You know, the defunding situation was probably the best advertising

campaign that could have ever happened to PBS. If you look at individual donations to PBS over

the last year, they're skyrocketing. And a huge percentage of the donations are coming from

Gen Z and millennials who are first-time donors. And 70% of those donations from first-time donors

are coming online, not on the telephone, not during a campaign on air, but from, you know,

direct outreach either through email or very often on social media. If you look at the Arthur

campaign of raising the fist, that was fan created, by the way. That's a really good example of that.

If you look at what Rainier Ensign is doing with Frontline, by putting up these Peabody,

Emmy, and Oscar award-winning documentaries in full length on YouTube, the same week that they

air on PBS. And sometimes they're getting a much bigger audience on YouTube than they are on broadcast

or on the app. Then you can see that if you go the same content that you've been serving on broadcast,

we'll be enjoyed by much younger consumers, the next generation of consumers on social video.

If you put it there, that is a really crucial element. Disney put up the 20th anniversary of high

school reunion was a couple months ago. And Disney put the entire movie up in 10-minute

increments on TikTok, and it blew up. I don't think they expected that, right? I think they thought

it was a cute little stunt, but it's turned into this massive thing. And so to me, if you want

your next generation of members, I don't understand what the FCC license means anymore. Brendan Carr

is running the FCC as a personal catering crew for his president. The whole Jimmy Kimmel of it all

is a great demonstration of that. Prove your loyalty to us next star and take Jimmy Kimmel off the

air and then we'll approve your deal to merge. Well, that's exactly what happened. In that light,

when they're taking money back from you, I don't understand what the FCC broadcast license does

for PBS anymore to be blunt, other than limit what you can say and do on your air. To me,

I think rebuilding, reconstituting, and I know the member stations are really important here.

But when you talk to member stations, they're most fervent users. Yes, they still have

median age 72 on broadcast in prime time, by the way. But there's a next generation of Gen Xers

who grew up me. I was the first Sesame Street generation. I grew up with Sesame Street. I grew

up with PBS. The first time I saw most of my favorite Broadway shows were on great performances.

And so the idea that my generation has lost touch with PBS, that the younger generations

are losing touch with it, it's a real chain. And then you look at what PBS Kids does online,

reaching younger families, and it's really invigorating. So to me, I think

kill broadcast, move into pure digital. If the PBS and by the way, the local radio stations and PR as

well, the public media in this country who have good digital enterprises are thriving, St. Louis,

Rochester, Kansas City, SoCal. They're really talking to their audiences on a daily basis.

The largest growth in the creator economy between now and the end of this decade is not going

to come from creators. It's going to come from big mainstream publishers moving their enterprises

and their content onto creator platforms. Each one of the PBS and public media affiliates,

NPR and PBS in this country, if they chose to be the most important creators in their

constituency, in their community, they can. It's very, very doable because they make better content

more often than everybody else out there. And they can rely much more on the resources of their

fan base than they can, than they have historically on the government. I mean, you know,

look at this for a second. This American life is one of the most popular podcasts in the world.

It's a radio show that transformed into a podcast. I never listen to, wait, wait, don't tell me

on radio. I listen to the hell out of it on podcasts. I do not watch front line on television.

I watch it on YouTube. So it is a, it is a much better one-on-one relationship. And then you

don't have to worry about the brand. You don't have to worry about the vagaries of whoever's

president dictating whether or not you're in charge of your own faith.

Now, I take your point. I mean, PBS news puts PBS news hour on YouTube. It streams in real time.

And you can watch either the YouTube version or the broadcast version simultaneously.

And when I encounter people on the street and they tell me they watch the news hour,

it's usually the second or third question when I realize, oh, no, they're listening to the

podcast or they're watching discrete segments on Twitter or online some other way or to your point

about YouTube. After everything you've seen both professionally and personally, are you optimistic

or pessimistic about the future of media? I'm optimistic about it. I'm optimistic about media

itself. I'm very pessimistic about these companies who think they're in media today.

And in reality, all they are is in the stock market. Too much of the media ecosystem is run by

CFOs and shareholders at this point. And not enough is run by audiences and artists.

And so, you know, let's run by audience and artists, the creator economy, this podcast,

stuff that's made by artists and delivered direct to consumers. That's where the industry is

all headed. It's Eli Roth, just did a ReJ offering on Republic. They raised $5 million,

he raised $5 million to make his own film. He didn't have to go around Hatton Hand to Hollywood

asking for permission to Greenlight this movie. He did it himself. That is the future. That is where

this is all headed. It is not headed back to Hollywood. It is not headed to these big studio

systems. It is not headed to Ted and Zaz and Davey and Larry walking around the Warner Brothers

lot kicking tires on golf carts. That's not where the industry is headed. I am very concerned

about the tens of thousands of people who rely on that end of the sector, that end of the industry

for their livelihood. You know what I'm not worried about? The ability for individual creators

to build enterprises around themselves that don't necessarily need 100 million subscribers

to succeed. That's going to grow. That's going to thrive. I'm optimistic about the media because

I know the consumers are driving it. I hear you. That for me, for someone who came up as a classically

trained broadcast journalist, that is depressing. Watching the Golden Globes, there was a

Nikki Glazer skit where she's sitting in a car and she goes podcasts. That's just what we have now.

It's just to watch the bottom fallout of television news, to hear you say that the big studio system

is done and now it's basically millions of people on their phone producing stuff and just uploading it.

It's sad. It just makes me sad for what the way things used to be and the quality control.

I mean, say what you want to about have there are no more gatekeepers. But when you have gatekeepers,

there is a certain level of quality that is yielded from that system.

Yes. And I think the New York Times demonstrates that you can have both. I've had conversations with

both Beehive and Substack. Most news organizations are now starting their own newsletters on Substack.

The quality, the cream will still rise to the top. You just have to put the cream in the coffee.

And if you take the blow out of it, the infrastructure that we built kind of irrationally when the

profits were so high, then you can figure out this new system to go directly to the consumer.

This isn't about individual creators. Like I said, the biggest growth in the creator economy

between now and the end of this decade is not going to come from new Mr. Beasts popping up.

It's going to come from organizations like NewsHour starting podcasts. It's going to come from

the New York Times deciding to get into gaming. It's going to come from

big the BBC doing a deal with YouTube. It's going to come from traditional professional journalists

deciding that the bloat is no longer worth it. And that they're going to have to figure out how to

make a go of it in this new economy. But when Jim Acosta and all these other journalists move

over to these platforms, every single one of them is, I mean, all do respect Chuck Todd. He was a

bit of a joke at NBC when he left. Now he's blowing up on TikTok, seriously. And so there is a

way to recraft what we had even better because now you don't have to sell advertising and sell

subscriptions. You can have a Patreon. You can go direct to consumers and have a relationship with

them. The gatekeepers, the ones who don't make anything, the ones who are only there to get paid,

they are the problem. It's separate from all of this. The through line in your work is really

focused, has been focusing on what matters and finding the best way to make the best use of your

time. And I bring that up because you've spoken openly about your experience battling cancer

and the complications that have followed. How did that experience change the way you think about

time and work and what really matters? The errors, I enjoyed my jobs when I was running networks

and producing stuff. You know, I got to produce Portlandia and a great film called This Film is

Not Yet Rated and a whole bunch of other fun stuff. But even then, I spent most of my days talking

about stuff, not doing stuff. And now 100 other than this podcast, 100% of my day is spent doing

stuff. Whatever I make, I decide in the morning to make and I put it out there without filter.

And so creating a relationship between myself and a community, I want to spend the rest of my life

doing two things. Doing the work that I love and being with my family. And now that's all

that and rooting for the Eagles are the three things I do with my life. And so to me,

wasting no more time on bull. That became clearer during the two years. I really was at the

bottom of my health struggle. And the feedback loop from the community that I've built

helped save my life. So yeah, I think it's, I think it's, you know, no job in media is safe anymore

unfortunately. But if you can figure out a way to build an enterprise around the things that you

absolutely love and are great at, you know, follow your passion is one thing, follow your talent

as another. And understanding how those two intersect, you know, I love the Eagles. I'm not going

to be starting quarterback for them, right? But I also love making stuff. I love like crafting

stuff. I love solving puzzles. So I am a workaholic, but I don't waste any time on

bull work anymore. I want to pick up on probably the least important thing you said. Your

Eagles fan, where are you from? Are you from Philly? Yeah, I grew up in Cherry Hill, but my whole

family is from Philadelphia. I grew up in the town right next to you. I grew up in Voorhees,

New Jersey. Oh, yeah, the Ashilan Mall. Come on. Yeah, did you go to Cherry Hill East or West?

East.

Do you that face you just made that with the second you made that face? I thought he went to Cherry

Hill East. That's yeah, that's the most Cherry Hill East face ever. Exactly. Exactly. This is

that's terrific. Evan Shapiro, a real pleasure to speak with you. Thanks for making time.

Thank you. Nice to meet you.