Motley Fool Hidden Gems Investing - YouTube’s Rocky Road to the Top

Episode Date: August 28, 2022

Google’s acquisition of YouTube is now remembered as one of the most successful tech acquisitions ever, but that result was far from obvious in 2006. Bloomberg reporter Mark Bergen is the author of the upcoming book “Like, Comment, Subscribe. Inside YouTube’s Chaotic Rise to World Domination.” Dylan Lewis caught up with Bergen to talk about: - YouTube’s “Forrest Gump-like” tendency to be a part of world-changing events - The platform’s complicated relationship with its creator base - One missed opportunity around kids and education - The acquisition of YouTube, and its early days at Google Stocks mentioned: GOOG, GOOGL, META Host: Dylan Lewis Guest: Mark Bergen Producer: Ricky Mulvey Engineers: Dan Boyd, Tim Sparks Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Going on vacation? We're here for it. With kids? Who turn the backseat into a courtroom drama over whose tablet is louder, whose charger is faster, and why watching the same cartoon for the hundredth time is a human right? Yep, we totally have vehicles to handle that. Because whether it's a road trip or a business trip,

where your flight's delayed, your phone's at 2% and your dinner is... whatever's open? Yep, here for that too. Enterprise. We're here for it. Inside Google, YouTube took a long time for its business to really click. There was some initial frustration for several years, and you can go back and find a lot of press reports about how YouTube was sort of serially unprofitable and kind of a drag on Google for a long time.

I'm Chris Hill, and that's Mark Bergen. He's a reporter from Bloomberg and author of the upcoming book, Like, Comment, Subscribe, Inside YouTube's Chaotic Rise to World Domination. Dylan Lewis caught up with Bergen to talk about the rocky road that led YouTube to become one of the most successful tech acquisitions in history, as well as the complicated relationship YouTube has with the people who create video content, and how the platform has an uncanny knack for being a part of world-changing events. So, YouTube is kind of Forrest Gump-like in that there are all these seminal moments along

the way over the last 15 or so years where it is there, it is a part of the conversation or it's where the conversation is happening. And one of the things I was kind of struck by was, you're embedding these videos as these kind of reminders of what happened on the platform and what was important on the platform. But that very act, the idea that content could be from over there and then brought here onto a webpage, is something that YouTube kind of conditioned us to accept and really made possible on the internet. Yeah, totally.

I love that Forrest Gump comparison. This was, I think I mentioned it earlier in the book, that like JavaScript, that the basic YouTube sort of basic technical infrastructure that you could watch their videos on other sites, was pretty revolutionary at the time. And MySpace, believe it or not, was one of the things that really kicked off YouTube's popularity. So it first started kind of its beta version. The site went live in mid-2005 when MySpace was hugely popular and MySpace didn't have video. And so it became this thing where YouTube, a lot of early YouTubes and employees, too,

were trying to seed YouTube videos in the comments for MySpace, which was where a lot of early users discovered the site. And I think that that portability where some like a lot of the other web video sites at the time didn't have that, including Google Video, which was like the forgotten competitor and a major reason why YouTube won. Yeah, I think one of the YouTube insiders that you quote in the book called it the video scaffolding of the Internet. And it might not have been obvious that that's what it was in the moment. But now you think about it and it's it's the go to place for most people when they're looking for video content. And it's also, you know, if you're a creator, whether it's something that you're trying to build, you know, a platform on YouTube with, or just trying to get a video up so that you can

get it on another webpage, it's the go-to for how people do that. For sure. I think that has like a double-edged sword for YouTube. It's amazing, right? It's now you're seeing that with podcasts, right? Where YouTube is making this big push in the podcasting and in part, because it's already been there. Like I think a lot of YouTubers have podcasts and they just like upload their podcasts on YouTube and those do really well. And, and that's just, it's just another example of this repository that becomes more complicated as a content moderation but it also becomes you know youtube's currency is watch time and and overall views and like that's what they share with advertisers and so like that's just continue to climb in part because

of of how it exists as sort of the default place where people upload things and where people expect to kind of go search for video it's interesting to track how the platform has decided to chase those metrics over time because there was a time where that YouTube homepage was curated by individuals. There was, there was a team focused on doing that and technology kind of quickly took over, you know, and that's not really the case anymore. And I think you did a great job, a book of just detailing that development over time, the resistance to it. And now just the kind of acceptance that we have, even though there are all these limitations that also kind of come with it. Yeah, absolutely. I think there was, what I found was most fascinating is the sort of alternative

histories of what YouTube could have been. A lot of it is this debate about curation versus algorithms. And I think it's most acutely actually felt in the YouTube Kids, which is the example where when they launched YouTube Kids in 2015, it was a separate app. Didn't really curate it. They have these massive headaches. And now they're being much more aggressive. That's an example where they are the one place where the company is really white labeling and being very careful about what sort of videos go in there. And in part, like, I think that there's, there's a sort of a missed opportunity. You can, you could argue that there's a huge business opportunity that kind of blew in some sense around kids and education and still might like that. That's

certainly not something they've lost, but, uh, in, in part because of the way they leaned in really hard on this sort of algorithmic free for all. You mentioned the alternate history, and I'm curious, I think to some extent, what allowed YouTube to be YouTube is that it started it out agnostic. It wasn't the property of someone else who had their own tech bloat and all of these other strategic things that they're working towards. Do you think it could have thrived or that a video provider could have thrived from any of the existing big tech companies? Or did it kind of have to come from someone who didn't already have its own property on the internet? Yeah. I mean, these are always fun

because we can say anything and not be proven wrong. I mean, there's an example, which is Google video so you know and i didn't really until i went back and researched the book like google video sort of launched initially it was like very careful they were just trying to do like their initial sort of service was like an online cable box right and they had like basically like they had like basketball games on like a day later or something and like cbs you know it wasn't super super um like fingers on the pulse of culture and but they eventually went you know part of when when YouTube started taking off, Google Video was like shifted strategy and was like, okay, we're into user-generated content. And it didn't go anywhere. And I think a major reason why

Google bought YouTube was because Google Video wasn't working, right? The buyer built thing, and they tried to build it and they ended up buying it, which was a really smart move for Google. I mean, probably one of the most successful tech acquisitions of all time. Yeah. I think it's hard to argue. It's probably in the top 10, if not the top three, maybe. I mean, In 2006, Google announced it was buying YouTube for, I think, $1.7 billion. In the most recent quarter, YouTube drove over $7 billion in revenue, tens of billions of revenue in the last year. Do you think that Google had any sense that that was the potential for this property at

the time? You know, I think Eric Schmidt was CU at the time, and there's this anecdote that he could of, you know, the price they're talking about was 600, around 600 million. And, and, and Schmidt was willing to like bump up an extra billion or something. I don't. So I do think they were fixated on it because of its search potential, which is, you know, I, by all measures, YouTube is still the world's second biggest search engine behind Google. Right. And people don't often talk about the fact that Google has the two biggest search engines in the world. I, I certainly don't think that, that they saw that, that sort of have the foresight of what it was going to be. I mean,

And, you know, like less than six months later, they got sued by Viacom for a billion dollars. You could argue that they certainly saw some legal problems ahead, but Google certainly didn't see that coming. I think there was probably an expect like for people inside YouTube, it took inside Google, like YouTube took a long time for its business to really click. Like there was some initial frustration for for several years. And you can go back and find a lot of press reports about how YouTube was sort of serially unprofitable and kind of a drag on Google for a long time. It makes sense to some extent. The challenge that they were trying to solve was so massive.

I mean, the idea that you could host any video content you wanted so long as it reached their terms of service and their terms of use, and that that content would be moderated to some extent so that users would have a good experience, one that was conforming, and one that advertisers would be willing to participate in. There are so many pieces. I guess it's a three-legged stool thing. And getting all of those things to work together is a very, very tough thing to do. Yeah, I think that's been what is lost in some ways about the comparison between... I think YouTube straddles is where it's not really quite social, it's not quite streaming. It's a little bit of both it's not the same as facebook and and twitter largely because it has this massive

sort of creator base which is a huge advantage i think the world of social media is moving in this direction all right like look at it like instagram looks a lot more like youtube and it wants to look like that i mean and tiktok obviously is like you know your social feeds are less friends and family and more like influencers and creators which is you know for these platforms, like hopefully unlocking the next big revenue stream. But I think, you know, I don't think we spend enough time about like YouTube went through a lot of headaches and there's a lot of complications in the creator economy, but the TikToks, I think certainly going through right now. I'm curious, amateur creators were really the lifeblood of YouTube

early on and they continue to be some of the biggest personalities and channels on the platform, but there's always been a little bit of a tension between the individuals that make content for YouTube and the commercial interests of the platform. And that's really the interest of advertisers, but also more traditional media brands. How, how would you characterize that dynamic over time and kind of where it sits now? Yeah, that's a really, that's a really great tension. And then, and I'm like, I think spent a lot of time in the book talking about that. Cause it went through a lot of like twists and turns. I mean, and one thing that's sort of interesting that I don't think enough people appreciate is like YouTube, it birthed the

creator creator economy for sure like 2007 is when it started making payments to creators which is super early but for a long time the company didn't see creators as sort of the central vehicle for their business like their early business team was like we need to get studios and tv networks onto youtube and like and then and there was a big push like we needed to get like select we needed to get the stars to like come onto youtube right because it was like the sense that advertisers needed to see familiar faces they needed to see like a listers and like premium material there was so much of an effort around premium like sort of funny to think in in now but at the time when hulu launched it was like a nightmare scenario for for youtube right because like hulu came out

of the gate being like we are the premium online video destination and then there was basically like essentially saying like youtube is not premium like for advertisers and advertisers believed that for a long time. You know, I think there was a turning point around like 2014 when it became obvious that YouTube creators were in many ways more popular than like celebrities, conventional celebrities. Oh, I don't think it's a stretch to say like they created the modern influencer perspective. Like the idea that you are interesting, that you can and should be broadcasting your life. Absolutely. And that was not given. And neither was, I think something that's really fascinating with like a lot of the like OG

youtubers is they started when the there was no guarantee of money there was like right there was no idea that you could make money off of youtuber online there was no sense about being an influencer like that's a really relatively new category and even you know that the sort of um your listeners familiar with with uh multi-channel networks right like the big boon in sort of like the youtube studios that happened like a decade ago and many of them is like kind of imploded but that was still this novel way of oh we can build out sort of conventional hollywood agents and networks around online talent now you're seeing i think a second sort of mature wave of that but that's still a really nascent category and and like it's still i think it's being proven out

in like but like mr beast is a great example like mr beast has like a basically a giant media a company under him now, but there's not a lot of YouTuber stars that have that. I think it's funny. You use dogs on skateboards as kind of like a catch-all phrase when you're talking about some of the early content on the platform. And it's been so cool to see the quality of content, even from individual creators, really blossom and become incredibly high quality while still kind of maintaining that personality that is so core to the relationship with audiences. You mentioned Hulu before. And what's interesting is YouTube is basically dogs on skateboards and Hulu. They've managed to figure out how to be both something that is for everyone

and a streaming service. They have a paid model, they have an ad free one, and they've kind of been able to have their cake and eat it too. Yeah, absolutely. Although, I mean, I think there's, you know, one thing we haven't touched on is they have made a big recent pivot in their strategy right so it was around 2014 when they started doing originals with youtube creators and it was basically like their version of house of cards right it was like taking on netflix and amazon you they've had some a few successes from that but that program largely didn't catch on uh you know was really i think it's a fascinating you know how many people like i they've put out some numbers they don't disclose revenue about subscriptions like

they have youtube has uh hank green is a youtuber that said this before so i i'll credit him for this idea but youtube has the biggest army of influencers on the world right and how often do you hear youtubers pointing their audience to subscribe to youtube premium very rarely right in part because the assumption is that the the margins they get from their advertising business is way better than sort of competing with netflix and disney and hbo max and everybody else for subscribers. So they've certainly pivoted away from the original data, shut down the originals program. Now they're purely into like shorts and commerce and sort of competing with Tik TOK and Instagram. But I think, I think you're absolutely right that they, they can be like, YouTube is very

good at being all things to all people are trying to be, uh, but they've made some strategic decisions that, that show where they, they've don't necessarily have the strength of, of other platforms. Yeah. I think it's incredible to me that they are able to make amateur content work. they couldn't quite make it work with super high-quality names, big-time names, Hollywood names, and yet they are in a spot where they're getting incredibly well-produced content from Vox or from Crash Course or for any of these channels that essentially have studio-level productions. But it's not quite what we're used to from cable or big-budget Hollywood. Yeah, that's been a bumpy ride. There was a really interesting period, and you talked to a

a lot of creators around 2015, 2016, and there was this big push for YouTube. One thing, I took a step back, and there's been a lot of debate about the algorithm and YouTube, how it drives viewers. But I think what's equally interesting is how the YouTube algorithm drives creators, and what kind of actual content and videos they make.

And so there was a shift around 2015 to do not just get the more extended watch time, actually deliver like daily viewers. And so like, there's a really interesting moment there where like a lot of YouTubers are like, we don't have the sort of capacity to pump out high quality videos every single day, but like Jimmy Kimmel can, right? Like, you know, TV networks can, because they're sort of, they're built up that way. And so I think YouTube's, a lot of YouTuber creators, I think pretty fairly were like, wow, the platform is tilted to benefit like traditional media. I think in YouTube's defense, it's a years-long tradition that YouTubers can go on

and criticize YouTube, and YouTube kind of takes it. But I think, you mentioned Vox. Vox is a venture capital-funded media company, right? Those ones sometimes tend to have a leg up on independent creators. Yeah, it makes sense. And I ran our YouTube channel here at The Motley Fool for a while. And, you know, it's, it's a little different when you're working with resources like, you know, in-house multimedia team, you know, an existing base of people who know your brand and appreciate your brand and, you know, are on some of your email lists. Building a critical audience is much easier when you already have all those tools. And I can understand how, you know, a creator might look at all that and say, well, how am I supposed to compete with these guys?

Yeah. Yeah. And I think, I mean, YouTube has gotten better from my understanding with creators, but it's still tilted towards like they have senior partner managers that they work with creators of certain size. And so in many ways, like it's sort of structurally set up to give you more benefits and handholding the larger you get. There's this concept that comes up in the book that I want to talk through and it's joke, threat, obvious. And it's this motto, but also kind of these chapters that delineate the development of YouTube over time. Can you talk a little bit about that? Yeah, I thought that one came from Shashira Mahotra, who's like a former YouTube VP, this is what he kind of told his troops.

And it was, I think it was an old like Microsoft saying too, right? It's like, and I may butcher it here, but like sort of first they treat you sort of business rivals, right? First you're treated as a joke, then you're seen as a threat and then you become obvious. And he thought, I think rightly, like it sort of maps pretty well to YouTube's development where they had like the dogs on skateboard phase. Like YouTube was kind of this joke. And like, I think what's really interesting is like inside Google, it was sort of like,

like people call it like the JV team, right? Like it was, um, not for a long time. It was like not a place that people wanted to work inside Google necessarily. And I think some of that was like literally because they didn't have like nice amenities in their office, but, but because it wasn't, it wasn't seen as like a serious, a serious business and it wasn't as like sort of moonshotty as self-driving cars, et cetera. And then, you know, the next phase of that is the sort of threat. And then there's the obvious phase where everything you do kind of works.

And I think YouTube, there's an argument that they kind of went through that and talk about in the book, they sort of felt like that phase around like 2014, 2015, when things started to click, which really was when the wheels fell apart right in the Trump era. Yeah. One of the things I think is interesting is I would look at them and say, like, as a consumer, you're in the obvious phase right now, where your path to success is so clear, you're ubiquitous, everyone knows who you are, and you're the clear destination for people that are creating and want online presence. But even with that, and even being at that kind of graduated level, YouTube

is frantically fighting for competition, eyeball hours with the likes of Instagram, Facebook, TikTok, and conventional streaming. The battle is not over, even though they've reached that level. yeah totally yeah i think i mean i do think that this this is part of like silicon valley culture as you always sort of see yourself as an underdog like i think youtube you know for a long time it saw itself as a underdog to to old traditional media to the biocoms of the world um you know it was an underdog to tv it was an underdog to facebook right facebook's business was bigger at one point and still is like overall but like that was sort of i have this chip on the shoulder where it was like this insurgent underdog and i think some of the dizzying part of the past

few years for for companies like google is like oh we're not the underdogs anymore right and and and i think that that's the people inside the company are aware of that you know now they're i i certainly the tiktok is like a real uh substantial competitive threat and in a new way not just for viewers and and eyeballs but actually for creators which i think is something that youtube hasn't faced before and you know if you talk to their business team they're like the the still thing they're striving for is share of TV market. And that's where the bull case for YouTube is that money from advertising is still moving from TV to streaming and to digital. And I think there's a lot of interesting questions now that Netflix is getting in the ads game. That introduces

a new layer of competition that YouTube probably has to respond to. I can't help but draw parallels between now Alphabet, then Google's acquisition of YouTube, and now Meta, then Facebook's purchase of Instagram. At the time, people couldn't believe that they were paying what they were for them. They've proven to be great acquisitions. But even in spite of that, I think we've seen in the last 12 months, certainly, but maybe the last couple of years, they've really started imitating some of the other features from other providers in order to stay relevant and stay where people are what they're interested in yeah i think this is really i mean um my colleague sarah fryer wrote a really great book about instagram in 2020 and like i think there's some obviously some key

differences one is that the founders of instagram i think i just have more like personality and like personality the right word but like a real stronger presence right um and there's a clear sense there that like facebook's over time just started to like absorb everything about instagram I mean, Google, to its credit, like Google would never, I mean, very unlikely that ever, like, you know, you're going to go to YouTube and it's like brought to you by Google, right? Like YouTube is its own brand. The company has like kept it that way. You know, I addressed like a little interesting bit of history in the book about like why it's not actually a separate Alphabet company. But, you know, it still remains part of Google.

The YouTube founders left pretty early. And while I think they have like they have strong feelings about the site, obviously. like it wasn't quite the same you know i i don't think there was that much tension um certainly like they didn't love aspects of of google but you didn't see the same like facebook i think in facebook's case right like instagram was ascendant in a way that like google search has never had that problem right and like google search is like a utility that's not really going away and so it's not like they need to depend on youtube as their next stage of growth search as business is still growing at phenomenal rates. So I think that's probably the key

difference. I think with Google search and with YouTube search, the truth is probably that the algorithm is king. It really kind of sets those businesses up to succeed and keeps them strong. On the user side, when you're going to your YouTube homepage, you're getting content that they expect you to have highly relevant to you and make you watch more, make you stick around longer. It's kind of a flip on its head from the idea of content being king or really the audience being king, which is kind of more traditional media. I see where we're going with TikTok and the algorithm driving so much. Do you think that that is just the content future that we need to be ready for almost no matter what platform it is, the algorithm is king? It certainly seems that

way. You use that phrase, the audience is king. And the example that YouTube brings up, it's like, Oh, the algorithm is just the audience, right? That's sort of the line that they'll use, which I think is like half right in the sense that like the algorithm is like we are sort of as viewers, like dictating what's being shown to us in some ways based on our prior watching behavior, right? And the other is sort of rewarding, like what the audience wants. Like I mentioned earlier, I think like the other side of that is, is that creators are like in this sort of weird, like dance with the platform where they're trying to like

appeal to this sort of algorithm. And in many ways, like there's several examples from YouTube's history where like totally spun out of control in a way that like wasn't great for creators, wasn't great for the company, wasn't great for advertisers and got them into like serious trouble. I do think there are certain areas now like where certainly on YouTube and TikTok will move in this direction, like current events, like news events, right? Like they have, even when they're sort of algorithmically curated, like YouTube has a much heavier hand in those cases. it's just like thinking i mean these are like the recent fbi right if you were to like go on youtube and look at fbi trump a few like uh when when that happened in august you're gonna see just like vetted uh news channels uh at the top of this order and it's become very very hard to find anything that's not like a vetted sort of uh well-known uh news channel and that's something

and i think you've seen that with coronavirus right uh with like healthcare youtube has become much more aggressive. And I think that's a different way of curating content, a different sort of algorithmic world than the other categories of content. One thing that I think is kind of fascinating, and the title of your book hits this exactly, the idea of like, comment, subscribe, is that the inputs on the creator side are somewhat known by the audience. We know that these things like views, like likes, like comments, subscriptions, are things that help creators. and there's this transparency that that creators approach that with the the how content is being surfaced to us is still a little bit of a black box on the the algorithm side and the platform

side though yeah i think that you know youtube's made some attempts to communicate this i think some of them are kind of been clumsy and i read about them in the book you know some of it is like the like sort of ai experts talk about this the black box algorithms that like and machine learning systems are effectively like making uh making predictions and like like pattern recognition in ways that that are designed for us to really not understand um so i think there's there's an element of that uh and that's certainly been like the neural network that has been involved in like in youtube for so i think going back to like 2015 or so you know i think that that's certainly like where we're seeing in europe especially and even us right and like

Elon Musk has talked a lot about this like algorithmic transparency it's like very unclear what that looks like right like if Google one day were to say like oh look here's like open source their code for the YouTube algorithm like most myself included most people wouldn't be able to understand to decipher that right yeah and so I think that that's been the defense I mean YouTube will always say like the reason we don't share this stuff is because we don't want bad actors to sort of exploit these holes which I think is kind of a flimsy excuse I think you know an interesting just perspective on that is like just the the api that youtube could give access to the researchers so there started to i think it was earlier this summer youtube started to

to share more data and this has been a consistent criticism from researchers that like part of the reason we so much there's so much a lot of scrutiny on facebook and twitter is is for like all the obvious you know failings of the platforms but because in some ways there's like it's a little more accessible to researchers and some of that is just text versus video like text is so much easier to navigate and understand and like parse as data and videos harder and youtube's been pretty reluctant to to share i think maybe that that's going to change and so that might be like to me that's interesting i mean research academic research takes like a long time and so it might be moving too slowly but that'll be really something interesting to follow like how much

youtube is forced to be trans more transparent than it's been it's said often but but i think it's true, like the, the last 15 or so years, really, really the aughts were kind of a, a wild west period, uh, on, on the internet. I mean, both in terms of content in terms of moderation, but also in terms of how these, these internet properties acted, the consolidation that happened. What do you think we'll look back on this and, and think about this period? Oh yeah. I mean, there was a, I have this, this line in the book called tease that that's from a, that's from a YouTube employee that was, it's like, we'll look back on this period of sort of cars before seatbelt laws i think that's i think that to me that that reads pretty true right in

some ways you know i think the analogy kind of falls apart in the sense that like there it is like you know with their seatbelt laws don't have to deal with like political political issues and like political speech which is like very complicated and like i think this is a this is in defense of the platforms like i think they should have seen this coming in some ways but like they didn't and like these things these things around like how do you define hate speech and How do you define incitement to violence when it abuts, like, contemporary politics is incredibly hard. I think that what YouTube, it'll be interesting, like, I think this is a period, the major thing that's changed in YouTube, and I think that other platforms, too, are going to, you have more levers to pull than just, like, this content gets to live on the internet or it doesn't, right?

Like, YouTube has started to do things like put things in the recommendation, like, remove things from recommendations, right? Remove monetization. like they basically they have all these different tools to be able to kind of get treat content on gradients and i think that's going to be the future and and some of that is to our conversation around like transparency like when a video is removed from recommendations it's not like you see it not like you're watching a video no this video was treated you know this treated as like borderline content that we decided not to recommend to viewers right like they're not doing that they're adding the kind of fact check labels kind of like twitter and facebook

but but that's a step where i think is i don't know if they would ever make that step i think that the second part of the of the uh the wild west era that's now kind of coming back to haunt them is like outside the u.s uh where you have um in places like india and brazil and russia like huge youtube audiences and governments that are like cracking down pretty hard on dissent and like sort of using this language about fake news and misinformation to push platforms to remove videos that are critical of the government and youtube has sort of backed itself into a corner i think youtube of the past may have said like screw you like we're going to keep this video up i think google is a much bigger more conservative company and youtube is a bigger business and so

they're met like in places like india they're not going to back out of india i mean we're seeing right now they're they're not operating their business in russia but youtube is still operational in russia which is fascinating that's the only like internet service that the western internet service basically still operating before i let you go i'm guessing you've spent a lot of time on youtube writing the book and i'm guessing that you weren't working 100 of the time are there any channels or creators that you'd recommend for our listeners oh yeah for sure um i i uh matt pat is one of my favorite he has game theorist and film theorist and i'm like a big become during the pandemic watching a lot of movies uh so film theorist is one of my favorites i'm also during

pandemic, I've become a big NBA fan. I'm sure there's probably some overlap. There's a great channel called Thinking Basketball, and I eat up every single basketball videos that he makes. As always, people on the program may have interest in the stocks they talk about, and The Motley Fool may have formal recommendations for or against, so don't buy or sell stocks based solely on what you hear. I'm Chris Hill, thanks for listening. We'll see you tomorrow.