Latest news with #PeterThompson
Scoop
22-05-2025
- Business
- Scoop
Budget 2025 Cuts RNZ Funding To Pay For Local Journalism Initiatives
Press Release – Better Public Media Although Budget 2025 allocates $6.4 million over four years to council, community and court reporting via NZ On Air, RNZ funding is being cut by $18.4 million over the same period. The Better Public Media Trust welcomes Minister for Media and Communications Paul Goldsmith's recognition that funding local journalism is vital in a democratic society. But it is counter-productive to fund these initiatives at the expense of Radio New Zealand. Although Budget 2025 allocates $6.4 million over four years to council, community and court reporting via NZ On Air, RNZ funding is being cut by $18.4 million over the same period. 'The way to address the crisis in the news sector is not to try and drive public service media into the same economic crisis as the rest of the commercial media sector,' said BPM spokesperson Dr Peter Thompson. 'The government could save itself considerably more money with a levy on digital advertising to support the provision of reliable, in-depth public interest news.' 'Funding the Local Democracy Reporting and Open Justice projects by taking money away from RNZ is robbing Peter to pay Paul,' he said. 'The government seems to think the funding increases for RNZ under the previous government were unduly generous but has forgotten that those increases were in response to almost a decade of frozen budgets that RNZ suffered under the preceding National government.' BPM believes that public service media are an important component of New Zealand's media. Ensuring we have independent news media that can hold those in power to account is vital when the news media sector is in crisis and public knowledge is being undermined by online disinformation. A recent Trust in News in Aotearoa New Zealand report, produced by the AUT research centre for Journalism, Media and Democracy, shows that in 2025 RNZ was the most trusted news brand in New Zealand. Given that the government has set targets for RNZ to improve audience reach, trust and transparency, cutting its funding is surely counter-productive. 'The fundamental policy problem is that the news sector has lost a significant proportion of its advertising share – hundreds of millions of dollars – to the online platforms. Addressing this structural deficit needs much more than $6.4 million over four years,' said Dr Thompson. 'There are serious flaws in the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill, which has stalled, but there is another inexpensive option which would make a real difference – a levy on commercial revenue streams could put a significant amount of revenue back into the news sector.' A one percent levy on digital advertising alone would raise around $18-20 million each year, which could support projects like Local Democracy Reporting and Open Justice, while increasing RNZ's budget. BPM is reassured to see the government supporting public interest journalism with funding disbursed by NZ On Air, but this should be supported through a levy model, not by reallocating RNZ's funding.
Scoop
22-05-2025
- Business
- Scoop
Budget 2025 Cuts RNZ Funding To Pay For Local Journalism Initiatives
The Better Public Media Trust welcomes Minister for Media and Communications Paul Goldsmith's recognition that funding local journalism is vital in a democratic society. But it is counter-productive to fund these initiatives at the expense of Radio New Zealand. Although Budget 2025 allocates $6.4 million over four years to council, community and court reporting via NZ On Air, RNZ funding is being cut by $18.4 million over the same period. 'The way to address the crisis in the news sector is not to try and drive public service media into the same economic crisis as the rest of the commercial media sector,' said BPM spokesperson Dr Peter Thompson. 'The government could save itself considerably more money with a levy on digital advertising to support the provision of reliable, in-depth public interest news.' 'Funding the Local Democracy Reporting and Open Justice projects by taking money away from RNZ is robbing Peter to pay Paul,' he said. 'The government seems to think the funding increases for RNZ under the previous government were unduly generous but has forgotten that those increases were in response to almost a decade of frozen budgets that RNZ suffered under the preceding National government.' BPM believes that public service media are an important component of New Zealand's media. Ensuring we have independent news media that can hold those in power to account is vital when the news media sector is in crisis and public knowledge is being undermined by online disinformation. A recent Trust in News in Aotearoa New Zealand report, produced by the AUT research centre for Journalism, Media and Democracy, shows that in 2025 RNZ was the most trusted news brand in New Zealand. Given that the government has set targets for RNZ to improve audience reach, trust and transparency, cutting its funding is surely counter-productive. 'The fundamental policy problem is that the news sector has lost a significant proportion of its advertising share - hundreds of millions of dollars - to the online platforms. Addressing this structural deficit needs much more than $6.4 million over four years,' said Dr Thompson. 'There are serious flaws in the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill, which has stalled, but there is another inexpensive option which would make a real difference - a levy on commercial revenue streams could put a significant amount of revenue back into the news sector.' A one percent levy on digital advertising alone would raise around $18-20 million each year, which could support projects like Local Democracy Reporting and Open Justice, while increasing RNZ's budget. BPM is reassured to see the government supporting public interest journalism with funding disbursed by NZ On Air, but this should be supported through a levy model, not by reallocating RNZ's funding.
The Advertiser
19-05-2025
- Business
- The Advertiser
Telstra accused of beating around the bush on coverage
Consumer and farming groups want an investigation into claims Australia's biggest telecommunications company is misleading customers by inflating claims of its network reach. In allegations from rival telco Vodafone, Telstra is accused of "dramatically" overstating its reach by as much as 40 per cent for more than a decade. Vodafone and parent company TPG Telecom said Telstra advertised its coverage based on a signal strength customers could only get if they used a special external antenna and a powered repeater usually installed on a vehicle or building. Telstra says the allegations are untrue and is standing by its coverage claims. TPG said network coverage claims should be based on the signal strength a mobile phone would usually get without extra devices. The allegations were alarming and would have cost TPG customers, group executive Kieran Cooney said. "It appears Telstra has tricked Australians into paying top dollar for coverage they simply can't get on a regular mobile phone," he said. "Telstra's conduct could have misled consumers into believing they can get coverage in places that require special equipment." TPG alleged Telstra claimed its mobile network was about one million square kilometres greater than it really was and covered 99.7 per cent of the population based on using an antenna and repeater. Telstra is adamant its network claims and measurement methods are reliable. It said customers had always been able to determine their level of coverage with and without an external antenna using its coverage maps. "Many customers in regional and remote areas benefit from using external antennas to maximise their coverage (and) this is why we have used this as the basis for our coverage footprint," a Telstra spokesperson told AAP. "No matter how you look at it, Telstra's mobile network covers more of Australia than any other. "Any suggestion that we've misled the public about the size of our network is completely untrue." The telco recently updated its coverage claims to note the 99.7 per cent mark required an external antenna. Some primary producers were beginning to lose faith in the telco and online coverage maps were unreliable, Australian Farmers Federation telecommunications committee chair Peter Thompson said. "The maximise coverage version is false," he said. "The standard map shows pretty well signal coverage if you have boosters and antennas, but the issue is the fact that just because you have signal, it doesn't mean you have signal that is usable." The Australian Communications Consumer Action Network, the peak advocacy group for telco consumers, said people living in regional and remote areas would pay extra for Telstra service because they believed it was the only option for reliable coverage. "If this allegation is true - and the coverage advantage is not as big as people have been led to believe - regional consumers would be forgiven for feeling betrayed," network chief executive Carol Bennett said. "When consumers are misled, markets are distorted and trust is eroded." University of Sydney Law School competition and contract law expert Yane Svetiev said if an external antenna was needed for coverage in remote and regional areas and was not disclosed, it may amount to misleading and deceptive conduct "regardless of whether people do indeed have or use such antennas". TPG has reported Telstra to the consumer watchdog, calling for a regulatory investigation and threatening legal action to stop the practice and potentially force a compensation payment. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission said it was considering the claims, but would not confirm an investigation into Telstra. Consumer and farming groups want an investigation into claims Australia's biggest telecommunications company is misleading customers by inflating claims of its network reach. In allegations from rival telco Vodafone, Telstra is accused of "dramatically" overstating its reach by as much as 40 per cent for more than a decade. Vodafone and parent company TPG Telecom said Telstra advertised its coverage based on a signal strength customers could only get if they used a special external antenna and a powered repeater usually installed on a vehicle or building. Telstra says the allegations are untrue and is standing by its coverage claims. TPG said network coverage claims should be based on the signal strength a mobile phone would usually get without extra devices. The allegations were alarming and would have cost TPG customers, group executive Kieran Cooney said. "It appears Telstra has tricked Australians into paying top dollar for coverage they simply can't get on a regular mobile phone," he said. "Telstra's conduct could have misled consumers into believing they can get coverage in places that require special equipment." TPG alleged Telstra claimed its mobile network was about one million square kilometres greater than it really was and covered 99.7 per cent of the population based on using an antenna and repeater. Telstra is adamant its network claims and measurement methods are reliable. It said customers had always been able to determine their level of coverage with and without an external antenna using its coverage maps. "Many customers in regional and remote areas benefit from using external antennas to maximise their coverage (and) this is why we have used this as the basis for our coverage footprint," a Telstra spokesperson told AAP. "No matter how you look at it, Telstra's mobile network covers more of Australia than any other. "Any suggestion that we've misled the public about the size of our network is completely untrue." The telco recently updated its coverage claims to note the 99.7 per cent mark required an external antenna. Some primary producers were beginning to lose faith in the telco and online coverage maps were unreliable, Australian Farmers Federation telecommunications committee chair Peter Thompson said. "The maximise coverage version is false," he said. "The standard map shows pretty well signal coverage if you have boosters and antennas, but the issue is the fact that just because you have signal, it doesn't mean you have signal that is usable." The Australian Communications Consumer Action Network, the peak advocacy group for telco consumers, said people living in regional and remote areas would pay extra for Telstra service because they believed it was the only option for reliable coverage. "If this allegation is true - and the coverage advantage is not as big as people have been led to believe - regional consumers would be forgiven for feeling betrayed," network chief executive Carol Bennett said. "When consumers are misled, markets are distorted and trust is eroded." University of Sydney Law School competition and contract law expert Yane Svetiev said if an external antenna was needed for coverage in remote and regional areas and was not disclosed, it may amount to misleading and deceptive conduct "regardless of whether people do indeed have or use such antennas". TPG has reported Telstra to the consumer watchdog, calling for a regulatory investigation and threatening legal action to stop the practice and potentially force a compensation payment. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission said it was considering the claims, but would not confirm an investigation into Telstra. Consumer and farming groups want an investigation into claims Australia's biggest telecommunications company is misleading customers by inflating claims of its network reach. In allegations from rival telco Vodafone, Telstra is accused of "dramatically" overstating its reach by as much as 40 per cent for more than a decade. Vodafone and parent company TPG Telecom said Telstra advertised its coverage based on a signal strength customers could only get if they used a special external antenna and a powered repeater usually installed on a vehicle or building. Telstra says the allegations are untrue and is standing by its coverage claims. TPG said network coverage claims should be based on the signal strength a mobile phone would usually get without extra devices. The allegations were alarming and would have cost TPG customers, group executive Kieran Cooney said. "It appears Telstra has tricked Australians into paying top dollar for coverage they simply can't get on a regular mobile phone," he said. "Telstra's conduct could have misled consumers into believing they can get coverage in places that require special equipment." TPG alleged Telstra claimed its mobile network was about one million square kilometres greater than it really was and covered 99.7 per cent of the population based on using an antenna and repeater. Telstra is adamant its network claims and measurement methods are reliable. It said customers had always been able to determine their level of coverage with and without an external antenna using its coverage maps. "Many customers in regional and remote areas benefit from using external antennas to maximise their coverage (and) this is why we have used this as the basis for our coverage footprint," a Telstra spokesperson told AAP. "No matter how you look at it, Telstra's mobile network covers more of Australia than any other. "Any suggestion that we've misled the public about the size of our network is completely untrue." The telco recently updated its coverage claims to note the 99.7 per cent mark required an external antenna. Some primary producers were beginning to lose faith in the telco and online coverage maps were unreliable, Australian Farmers Federation telecommunications committee chair Peter Thompson said. "The maximise coverage version is false," he said. "The standard map shows pretty well signal coverage if you have boosters and antennas, but the issue is the fact that just because you have signal, it doesn't mean you have signal that is usable." The Australian Communications Consumer Action Network, the peak advocacy group for telco consumers, said people living in regional and remote areas would pay extra for Telstra service because they believed it was the only option for reliable coverage. "If this allegation is true - and the coverage advantage is not as big as people have been led to believe - regional consumers would be forgiven for feeling betrayed," network chief executive Carol Bennett said. "When consumers are misled, markets are distorted and trust is eroded." University of Sydney Law School competition and contract law expert Yane Svetiev said if an external antenna was needed for coverage in remote and regional areas and was not disclosed, it may amount to misleading and deceptive conduct "regardless of whether people do indeed have or use such antennas". TPG has reported Telstra to the consumer watchdog, calling for a regulatory investigation and threatening legal action to stop the practice and potentially force a compensation payment. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission said it was considering the claims, but would not confirm an investigation into Telstra. Consumer and farming groups want an investigation into claims Australia's biggest telecommunications company is misleading customers by inflating claims of its network reach. In allegations from rival telco Vodafone, Telstra is accused of "dramatically" overstating its reach by as much as 40 per cent for more than a decade. Vodafone and parent company TPG Telecom said Telstra advertised its coverage based on a signal strength customers could only get if they used a special external antenna and a powered repeater usually installed on a vehicle or building. Telstra says the allegations are untrue and is standing by its coverage claims. TPG said network coverage claims should be based on the signal strength a mobile phone would usually get without extra devices. The allegations were alarming and would have cost TPG customers, group executive Kieran Cooney said. "It appears Telstra has tricked Australians into paying top dollar for coverage they simply can't get on a regular mobile phone," he said. "Telstra's conduct could have misled consumers into believing they can get coverage in places that require special equipment." TPG alleged Telstra claimed its mobile network was about one million square kilometres greater than it really was and covered 99.7 per cent of the population based on using an antenna and repeater. Telstra is adamant its network claims and measurement methods are reliable. It said customers had always been able to determine their level of coverage with and without an external antenna using its coverage maps. "Many customers in regional and remote areas benefit from using external antennas to maximise their coverage (and) this is why we have used this as the basis for our coverage footprint," a Telstra spokesperson told AAP. "No matter how you look at it, Telstra's mobile network covers more of Australia than any other. "Any suggestion that we've misled the public about the size of our network is completely untrue." The telco recently updated its coverage claims to note the 99.7 per cent mark required an external antenna. Some primary producers were beginning to lose faith in the telco and online coverage maps were unreliable, Australian Farmers Federation telecommunications committee chair Peter Thompson said. "The maximise coverage version is false," he said. "The standard map shows pretty well signal coverage if you have boosters and antennas, but the issue is the fact that just because you have signal, it doesn't mean you have signal that is usable." The Australian Communications Consumer Action Network, the peak advocacy group for telco consumers, said people living in regional and remote areas would pay extra for Telstra service because they believed it was the only option for reliable coverage. "If this allegation is true - and the coverage advantage is not as big as people have been led to believe - regional consumers would be forgiven for feeling betrayed," network chief executive Carol Bennett said. "When consumers are misled, markets are distorted and trust is eroded." University of Sydney Law School competition and contract law expert Yane Svetiev said if an external antenna was needed for coverage in remote and regional areas and was not disclosed, it may amount to misleading and deceptive conduct "regardless of whether people do indeed have or use such antennas". TPG has reported Telstra to the consumer watchdog, calling for a regulatory investigation and threatening legal action to stop the practice and potentially force a compensation payment. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission said it was considering the claims, but would not confirm an investigation into Telstra.
Yahoo
14-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Q1 2025 Urban One Inc Earnings Call
Alfred Liggins; President, Chief Executive Officer, Treasurer, Director; Urban One Inc Peter Thompson; Chief Financial Officer, Executive Vice President; Urban One Inc Ben Briggs; Analyst; StoneX Group Inc. Aaron Watts; Analyst; Deutsche Bank Ken Silver; Analyst; Stifel Fixed Income Capital Markets Operator Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by, and welcome to the Urban One 2025 first-quarter earnings call. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded. We will begin this call with the following Safe Harbor statement. During this conference call, Urban One will be sharing with you certain projections or other forward-looking statements regarding future events or its future performance. Urban One cautions you that certain factors, including risks and uncertainties referred to in the 10-Ks, 10-Qs and other reports it periodically files with the Securities and Exchange Commission could cause the company's actual results to differ materially from those indicated by its projections or forward-looking statements. This call will present information as of May 13, 2025. Please note that Urban One disclaims any duty to update any forward-looking statements made in the presentation. In this call, Urban One may also discuss some non-GAAP financial measures in talking about its performance. These measures will be reconciled to GAAP either during the course of this call or in the company's press release, which can be found on its website at A replay of the conference call will be available from 2:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time, May 13, 2025, until 11:59 PM. Eastern Daylight Time, May 20, 2025. Callers may access the replay by calling 1800-770-2030. International callers may dial direct 1609-800-9909. The replay access code is 7968738. Access to live audio and a replay of the conference will also be available on Urban One's corporate website at The replay will be made available on the website for seven days after the call. No other recordings or copies of this call are authorized or may be relied upon. I will now turn the call over to Alfred C. Liggins, Chief Executive Officer of Urban One, who is joined by Peter Thompson, Chief Financial Officer. Mr. Liggins, please go ahead. Alfred Liggins Thank you very much, operator, and welcome, everybody, to our first quarter 2025 results conference call. As usual, joined with Peter and I are Jody Drewer, who's our TV One Chief Financial Officer for any TV questions; Karen Wishart, our Chief Administrative Officer; and also Christopher Simpson, who is our General Counsel. You've seen the earnings release, Q1 results largely in line with the guidance that we gave. Q2 radio pacings have weakened since our last conference call. They're roughly down about 9% now. However, as I said on the conference call last quarter, our TV ratings seem to have stabilized in Q1 and Q2 and are in line with what we budgeted. So with that, we're continuing to reaffirm the guidance that we gave of $75 million of EBITDA. Something, again, to note on our 2024 EBITDA, which was about $103 million, almost $10 million of that was a noncash adjustment for the TV One award associated with my contract. So if you're looking at apples-to-apples, it's roughly about $92 million of cash EBITDA down to $75 million. Still not a stellar year-over-year performance going backwards, but what we have expected. So with that, we have said that we're going to continue to focus on our cost controls, managing our leverage and maintaining a strong liquidity position. One of the things that came up in the last conference call is what were we going to do with our $137 million of year-end cash and since that conference call, we've actually bought back in the open market $88.6 million of our debt at an average price of about 53.9%, and we've reduced our gross debt down to $495.9 million, and we're still sitting on about $80 million of cash on hand at present with an undrawn revolver. So we continue to be focused on deleveraging and maintaining the liquidity position. And so in a difficult environment, you got to make sure that you're prudent and you make moves that keep you in the best possible position of flexibility in terms of leverage and expense control, and that's what we're really focused on. So with that, I'm going to turn it over to Peter to get into the specific details of the numbers, and then we'll come back. Peter Thompson Thank you, Alfred. So consolidated net revenue was approximately $92.2 million, down 11.7% year-over-year. Net revenue for the Radio Broadcasting segment was $32.6 million, a decrease of 10.3% year-over-year. Excluding political, net revenue was down 7.7% year-over-year. According to Miller Kaplan, our local ad sales were down 12.8% against our markets that were down 13.2%. Our national ad sales were down 14.6% against our markets being down 11.6%. Our largest radio ad category was services, which was up 11%, driven by legal services. Travel and transportation was up 17%, but that's our smallest category. Telecom, financial categories were up low single digits. All of the other major categories were down, including health care, entertainment, retail, government, auto, food, and beverage. Net revenue for each Media segment was $5.9 million in the first quarter, which is down 30.9% from the prior year. And adjusted EBITDA at each was a loss of $600,000 for the quarter. A combination of client attrition and lower average unit rates drove that decline. Net revenues for the Digital segment were down 16.2% in Q1 at $10.2 million. Audio streaming revenue was down by $2.1 million in the quarter due to the renegotiation of an exclusive third-party deal, and that impacted adjusted EBITDA, which was $58,000 compared to $2.3 million in the prior year. We recognized approximately $44.2 million of revenue from our cable television segment during the quarter, a decrease of 7.9%. Cable TV advertising revenue was down 6.3%. TV One delivery declined 18% in total day persons 25, 54, which is partially offset by an increase in CLEO TV, which was up 29% in total day persons 25, 54 delivery and also favorable AVOD and FAST revenue of $1.1 million, which resulted in a net ad revenue decline of $1.7 million. Cable TV affiliate revenue was down by 10%, driven by subscriber churn which is about $3.3 million, partially offset by $1.3 million which is a combination of subscriber rate increases and the launch of NOW TV. Cable subscribers for TV One, as measured by Nielsen, finished Q1 at 35.6 million compared to 37.2 million at the end of Q4. CLEO TV had 35 million Nielsen subs. Operating expenses, excluding depreciation and amortization, stock-based compensation and impairment of goodwill, intangible assets and long-lived assets, decreased to approximately $80.7 million for the quarter, a decrease of 8.6% from the prior year. The overall decrease in operating expense was primarily due to lower third-party professional fees in the corporate segment, lower content expenses for cable television, and lower employee compensation as a result of recent cost savings measures. Radio operating expenses were down 2.9% or approximately $0.9 million, driven by lower employee compensation costs. Reach operating expenses were down 1.7%, again, driven by lower employee compensation costs. Operating expenses in the Digital segment were up 3.2%, and that was driven by higher traffic acquisition costs, partially offset by lower employee compensation. Operating expenses in the Cable TV segment were down 10.8% year-over-year, driven by lower programming content expense, on-air promotions, and employee compensation costs. Operating expenses in the Corporate and Eliminations segment were down by approximately $3.8 million, driven by lower third-party professional fees. Consolidated adjusted EBITDA was approximately $12.9 million, down 42.2%. Consolidated broadcast and digital operating income was approximately $23 million, a decrease of 28.1%. Interest and investment income was approximately $1 million in the first quarter compared to $2 million last year. The decrease was due to lower cash balances and interest-bearing investment accounts. Interest expense decreased to approximately $10.9 million for Q1, down from $13 million last year, due to the lower overall debt balances as a result of the company's debt reduction strategy. The company made cash interest payments of approximately $21.6 million in the quarter. During the quarter, the company repurchased $28.2 million of its 2028 notes at an average price of 58% of par, bringing the balance at quarter end to $556.348 million. In April, the company repurchased an additional $60.4 million in notes at an average price of 51.9%. And as Alfred said, that brings the current balance on the debt to $495.93 million. We recorded $6.4 million in noncash impairments in Q1 against the carrying value of our FCC licenses in five of our radio markets, which are Dallas, Indianapolis, Raleigh, Philadelphia, and Cleveland. The provision for income taxes was approximately $15.7 million for the first quarter, as we booked an additional $14.6 million valuation allowance against our NOL balances. The company paid cash income taxes in the amount of $33,000. Capital expenditures were approximately $2.5 million. Net loss was approximately $11.7 million or $0.26 per share compared to net income of $7.5 million or $0.15 per share for the first quarter of 2024. During the three months ended March 31, 2025, the company repurchased 449,252 shares of Class A common stock in the amount of approximately $700,000 at an average price of $1.48 per share. And we also repurchased 303,622 shares of Class D common stock in the amount of approximately $300,000 at an average price of $0.87 per share. As of March 31, total gross debt was approximately $556.3 million. Ending unrestricted cash was $115.1 million, resulting in net debt of approximately $441.3 million compared to $94.1 million of LTM reported adjusted EBITDA for a total net leverage ratio of 4.69 times. And finally, we recast the comparable periods for 2024 to reflect the move of $7.9 million of CTV revenue from digital to TV and also the reapportionment of cross-platform sales and marketing expenses. We talked about that on the last earnings call. A number of questions came up, so we thought we'd just give you the comps from prior quarters with those recast numbers. And with that, I'll hand back to Alfred. Alfred Liggins Thank you very much. Operator, we can go to the lines for Q&A. Operator Ben Briggs, StoneX Financial Inc. Ben Briggs Hey, good morning guys. Thank you for taking the call. Absolutely. Yeah, so a couple here. So first of all, I do notice that you guys did some cost cutting during the quarter, the, both the programming and technical expense line and the SGNA and corporate line, I think we're down a little bit. What other levers do you have, that that you can pull to kind of control costs as the year goes on and in the future? Alfred Liggins Yeah I mean I said last conference call that we we we we did a bunch of year end last year, cost cutting measures and I think it saved us about $5 million we are focused on taking another look at that, for this year we haven't. Got there, that you know probably will focus on that so that it it's done by the middle of the year so you know really focused on kind of like an end of June, you know. Execution date on that and and so look I don't want to go into the specifics quite frankly I don't have all of the opportunities you know off the top of my head and even if I did I certainly wouldn't want to announce them on a conference call you know. Yeah, let, let's say we do believe that there are, our other opportunities, and plan to take advantage of them, but we're really manage. To our guidance, and then looking to see if we're we're doing better. Our guidance of 75 not include any back half cost cuts that we might find. Ben Briggs Got it. Got it. That's helpful. Thank you. So, that's a great segue into my next question, which is, I feel like you had indicated that we should expect the majority of EBITDA to come in the second half of 2025. Am I. Alfred Liggins Remembering I, hey, hang on. Peter Thompson Yeah, we're. Alfred Liggins We're getting repeat that. Ben Briggs Sorry, I apologize. I said I feel like you had indicated that you're expecting the majority of either of this year to come in the second half of the year. Is that, do I remember correctly? Is that accurate? Peter Thompson Yeah, so more than half for sure. Ben Briggs Right, can you give any guidance for what you think the 2nd quarter has in store as far as. As far as you better expectations. Peter Thompson I don't think we're going to give specific guidance. I think from the pacing you, Alfred said that radio is weak and dry or relative to where we were last time, so, we should expect that to be down. Digital digital almost all of our profit is forecast to be in the back half of the year, so we're not going to be strongly profitable in the second quarter and then TV. TV ratings down a little bit down a bit, being compensated for by Clio. We, we're hitting our budget of numbers in terms of delivery and so there might be some upside in the back half of the year, but looking at where radio is at, that might need to wash against radio. So I think Q2 will be. A little bit better than one, but similarly weak and then we got to deliver in the back half of the year then. Ben Briggs Got it. Got it. And then finally, obviously there have been additional debt repurchases, I know that the market likes to see those. Should we expect, further debt repurchases as the year goes on, or or is it more? Alfred Liggins As I've been told many times before, the best predictor of the future is our actions of the past. You've heard that too? I have. Yeah I mean look I mean we we try not try we deliberately, are opportunistic, right? Like, we don't like it when. We announced hey we're going to go in the market and then everybody looks at that as an opportunity for, our debt to trade up and expects us to pay more, right? And so we're in, we're out, we got a price that we want to try to get it at it's nothing personal to debt holders but at the end of the day buying. Back debt at a discount for those funds that want to sell, and you know ultimately helps the company and so yeah you know we'll we'll we'll we'll we'll continue to do that almost always though any time we go into the market, the price goes up right just because you know you got. You, we're the most motivated buyer, right? You know what I mean, and, I think at the end of the last conference call, the debt had been trading at like 49.5. And then when we got to the market, literally that same day or shortly thereafter, I think our cumulative purchases during that period of time were kind of like almost at 52, right, so you know. Yeah, we're okay with that, like, I mean that's, we had some big trades of people who, wanted to exit and wanted to see, some sort of uplift, and it's good for everybody, but as you can see the, vast vast vast majority of our capital is is is going to that, so I mean. We took out tens of millions of dollars of debt since the last call. And look unfortunately I think we're we're we're continuing to still be in a position, to be impactful, you know with that so. Ben Briggs Okay, if you were to draw the revolver, that wouldn't, I don't think that would restrict you at all in debt buybacks, would it? Alfred Liggins No. Yeah, I mean they're, yeah, look, it's not most of most of the people on this call are investors and smart investors and so you know it shouldn't be lost on anybody that we do have an undrawn revolver, right? So you know. That you know that capital is, available for, all things including if we used all of our cash to buy back debt and we needed operating funds, right, to do that so our liquidity position is, it remains. Very soft and gives us some options. Ben Briggs Okay, alright, I think that's going to be all from me right now. I'll give some other people the chance to ask questions. Thanks again thank. Alfred Liggins You, thank you very much. Next question, operator. Operator Aaron Watts, Deutsche Bank. Aaron Watts Hey guys, thank you for having me on. A couple questions around the ad environment on the radio side. I think you noted additional weakness crept in between your last call and today. To the extent we continue to get positive headlines out of DC like what happened this week. Do you think advertising can flip back positive as quickly as it softened? What do you think your ad partners need to see or hear to start ramping spend back up? Alfred Liggins I mean, I think they need to know what their expense profile is going to look like going forward, right? And with the tariff picture moving, weekly, right, changing weekly difficult to. Difficult to forecast that, so, unfortunately, Procter and Gamble and General Motors don't share, their ad strategies, with us. Yeah, I mean they'll tell, they'll they'll, yeah, actually it's really interesting. I've had a couple high level conversations with some monstrous advertisers and you know most of these big guys, they don't want to. Disclose what their ad budgets are, right? Like, those that you know that's proprietary information, right? How much you're you're spending, to compete in the marketplace, so, strategy, really core strategy that would result in how much money is going into the ad market into what. Into which verticals, is not readily available and I get it you know it's really kind of a trade secret for them right you know and so I we just don't have visibility into that but I can tell you we do know when their ad budgets are getting cut or put on hold and then they will tell you it's because of uncertainty. I mean it's no secret that you've seen you know reports that the consumer is cool. Down cooling off or whatever spend is slowing down uncertainty and I mean at the end of the day regardless of where the tariff land tariffs land, they're going to land at, some higher level than they were before, right? And that's, and I saw something this morning on CNBC where you know they were talking about the forecast of some of these companies out there which assume. That they're going to take all of the additional tariff expense and roll it into pass ons you know to price increases. Which ultimately is inflationary, which you know one would think, there's a knock-on effect, on the recession, but I'm not an economist. I don't know this economy has been, chopping down, trees and plowing through all kinds of headwinds so far bit for me to predict, you know what's truly going to cause a recession. And what its ultimate impact on the ad market now, is, it's not positive at this point in time. So I guess in a roundabout way this is just Alfred Liggin's opinion period period in the story. I do not think you're going to see a positive ad rebound this year, because I think a lot of these guys have already, once you take expense off the table in a corporate environment, it generally stays off the table for the remainder of that of of of of that budget cycle. Aaron Watts Yeah, no, that all makes sense, so more a hope of stabilization than any real positive significant bounce this year. Yeah, okay, and I did hear you talk about National being a driver of the weakness right now. How have your more local SMBs you work with been behaving comparatively and if you have it, I don't, what's your split between national and local these days? . Alfred Liggins What is it, Peter, is it 75, 25 or. Peter Thompson It's more 75, 25, that's sort of excluding the digital. Alfred Liggins Piece. I went through with the radio guys and and I have a, weekly call with them now. And look they were crowing, locals actually not doing that bad, right? Like I think they were, telling me that our local, was only down it was like less than 2%, like 1.5% we were looking at pacings, about, a week ago, two weeks ago, the driver for us is national and also we're having. Digital issues, for a couple of reasons and I articulate them, about, changes, in our podcast and streaming deals, that were, are out there and also the fact that we're under penetrated in our local. Or digital efforts and so the answer to your question is, local in the radio business is down but it's not down you know it's not down double digits not down as dramatically it's down. Low single digits, so I would say that that's a positive sign. We're going we're going to lap our digital issues, and and we're looking to improve our digital efforts and so one would think that I mean you've got two things that drive national ads. Right, you got, yeah, the market sentiment, okay, and when I say market, consumer sentiment, what advertisers think about, consumer activity and their prospects for business, but you also have the continued digital transition away from analog, into in Digital platforms and so. National definitely is the negative spot, right now, and I hope that abates at at some point in time after, stability, comes into play. Peter Thompson And just to clarify, just in terms of national dollars and radio dollars for for radio, it's 2 to 1. So for every $1 a national we we do roughly $2 of local. And the difference in the 75, 25 years old is digital or other, right? So as a percentage of the total it's a different number, but relative to each other it's 2 for 1. Aaron Watts Okay, I got it. And Alfred, just one last one on what you were saying there at the end around digital once you iron out your kind of issues that you highlighted, do you still see growth opportunity across podcasts and I know digital means different things to different radio groups, but, what podcast, local digital whatever it means for you, market services. Alfred Liggins Look, our growth area for us is we have not played. In the local digital area we've had all of our efforts focused on our national digital, I don't want to say all of our efforts, because we've got, we do have a local digital, business, but you know we're probably doing high single digits of revenue when our competitors are doing, having it be 20% of their revenue. And so I, yeah, I do think that there are areas of growth, for us in that area doing a better job there. Are, we don't cross pollinate our national products into the hands of our local sellers, intentionally at this point in time, iHeart does Odyssey has started, to do it as well. And we've got a lot of national products, that would give local sellers some great tools to go out and help local advertisers so that's something that we're focused on and we'll create you know a growth opportunity as well. Aaron Watts Alright great appreciate all the time thanks again. Operator (Operator Instructions) Ken Silver, Stifel. Ken Silver Oh, hey, now I'm here thanks sorry about that. Hey Alfred and Peter, thanks for the time. I guess a few questions one is. If we look at the cable TV revenue, can you break it out between, carriage fees and advertising? Peter Thompson True. So are you obviously for the quarter we we do that on page, I think it's page 5 of the press release so you can. Yeah, so you can see that if we go to page 7. I don't know if you have it in front of you, but. Ken Silver You do. Okay, I will if you, I apologize if you broke it out I'll, I will go. No. Peter Thompson That's that's okay. But it's there and if you you know if you need to know roughly what we think it's going to be for the year you can just reach out and I'll and -- Ken Silver On the carriage side do you have what like what is your renewal schedule with all the large table other MVPDs? Alfred Liggins Charter is up in the fourth quarter October, is it? It's in the year charter is up at the end of the year, and Verizon is up but they've got an option. And then at NCTC which is in September so we have NCTC Verizon, and Charter, up this year. Ken Silver And then what about and next year is it heavy or light next year? Alfred Liggins Comcast comes a year later, right? Peter Thompson AT&T and Comcast. Alfred Liggins AT&T and Comcast a year later. Ken Silver Okay, got it. And then you mentioned in your prepared remarks that ratings were down at TV one. Can you just. Help us understand that a little better. Alfred Liggins I said they stabilized, right? Yeah, so they were yeah they were down a lot last year, what 20 you know 20%, and and they bounced up off of their lows of of of of fourth quarter. And we, I think we budgeted what what our ratings were in fourth quarter for all of '25 and fourth quarter was kind of our low and we're actually exceeding that, year-to-date exceeding that budgeted number, so you know we're. Averaging higher than our fourth quarter low which you know is which is good. And Clio especially and and and and and on our second network Clio especially. Ken Silver Okay and then obviously you're using a lot of cash flow for bond buy back which I think you know we all think this is a good use of capital but are you. In terms of programming spend, is it sort of steady as she goes, or do you have, potential to to grow it a lot? Alfred Liggins No, it's actually it's actually down a bit. I wouldn't say majorly say maybe down 10%. Programming spend, oh yeah, well, the, yeah, the biggest down, the biggest drop, quarter of a quarter was, yeah, so we have an annual, award show that we didn't do, and then for the year, 10%, about 10% for the year and. Ken Silver And no, I mean, obviously there's a lot of content now there are no plans to sort of try to reinvigorate the business and spend a lot of money on programming. Alfred Liggins Well, the problem, the, no, there's not a plan. Look, we've got, we are thinking through now what our options are to grow our TV business because we have to get more delivery, right? But you need, you, the idea that you go spend more money just to put it on your linear networks when the universe is shrinking. On its own means that you're just going to lose, you're not you're you're going to lose on those content investments because you're you're going to lose audience regardless of you know any way you look at it however there are multiple new ways of delivering content, we continue to expand our FAST channel, distribution we're looking at. Another, other, and you know ad supported, distribution, opportunities, and potential, business models and so, I think that is. Critical, that we invest and move in that area so I don't you you will not send us you you not see it you will not see us just investing in content with just to put it on this existing platform you will you know potentially. See us investing in content in combination with an expansion of new distribution opportunities, yeah, in in in the FAST and AVOD environment because we need other places to be able to monetize that content and so we're formulating those strategies right now and you got and and and you got you got approach that. At the same time you're continuing to manage your balance sheet, etc. Right now. Peter Thompson And Ken, just, Ken, just going back to your original question, I'm just looking at the relative breakout for the year, a little over 50% of TV One's revenue will be ad dollars and a little under 50% will be affiliate, and that's flipped from a few years ago where we used to be like 55% affiliate, 45% ad. Obviously as attrition attrition has reduced the affiliate line. Ken Silver Okay great okay thanks so much appreciate it. Operator And that will conclude our question-and-answer session. I'll turn the call back over to Alfred Liggins for any final comments. Alfred Liggins Thank you, everybody, for your support and continued interest in the story, and we'll talk to you next quarter. Operator That concludes today's call. Thank you all for joining. You may now disconnect. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
