DoubleVerify Holdings, Inc. (DV) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

So it's 11:00, and we're going to get started. I'm Laura Martin, and I'm the senior media and Internet analyst at Needham & Company. I'm happy to welcome to the stage DoubleVerify's CEO, Mark Zagorski; and CFO, Nicola Allais. Mark has been an ad tech leader for over 2 decades. Prior to joining DoubleVerify as the CEO in 2020, Mark was CEO of eXelate, which he sold to Nielsen, and went on to become the CEO of the public company Telaria, which he merged with Rubicon to form the NASDAQ-listed company called Magnite. Nicola, at the other hand, joined DoubleVerify as CFO in 2017, having been the CFO of Penton and Downtown Music and the senior finance leader of Primedia, Brill Media Ventures and HBO. Okay. So let's get started.

So maybe, Mark, let's start with you. DoubleVerify is an ad tech company that's different from almost all the others we -- in our coverage universe. For those in the room that don't know the DoubleVerify story well, could you talk about what you do? Why? And why so often you refer to yourself as a core utility within the ad tech ecosystem?

Yes. Great. It's a great question. And just to kind of give a quick snapshot of who DoubleVerify is, we have a software platform that focuses on building protection that drives performance. So essentially, what we do is we verify and measure transactions between buyers and sellers of social media to ensure that those transactions are fraud-free -- they're fraud-free. They are -- those impressions are viewable by a real human being. They're delivered in an aligned geography where that advertiser wants to spend and that they're delivered in a brand-safe or brand-suitable environment. So at the end of the day, we are ensuring that their ad spend aligns with who they are as a company and that that ad spend is not wasted, right? And how that differs from the rest of the ad ecosystem and why we're so essential is the fact that we are generally used as a seatbelt, right? We are used as protection in every transaction. The same way you put a seatbelt in on every time you get in a car, advertisers use us more or less on every transaction, their software is employed to ensure that that transaction is safe and secure and that they're not wasting impressions on fraud or impressions on -- that are delivered to bots or not viewable. So when we cut a deal with a company like a Unilever or a Mondelez or a Colgate-Palmolive or an AT&T or Apple, those advertisers are looking to protect their spend and whether that spend is in a good environment or a bad environment, i.e., economic good or bad environment, they want to ensure that they're not wasting dollars. And because of that, we don't fight for wallet share, we don't fight for some piece of an advertiser spend. We're a software platform that sits between the buyers and sellers, that analyzes everything that they do to ensure that transaction is safe and secure.

So Nicola, let's turn to you and maybe do some financial metrics. Why don't you size the company for the audience, maybe give us EBITDA margin and your free cash flow profile?

Sure. So we are a company that's well over $300 million -- worth $300 million last year. We're guiding to over $300 million this year. And our margins are in the 30-plus range in terms of percentages. We were $100-plus million last year, and this year we'll be over 30% again. We are fast growth on the topline and high margin on the bottom line. The fast growth on the topline comes from the fact that we're still very underpenetrated in the market that Mark just described. There's still plenty of advertising spend that can be verified. And the reason for our high margin is that our model is very, very scalable. We have a very unique technology that's called the Authentic Ad that we're able to apply to wherever the advertiser wants to spend their money. We have -- we measured more than 4.5 trillion impressions last year. And so the additional cost of measuring 1 additional impression is extremely small for us, which is why we are able to display a Rule of 60+.

EBITDA margins of 30%. Your free cash flow conversion is?

It's about -- last year, we basically converted about 100%.

100%. Okay. Great. Balance sheet?

Balance sheet, we have no debt. Great place to be in this environment. So no interest expense exposure. We have over $200 million of revenue, a revolving credit line of $150 million that's available for us. It's a very clean balance sheet that gives us sort of powder to do transactions, M&A activity higher, faster than other companies and just continue to invest.

Let me underscore that. No debt. Throwing off free cash flow, highly profitable. Just want to make sure you all hear that.

Cash on the books at market?

$200 million, $210 million.

$200 million. You're earning $100 million a year to add to that, okay? That's where I wanted to get to. Okay. So let's -- Mark, going back to you. The question we get a lot is how do DoubleVerify's products differ from measurement. There's a lot of new companies coming into measurement now that Nielsen has lost its MRC accreditation. Does that hurt your market position? And if not, why not?

Yes, it's a great question. If you think about why measurement exists, measurement exists to create a proxy for an outcome. If I think I reach a certain number of males or if I reach a certain number of people in a certain age group, I think that will help me sell a product, right? That's what advertising is about. It's about selling products and measurement of that advertising is about determining what that outcome is. I think most measurement has always been a poor proxy for an outcome, right? If you think about the way DoubleVerify works, what we look at is, first off, if you want to drive a better outcome, you take the garbage out of the system, right? Take fraud out, take unviewable impressions, take things that are not geographically aligned, take things that aren't brand-suitable. Take that out of the system first. So we've always thought of ourselves not as a measurement company, but as a performance company because protection drives performance, taking stuff out of the system, takes time. The other aspect where we differ from measurement is that although we measure bad performance at the end, we measure things that aren't aligned to a brand that we think are fraud. We have a unique ability to do 2 things. On the measurement side, what we call measurement, you actually block those impressions before they're delivered, right? So when we see something that looks like fraud or not viewable, we have the ability to block those impressions, right? So we'll measure what happens. We'll ping it and say, "Okay. We saw something bad happen here," but we actually have the ability to act and stop the ad from being delivered, which is not a traditional measurement. That's the first thing. The second thing is over half our business is now called activation. Activation is using that same data to filter an impression before it even gets a bid on in a programmatic environment or bought in a non-programmatic environment. So again, unlike measurement, we have the ability to stop someone from actually bidding on an impression before it gets delivered. Very different than a Nielsen or somebody else who's coming in and saying, "Hey, you missed your target audience," 2 weeks later or in an overnight. What...

After it's over.

Right, 2 weeks later or in an overnight. What good is that? We actually have the ability to stop the impression. We say, "This doesn't look good. This is not brand-aligned. This looks like fraud. It's not going to be viewable." That's half of our business is now activation. It will be almost $200 million of revenue this year and the ability to stop something bad before it happens. So when we look at where we fit in the universe of measurement, yes, similar to measurement, we're trying to help an advertiser drive an outcome, right? But dissimilar from traditional measurement, we do so in a way that actually is actionable, in real time, through different types of systems. In the long run, we think that these new proxies, what's called alternative currencies in the space, are going to take center stage. And we've started building new proxies around attention and other things that we think can be valuable. But ultimately, because of the way we've built our system because of how ingrained we are in the digital ecosystem, our ability to actually stop that behavior before it happens puts us in a very different realm than traditional measurement companies.

Back to you, Nicola. One of the things I like most about DoubleVerify is that your products validate impressions both inside walled gardens like Facebook and Google and YouTube. And in the open Internet, so your TAM, total addressable market, is 2x larger than most other open Internet ad tech companies. So it feels to me like Apple's shift from IDFA to AT&T has hurt walled gardens like Meta and Snap and been an upside driver to open Internet companies. Since you have insights into both, can you give our audience some notion of how you see digital ad spending trending over the next 3 years, walled gardens versus the open Internet?

Yes. So you've explained it right in terms of the pressures on the social wall gardens that are coming from sort of industry trends. We actually see both growing quite fast still, and I'll give you a few examples. TikTok wasn't around a few years ago, and it's $11 billion, $12 billion of advertising revenue that comes on to the market. CTV is a completely fresh space. The $70 billion of linear TV advertising that needs to come over to digital. That will come over, over time. So the drivers of the growth are in both of those sections, I think. There may be some switch further away from social into CTV. But for us, the good news is we measure everywhere, right? So we are not making any decisions. The advertisers will make the decision where they want their spend to be. And our goal is to verify everywhere, whether it's on the social or on the open Internet.

Okay. Fantastic. And I think one of the things we should do is talk about business model because I think that makes clear that you're not buying media. So whichever one of you wants to explain how you get paid, let's do that next.

I'll start. So we have a very simple model. We measure transaction and we charge a fee for the transaction that we measured. It is a fixed fee per impression that we measure. So we're not a take rate model based on how much an advertiser is actually spending on their ad spend. We just measure the number. We pay -- we get charged for the number of impressions that we measure. And so if you think about that, we have measured -- media transaction, measured times measured transaction fee. The fee is fixed per service that we offer. It gives us the ability to be shielded from a wild swing on CPM in the ad space. So as an example, in 2020, the second quarter, when CPM really went down and the entire digital ad spend market went down 20%, we grew 20%. We still kept measuring impressions, advertisers needed us even more than in a stable environment. And because the number of impressions continued to grow, we grew with the number of impressions that we measured. It's a really simple model. We have not touched media transaction fee that much. Our goal is to verify everywhere. And our goal is to make it a really seamless, frictionless decision for the advertisers. So we've kept our MPFs, our fees very, very stable across whatever medium the advertiser wants to use so that we can grab more and more volume. We really want to verify everywhere. And the way we're set up as a business model allows us to do that.

So we estimate that you charge between $0.06 and $0.08 fixed fee. Okay. But as the market moves to connect to television, suddenly you're going to charge in, let's say, $0.08, typically a high number for a $30 CPM. And that feels like you're adding a lot more value than when you were charging $0.08 to measure $2 CPM on a social feed. So like why is that the right business decision?

Yes. I mean, look, it's a great call. And as CTV becomes a larger and larger percentage of our business, it's still relatively small. Because remember, if you look at the number of impressions on CTV, for example, versus the number of impressions across all social or across the open Internet, it's still a small percentage of it. However, CTV impressions grew over 50% in Q1 for us. It continues to be an important part of our business. And the one thing that we have been able to enjoy is the ability to now start to bifurcate pricing by media types, right? So on both our activation business and our measurement business, so pre-campaign and post-campaign, we charge a different fee, for example, between display and video. Now down the road, as we see a larger percentage of our impressions go to CTV, we have the ability and the option to continue to raise price or look for a price differential across CTV. As Nicola noted, we want to make it easy for people to say yes to us right now. And as that CTV spend, for example, for Unilever or for AT&T, it's still relatively small. When they look at a global enterprise deal, at best, they're looking for one kind of pricing template across all their media. We do think there's an opportunity for us to increase pricing over time. We know that the ROI of what we do every day is incredibly high. And if it's saving someone from wasting an impression on a $40 CPM versus a $2 display ad, it's a big difference in savings. So as that becomes a larger percentage of impressions, we're certainly going to explore the options of raising price because we know it's a positive ROI investment for every advertiser that works with us.

I mean -- so just on the stage, I think just before you, I was interviewing the Innovid guys and they charge $0.30. And you guys are charging $0.06 to $0.08. And they're sort of doing infrastructure, right? They're delivering video ads, so it sort of feels to me like, to your point, what you're doing is more important because it saves so much money if you're doing it well. So like even the base price is sort of surprising, it's so low to me.

Yes. I mean, look, there's definitely room. And when we look at some of our more premium-priced products, they do start heading up into the $0.20 to $0.30.

It's activation and up-sell?

It used to be an up-sell. It used to be an up-sell from a...

Don't tell me you're cutting your take rates. I don't like that.

No, no. It's still premium, right? When you say up-sell, I look at it 2 ways. Yes, is it more premium? It is more measurement. However, we used to think of it as an up-sell because we would go into a client -- our sales motion was going to a client selling a measurement first and then up-selling activation, right? So post bid measurement first can be treated later. Now we go with both products at the same time. And I think that's been a total revelation because as more and more advertisers understand the relationship between locking an impression that gets -- before it gets delivered and filtering it before you actually bid on it, we know undergoing with our first sale, yes. No, we don't want both things together. So when we talk about up-sell, yes, it's more expensive, you buy activation tools from us, those are anywhere from $0.15 to high $0.20. However, it is no longer after -- an up-sell after we close the client. We go in with that from day one.

So maybe it's not fair for me to say you're not raising prices because that $0.06 to $0.08 is fixed. That's your post-play product -- what do you call post-ad campaign product. And really because you're going in together, of course, somebody is going to opt to block the bad sites. So they're going to opt in for the $0.15 to $0.25. So in a way, you are raising price, you just call it a different product. It's like a new product, and it's a better product.

Yes. Or what we call as our product mix is becoming more expensive.

Your product mix is getting expensive.

That's why, for example, in Q1, our MTF, or measured transaction fee, what we charge on average actually increased by 7%.

Okay. And are they still buying the $0.06 to $0.08 post thing on top of the activation? I think they're still buying both?

Yes. And the reason why there's both a -- there's a safety aspect of I want to make sure that even if I bid on something, maybe I made a mistake [indiscernible], but also the data that we get from measurement feeds our activation products as well. So that's an important part of the system there like we measure something after it's been delivered, that same criteria filters into the prebid solutions as well. So every tool that we build is, although it's built on standardized data, configurations and categorizations for each client that's very specific. So every time they implement a measurement campaign, their specific criteria on measurement are filtered back into their activation criteria. And so it creates a virtuous [indiscernible] where we're filtering, measuring, optimizing [indiscernible] to have better results.

So when they do a campaign, they're paying you, let's assume they do both post and pre. They're charging you just to pick numbers, $0.15 at the beginning, plus $0.06, yes?

Yes, in many cases.

So like $0.21 for the same campaign, for the same impressions delivered?

Yes.

Okay. Yes. Okay. So to me, that is increasing your pricing.

Yes. And as the -- as more and more pre-campaign tools come into play, that increases what we charge.

So these new products are really helpful to this pricing complaint I had before I got up on the stage. So is that going to be -- you're going to keep adding products to add another $0.05 at a time or $0.10 at a time?

Yes. I mean we believe that the investment in continued premium performance products, we call our activation tools performance products really drive what we can charge a client, but also the important part about that too, is -- I started talking about this idea of protection that drives performance. And if you think about the protection aspect because protection is always where people think of car insurance, right? What do you pay to your car insurance? Do you even know? Right, but whether it goes up or down, it's always around the same people -- yes, you have to insure your car, right? So measurement is something you have to have, you're always going to pay for. But -- and it's not really considered purchase, you kind of like whatever [indiscernible] So measurement is what it is. But activation is a performance product, right? So to drive performance, you do -- there's a lot more diligence around it, but there's also a lot more of a -- if it works, I'll continue to pay whatever it takes, right? So the difference between...

[indiscernible]

Exactly, exactly, exactly. And the difference between you buying a car and insuring car are 2 different processes. We want the best, I want the most fuel efficient. If it makes -- it saves me money on gas, and it drives really fast. That's great, right? And that's what I want. The insurance, it's there, I need to have it. So I think that's the way we look at our business. We've got performance tools on activation. We've got measurement and protection tools on the other side. This is the utility that everyone has to have, but performance is what everyone wants.

But if your performance does a really great job, doesn't it obviate the need for the post? Aren't they mad at you if you have big post numbers that are fraud because that way, your activation didn't stop them?

We actually see -- and we just released our global insight reports today. We are seeing a marked -- we know absolutely that when customers use pre and post together, their post numbers go down. There's no it's [indiscernible]

Saves you money so that's... happy.

Absolutely. And we're seeing actually across all of our customers as they adopt more and more activations. So we see our post-campaign violations to lower and lower every year. So they've gone down every year we've been doing our Global Insights report. So they work together. If we keep people from wasting their money at the beginning that we have to block less ads and measure less fraud on the other side as well.

Okay. We're going to go off script because I'm really interested in 2 issues that we were talking about earlier. I want talk about labor. So labor has been really tight. But I want to talk about the -- let's update us on the labor market and what's happened lately in terms of your hiring ability.

Yes. So we are still very much leaning into growth this year, as what we say, you say prudent growth, right, Nicola. We have many, many folks to hire across product and engineering, and it's a tough market, right? There's way more demand for people. This is not anything -- no surprise, and there is supply. However, the interesting thing is what we've seen last -- literally the last few weeks has been a little bit of a pause because of the news that's come out of Uber, it's come out of...

They're laying people.

Laying people off, Netflix, laying people off Facebook, rescinding offers.

Hiring freeze.

Yes. We -- it's created a little bit of a pause for the pretty aggressive as across the engineering and product recruiting activity that we do. It doesn't mean it's still easy to get people in on the product engine. However, that, plus the fact that our universe of employees went from New York to the Berlin, our hubs, to everywhere. And I think that is the one thing that the labor -- that labor has kind of forgotten, which is, "Hey, if you want to work remotely or you want to work from home, that means everybody is your competition, right?" We will look for engineers everywhere, right, which also means that I can hire a person at Wisconsin a lot cheaper than I can hire a person in New York. And if it's just going to be a line engineering job, then that changes the dynamic too. So it is still a tight labor market. It's still cost us more than it did last year or 2 years ago. However, there are some dynamics that are changing that I think are a bit more favorable than they were even 6 months ago.

What's your back-to-office strategy right now? Are you making people come back in? Is it hybrid?

We are moving to a permanent hybrid structure, so people will be in the office 2 days a week. We'll have anchor weeks every quarter, where everyone is in the office. We have a limited number of remote employees, but remote is not a full-time option for folks. The -- it's an exception, not the rule.

Interesting. The other thing I wanted to bring up is, last night, a CEO was asking me saying that his employees are demanding. So this question is about where is the perimeter of business? And is that changing? Is business becoming more porous and being asked to do roles that 20 years ago never would have occurred to them? So the CEO was saying that his employees are demanding that you take a stand on [indiscernible] So are you seeing that out of your employees? Are you seeing employees pushing what corporations are expected to do and their role in the bigger -- I'm going to call it political universality.

It's a really interesting question. And I think taking a step back, if you think about the nature of DoubleVerify's business, that entire kind of movement towards companies taking political stance is a huge driver for our business, right? Remember, we are in the brand safety and brand suitability business. So New York Times is a brand-safe environment, right? It's not pornography, not adult content. However, there's content on there that is not brand suitable for certain brands. There just isn't. Same thing with Vice, et cetera, all lots of other content. So we are in the business of ensuring that brands who now all have to take a stand and whether it's reproductive rights or whether it's the war in Ukraine or whether it's social justice movement or political elections, like we look at content categorization and we provide them, through our software, a tool that allows them to guide ads to what they feel is suitable for them. So we have over 80 content categories with multiple levels of sensitivity within each that allow them to say, "If I am Disney," who is a client of ours, "this content, this property is appropriate, but this context is not appropriate for me." So I think that's part of the bigger story, like companies have no choice, not only internally, as you have noted, but externally to have to take a stand. And whereas DV's business was largely driven by fraud and viewability for years. What our big driver is now, why companies come to work with us is because in the last 18 to 24 months, they've not had a choice. They have to take a stand on where their ads show up, right? So if they're -- because within 5 minutes of an ad showing up next to content that could be considered white supremacist content or content that is considered a hate speech, right, someone will snapshot that. It will be on Twitter and a brand -- a company like Unilever that has brands that have been around for over 100 years can have their name destroyed. I mean when you talk about the ROI on a business like ours, it's not about, "Hey, we kept you from being [indiscernible] it's that we've spent hundreds of millions of dollars building that brand and all it takes is one ad showing up next to content that doesn't make sense for you [indiscernible] So I know I went on a little tangent there, but I know it's super relevant to what we are.

And basically, you did answer the question as you said every brand is being forced to take a stand externally. Not just internally, externally Black lives matter or politics, which really is the answer to our corporations allowed to just be for profit or enterprises? The answer is no, demanded by their employees.

By their employees and by their consumers.

By the society and by their consumers.

Yes. I mean that's it.

That makes it harder to be a CEO, doesn't it? it's strict. When you signed up, you're like, I didn't sign up for this. Just make money.

I never thought I'd be the cranky old man. It's like, "What's wrong with these kids? Why don't they just come to work and shut up." That's kind of what I am.

That's the Netflix strategy.

Yes. I mean, look, you have to listen, we have to listen. We have to be part of the conversations with our teams because they want different things out of what we do -- of their work.

As the societies change.

It has.

And capitalism destroys the one that doesn't change with societal norms. Okay. DoubleVerify -- so Nicola, back to you. DoubleVerify's growth drivers, social and CTV, shifting to your core growth drivers. What are your growth prospects for your social and CTV businesses specifically relating to the acquisition of OpenSlate, the announcement that Facebook is opening up its News Feed to third-party verification, like you guys, the expansion of tools that help advertisers better leverage CTV like safety and security and targeting expansion?

Yes. So growth prospects for the company are large. You just mentioned a few, and I'll give some pointers to explain where we're at on our journey to verify everywhere. So social is about 15% of our revenue today. That is not at all 15% of what the advertisers are spending on social. So there's a gap there that is partially because more and more platforms are coming online with verification tools. TikTok is a perfect example. It's a very small amount of dollars for us today, it will be a much larger portion of our revenue once we are integrating and can verify their business. So social is really simple to measure. 15% of our revenue versus well over 60% of an advertiser's spend. That gap is the opportunity for us. On CTV, the opportunity is even bigger because it represents an even smaller amount of our revenue today. As I said before, $70 billion terrestrial TV advertising will move over to digital. We have the tools. They are accredited by the company that accredits tools in the verification space. And so we are ready. There is a supply and demand problem on CTV, right? The advertisers are now just taking whatever is available. As the market matures, tools like the DV tools will become a lot more important to advertisers as the environment opens up, as there is more advertising dollar spent there. Verification, brand safety will become a huge part of CTV as well. So you touched on 2 of the large opportunities. I do want to spend a moment on OpenSlate because that's a big -- we do see this as a very large differentiator for us versus our competitors. So as Mark has mentioned, there's measurement side of the business, how well did your ad do and then there's the activation side of the business, how well is the impression bound to do for you, right, even before you spend your money. OpenSlate creates that opportunity for us in the social walled gardens environment. You cannot buy social programmatically. And so the prebid part of evaluating inventory on social, we are solving it with the acquisition of OpenSlate. OpenSlate was a single point solution, great product. As part of our solution then we can start creating that loop that Mark has been talking about. Measurement back to activation. So we're very bullish on what OpenSlate is going to be able to do for us, and we don't see a competitive product in the market for it.

Any questions [indiscernible].

Sure. So it all starts with product. Frankly, the way the business works is RFP-driven. And we generally win on the quality of the solution. The way we know this is not only are we signing new clients, greenfield. So we -- initially having an RFP, somebody doesn't know anything about what verification is. But even head-to-head with current -- with clients that use verification. We are grabbing clients from our peers, right? So they're coming over to us on the quality of the product. That's really where we win and the completeness of the solution, especially as just described on OpenSlate, really gives us a differentiator. So if you were to look at our performance versus our peer performance in the first quarter, measurement, right, which is kind of where you see the thought of verification, that part of our business grew 20-plus percent for us and it was sub-10% for our closest peers. So we're winning with new, but we're also taking away because of the quality of our products.

Andy, did you have a question?

Yes. So we are still knee-deep in development on that front. So just to get everyone up to speed, we are looking at building a joint solution between audience and audience and verification, so we can build basically verified audiences to show that who they're reaching is actually legitimately a verified audience, right? So it's in real time, yes, to provide that data back to the buyers. So it's still in process. We'll have some more announcements out over the next few months. Sure.

You talk about performance something you brought up a couple of times that I think it's sort of a new word as I think about DoubleVerify's performance. So you guys are obviously thinking about it. But as an external word, it's new to me today. With regards to product-led growth, you recently launched 2 performance products that directly benefit the cookie deprecation and the loss of IDFA from the iOS ecosystem. These are DV custom contextual and DV Authentic Attention. Could you help us understand how these solutions differentiate themselves in the marketplace and the value they provide to advertisers?

Yes, yes. So you bring up a great point, Laura. The audience -- there is a seismic shift going on in digital media. And that shift is being driven by multiple factors at the same time. The first is the traditional measurement metrics which are becoming either unaccredited or there's a lack of commitment to them from advertisers. So reach in frequency from companies like Nielsen and others are being challenged. That's the first. And the second is somewhat related to that, which is due to privacy regulation, due to -- I would like to say the inherent goodness of platforms who are trying to be privacy compliant, but really it's more competitive. The idea of blocking, tracking on an initial basis, right, tracking, blocking IDFA, looking at IP addresses as PII, all of those things are changing the ecosystem of how measurement is done and how targeting is done. So both aspects of it. Because of that, companies that are in the universe of the what, the how and the where what DV looks at, we look at what the transaction looks like, how that transaction occurred and where it occurred. So where did that ad show up? The data that we have is becoming much more valuable than the who, right? Because that who data is going to go away. The ability to track a user, to track a device is going away. So as Laura noted, we've built some solutions around those data sets, the first being custom contextual which allows an advertiser to not only protect them from being from bad content, right? So we have all the data around the contextual page. And this is context on a web page or a web app or a CTV application or eventually into social networks. We look at the context there to keep people away from. What we've done is spin that on its head. So this is bad for you. What's good for you? What are the contextual areas that make sense for user brand. So that's our custom contextual product. We launched it late last year. It continues to grow. The interesting about that and why it differs from what other competitive contextual products there is because it's called custom because it's specific to each advertiser, right? So we build...

It's bad for margins.

It's not bad for our margins because the reality of it is we're dynamically creating those data sets already for them to block against, right? The way our system works, and one of the big differentiators why we've been able to scale and why we scale it into the company, it's that we built a very nimble system that manages trillions of transactions a year, that can still slice and dice data on an individual basis for individual customer. Someone like a Unilever has literally thousands of different campaigns running at any time. And each one of those campaigns, even on a safety or suitability perspective, can have different criteria what they're looking for because remember, a campaign running in the U.S. for diapers is going to have a different level of brand safety and suitability than a campaign running in India for soft drinks, right, or -- right, but it's just different. It's a different level. So we provide that granularity already for brand safety and suitability. Now we provide that granularity on the contextual side as well. So, a, that's a differentiator to have. On attention, I can take the rest of the day and talk about attention. I think I'll talk in 30 seconds. Why I love attention so much is when we start talking about proxies for outcomes, which we started this discussion on, I truly believe attention is the next alternative currency. What's more important, me reaching a 25-year-old male or me reaching a person who's actually engaged and been exposed to an ad in an environment that works for that advertiser. So our attention metric is a combination of what we call exposure and engagement. So did that add one on a digital page that's uncluttered. Did it run? Did the full amount of the ad was reviewable? If it's a CTV impression, did it run for the first quartile? And then did someone actually interact with it? Did the TV get turned off? Do they roll over it with a mouse? Those 2 things tell us way more of how -- whether that ad is going to sell a bottle of shampoo than the fact that, that reached a 24-year-old woman someplace, it does. So we think attention is the next key metric to drive it, to drive outcomes. It's very early days. We are the only company that has an accredited attention metric out there. We're the only company who's actually built a full suite of attention solutions, and we're just starting to roll them out and they're getting really nice pick up. So that's a long game. That's our long game. Custom contextual is a short game, people use contextual solutions today. Authentic Attention is our long game. And I think that could be an amazing alternative currency across all different medias. And that's the other beauty of attention is that it's a single metric that is valid, whether you're on CTV, you are on a mobile app, whether you're on a web page, consistent single currency across multiple different places. That's what attention is.

Okay. Yes. Any questions before -- from the audience before I ask my last one? We have about 2 minutes left. Okay, okay. Great. Hearing none. So what's Wall Street missing? We're going to close up. What's Wall Street missing? What are the top things that you think investors should keep their eye on is data points showing that you're making progress towards your key goals?

Let me give a couple of quick business ones and you get the financial ones. The key things Wall Street misses. We are in advertising technology, but we don't make money selling media. We don't have a take rate. We are not -- if -- when ad revenue goes down, we measure impressions. The same number of people watching a CPV show does not change if there's less advertisers chasing that show, which means ads will still run, they're just selling for cheaper. We still get paid for that. So that's the first thing. A, we're not a take rate. B, we don't fight for wallet share, okay? We don't take a percentage of Unilever's business or a percentage of Mondelez's business. No matter how big you are as a platform, whether you're a Google or Facebook or TikTok or Trade Desk, you fight for wallet share. We don't do that. And we get engaged with the client, all of their ads run through us for the most part. So a, we don't really cost share. The third key business asset is that we still have incredible amount of white space to fill. 67% of our Q1 brand closes were greenfield opportunities. So unlike large media platforms who -- everybody knows Meta, right, they're not going to close hundreds of advertisers, right? The ad spend will go up or down. We still have hundreds of new advertisers to go after. So we've got a huge amount of runway to fill before we even touch our TAM, which we think is globally penetrated less than 30%. So we've got huge runway on that front and then some financial factors in.

I mean on the financials, we already mentioned I don't know if Wall Street is missing it. I think they're missing out on how valuable it is in this market, right? No debt, over $200 million of cash, topline and bottom line growth. I think competitively, Wall Street sometimes forgets that we are independent, and we are bound to remain independent. It's very hard to imagine somebody like Google deciding that they are going to acquire companies like us. The advertisers don't want their homework graded by the platforms themselves. And that's a significant competitive advantage as a company, as a stand-alone company that's growing topline over 30%, over 30% margin. This is a company that's going to be around for a long time and has a huge TAM. I'm not sure Wall Street really gets the power of that.

[indiscernible] I am going to call it there. Thank you very much, everybody.

Thank you, Laura.

Thank you, all.