Nexstar Media Group, Inc. (NXST) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Okay. We'll get started. I'm pleased to be joined up here today by Perry Sook, Founder, Chairman and CEO of Nexstar Media Group, along with Lee Ann Gliha, Executive Vice President and CFO. Thanks, guys, for being here.

Thank you for having us.

Great. So I'll start with this. Perry, you've been a continuous champion of broadcast and its role in the media and entertainment ecosystem. Maybe you could just speak to the key pillars that underlie your viewpoint.

Well, from our perspective, everything we do starts at the foundation of the local station business, which is the service unit that feeds our local communities' relevant content, facilitates B2C communication and also provides entertainment programming that is relevant to the community. So that's where we spend our time and focus and the vast majority of our capital. And we think it's the stickiest part. It's the most unsexy part of the media ecosystem, but it's the most sticky part, those local relationships with advertisers and audience. And so we think there'll be the opportunity here in the very near future to expand our footprint of local stations. And so that's where I think we'll continue to focus our time and capital was at the local end of the ecosystem.

All right. On that note, so the current FCC Chair, we think is made very clear the importance of a healthy broadcast station market. There also appears to be generally, I think, more support across both aisles of Congress for deregulation. Curious to review what's the significance of this moment? What's different from Trump 1, which ultimately didn't have much in the way of structural change?

Well, I think the significance of this moment are -- and the difference from Trump 1 is that 1 party controls both houses of Congress. And with the executive branch basically has input over the regulatory agencies. So everything is in alignment. And I think the opportunity is right in front of us in terms of removing these antiquated regulations that hamstring our business from competing at least on a domestic U.S. basis with the tech behemoths that are competing for advertisers, competing for eyeballs, competing for money and content in our local marketplaces. And that argument of local journalism versus Big Tech has really resonated, as I think you said, on both sides of the aisle. And who knows what will happen in the midterms, whether there will be continuous control of 1 party of both houses of Congress. So I think our window is right in front of us, but is potentially finite in terms of the opportunity to act. So our company is moving with a sense of urgency to try and take advantage of the opportunity, while it's in front of us.

Probably assuming we got a removal of the national ownership cap and end market duopoly rules, how do you kind of envision the industry evolving over the next 5 to 10 years, right? Do we kind of get to a place at some point where we have the network in their stations, then maybe a handful of kind of very scaled groups.

Well, I think it's an open question is whether you will still have the networks in their current iteration 10 years from now. But I do think you'll have a handful of very scaled local groups. And a network is nothing more than connected distribution. And if we have that connected distribution, we might be able to influence or determine or sponsor our own national programming service to serve our stations much as we've done with the CW. But I do think that there will be a coalition of a few willing that would like to expand a footprint to a near nationwide footprint of local owned and operated stations, and that will be the backbone of the industry going forward.

On practical matters, I think there's likely legal challenge to consider in the FCC removing the cap as there often are with any FCC rule changes. And then with the duopoly rules, right, how do you think the DOJ may kind of interject and define advertising markets, right? And how are you kind of thinking about maybe the practical limits of what this could mean for consolidation?

Well, I think as with any executive order or any action taken, there could be potential legal challenges, whether they prevail or not, I think, is open for debate. There are -- there's a current court case that if the decision comes down in favor of the industry that would eliminate the current rules, and so that would not be subject to judicial review, and it would be at that point, game on or game over in terms of any regulatory uncertainty. But I think in terms of the DOJ, our GR team has been in touch with folks at the DOJ. And we have yet to find one that believes that broadcast television advertising is its own discrete market as it's currently defined today. So I think that you'll see a cooperative DOJ in merger review. As you have seen with the credit card merger and others that there'll be a different interpretation of market, which should create an opportunity to expand beyond just the television market as a discrete market, consider all forms of advertising, in which case, there's really no issue.

So the goal, it would seem to be is not just to get it defined as a video market, right, but maybe just anything that would touch on a local basis.

Well, I mean, Amazon is organizing a local sales force in local markets right now, as we speak, and they're calling on the same people that we call on. So to say that we don't compete with one another is not recognizing the realities of the marketplace. So I think everybody gets that, and no one can really defend the current rules. It's just a question of getting people to the point of either administering rules differently or eliminating the rules as an impediment.

Got it. So Nexstar has a strong track record of value creation through strategic debt financed M&A. Just recognizing that we are in a bit of a different interest rate environment, media environment relative to prior cycles. What types of transactions or deal structures right now, do you find most compelling?

Yes. Maybe I'll take that. I mean I think that, if you look at our track record historically on M&A, kind of go back to the beginning of 2011 to 2019, which was the last consolidation wave we did 40 deals. Our stock price went from $4.35 to kind of $150 to $170 that it is today. We did that through generating significant synergy and through mostly from a debt financing perspective. And look, I think we are mindful of the fact that interest rates are higher now than they were before. Our multiples are lower than they were before, but I think we can still factor all of that in and have a successful transaction that's going to be accretive on the other side of things. In terms of the types of deals that we like to look at, obviously, creating shareholder value, creating accretion is, first and foremost, the most important. I think if we have our pick of the types of assets we like, opportunities to put the CW network somewhere, bigger markets, markets where we can double up in the market if we do have that regulatory relief, those are the things that are going to be most interesting to us. But as you all know, you can't necessarily just get what you want, you also have to have a willing counterparty, and you have to look at the deals that are going to be presented to you in the way that, that seller wants to also transact. And so there's got to be a meeting of the minds with respect to all of those things.

Maybe as a follow-on, how do you kind of frame the current opportunity for synergy capture, right? Last cycle, retrans optimization was a big factor. Is that still the case? Or is it more kind of shifting to cost of efficiencies or are there kind of both to consider?

I think they're all there to consider. I think if you sort of just take our playbook, you kind of start from the top down. We -- number 1 is the retrans synergies. We have the ability to step up any targets, retrans if it is lower to our level. And that's a very nice synergy to have. It's easy to achieve. And we do think that there is still that opportunity. We do think the deals that we've -- are companies that we've looked at have always been a little bit lower than where we are. And so there's opportunity from that perspective there. And then I think we -- secondarily, we'll look at if you buy something in market, and that's actually where, I think there's probably a potentially new synergy in this environment as opposed to the past. If we are able to own 2 Big 4 stations in a market, there's going to be an opportunity to really operate those 2 stations off of 1 infrastructure, which can create more synergy than we necessarily were able to do in the past. We've had some relationships with some of our partners that enable us to get some of that synergy, but not all of it. So that could be incrementally interesting in this go around. We also look at just sort of our regular way efficiencies, how do we operate a station and what's the way we do it and how does somebody else do it? And there's generally opportunities for expense reduction there. And then kind of just continuing down, we have corporate overhead synergies if it's a large-scale company, we could -- we don't need 2 CFOs and 2 CEOs that can be a benefit. And then I think the last piece of it, which is still operative is what we can benefit from after we do the deal, which is the scale synergies. Once we have created more scale and more opportunities. We can do different things like Perry was talking about on the programming side and just the leverage that we will have in any future negotiations. So we still feel like the core thesis in terms of what we did in the last acquisition cycle is intact, and may be slightly different in terms of the composition and how the numbers all come together, but we're bullish about that opportunity.

I'm curious, you mentioned large markets as an opportunity. As you kind of push into those top DMAs, you do start to push up against the networks and their station footprint. Any sense, Perry, how they might kind of approach and would any of them be willing to divest stations? Is that open opportunities for you?

Yes. I don't know what goes on in the minds of the boardrooms of those companies at this point in time. If you look at our station footprint, about half of our markets, we have some form of -- an economic benefit from more than 1 station, where we don't is in the top 10 markets where we have CW affiliates that for purposes of definition, are not a Big 4 affiliate and could be paired with a Big 4 affiliate pretty easily, but there has to be an actionable transaction. And right now, there isn't one. And we don't really know in the future, if there will be one that is actionable and at a price that makes sense for us from an accretion and deployment of capital perspective.

Right. And to be clear, if you have a duopoly of a Big 4 in CW, that doesn't prevent you from then having another Big 4?

Well, there's also a rule that limits ownership of 2 stations to a market that we expect could be repealed along with the other impediments to ownership that would allow you to own more than 2 stations in the marketplace. And so yes, I think if you assume the new rule is, there are no rules, it opens up an entire footprint here that is currently not available to us.

Got it. So in general, the FCC or at least the Chair, we think, has adopted a stance more in favor of stations over the network partners. You operate on both sides. So I would be curious kind of your view of how you think this could maybe impact network station relationships.

Well, I think that will evolve over time, right? And I think one of the things that stations would like to have is the ability to negotiate directly with virtual MVPDs as opposed to just opting in or not opting into a network deal. And so I think that could be the byproduct of other discussions that are going on that those rights will ultimately revert back to the station. So I think that is a net positive. And I think that, again, local journalism happens at the local level. It doesn't happen at the network level and the way we're trying to frame the survival, and the future of our business is local journalism competes with Big Tech, and we need strong healthy companies and the ability to grow our footprint to compete more effectively with Big Tech, at least on a nationwide basis. So that's the argument that we're making. And again, I think it's been received pretty well at the regulatory agencies as well as both sides of the aisle on the hill. And so I think that you're right that the current administration looks more favorably on local stations as more honest brokers of information than national networks that may have bias in their reporting.

Got it. All right. While we're on this top, I have to ask. Recently, there was reports of an idea may be floated by Commissioner Simington to put a cap on reverse retrans payments. Do you see something like this as even kind of one feasible. And then two, even desirable, right, given in my head, there would be a second order effect of kind of limiting network buying power for sports rights.

Well, I would tell you that I don't think that there is unanimity of thought around Commissioner Simington's proposal. It was an op head. And so I think he's certainly entitled to an opinion and a point of view, it would be great for us, obviously, in the short term. We don't currently earn 30% of distribution revenue for the CW and we would love to ratchet down to that as a station operator. I just don't know that, again, without unanimous support of the idea that it goes any further than the discussion phase it's in now.

Got it. Maybe let's shift gears a bit. So while subscriber attrition remains a headwind for linear television. We have seen recently the introduction of skinnier bundles and offerings that integrate streaming services. I'm curious, do you think these models can bend the curve on cord cutting? Or are there other changes in packaging that you'd like to say?

I think -- we think it's a great start. I think those are new bundles that have created more value for the consumer. In the case of the charter bundle, where they're bringing back in those direct-to-consumer services, you're really getting a lot of value for your dollar much more so than you were before. And with respect to the skinny bundles for the most part, we're in those. And so that's a benefit to the customer and the benefit to us, as we provide the programming that is the most popular programming. So I think those are 2 positive ways that we're seeing potential for future reduction in the rate of attrition. I think we've spoken previously. We feel like if you just -- some of the survey data we have from a consultant that we work with called Altman Solon shows that the percentage of the people that are in the ecosystem -- the pay TV ecosystem today that are not interested in sports or news, is very small. It's like 4% of the overall ecosystem, and that used to be like 14%, 5 years ago. So there's a reason also just from a composition of the pay TV subscriber universe to expect or anticipate that we may have lower attrition because of that.

Right. So maybe the universe is pared down to the point.

Yes. Yes.

Yes. Okay. All right, this week, we saw pricing and packaging details for ESPN's DTC product, namely ESPN, and separately heard that Fox will launch Fox One this fall. So with these 2 services live, which I think would be before the NFL season, it will mean, I think, substantially all sports are now available without a pay TV subscription, not cheap, but available. So kind of curious how you factor that into your future expectations on pay TV attrition.

Well, I think you'll still have the vast majority of those offerings. And certainly, those 2 offerings would be simulcast with a broadcast component. And so I think the cost, I do think they are -- because it doesn't make economic sense to cut the cord to be able to opt into one of those because then you have to reconnect with broadband. And so I do think it is going to be more of an add-on product than an either/or product. In the case of one of those 2 offerings, we have assurances that the local stations will be included as part of that. So again, if it's a pay-for-product and we're being paid to be there, that's kind of an MVPD of some sort. And so we're relatively benign to net positive, I think, on those developments.

Got it. Maybe just sticking with sports for a second, Perry. Always good to get your view on this, but we've seen leagues, or packages or events to streaming recently, that would be fair, broadcast is growing share as well. I think the NBA and NBC is a good example of that. How do you see the model for sports distribution evolving maybe over the next 5 years?

Yes, I don't think it will be either or in the main. I think that all college and professional sports leagues see the value and realize the value of a broadcast component. I think the NBA has exhibit 1 of that. I think NASCAR and the Xfinity series that the CW has garnered is exhibit 2 that in the case of NASCAR, they turned down more money from a streamer to have broadcast reach to develop that product and audience. And I think everybody understands that and gets that. But I don't think that it's a 0-sum game. I think that the prototypical league and/or local team offering. In the future, we'll have a broadcast component to develop reach. We'll have a super fan component that may either be streaming or RSN like where you pay a premium, but you can see every play of every game. And then I think there'll be a more general direct-to-consumer offering. But I think you'll see all of those in an effective media strategy going forward. And so, we -- again, I feel pretty good about that because broadcasting wasn't always seen as a necessary component, and -- but I think people now realize if I'm only on cable or I'm only on streaming. So think of the sports that are there. I think that nobody is happy about Apple TV and Major League Soccer and the distribution of those games. And so I think that we have a seat at the table in all of those conversations. And now it's just -- is there a deal that makes sense for us as Nexstar and us as the CW as part of those discussions?

All right. May be continuing on that point. A stat that stood out to us in our earnings calls that the CW is now programming 400 hours of live sports content. I think that's 40% of network time. You discussed Xfinity, but maybe you can expand on that or some of the other core rights you picked up. And you have a distribution cycle coming up. How do you think this content is going to kind of factor into those renewals and path to profitability at CW?

I think there's 2 pieces of that. One is if you look at -- the schedule now, 40% of the entire schedule of the network is comprised of sports, and we're in dayparts that we didn't use to program before or the predecessor owners didn't, which are weekend afternoons and evenings with live sports. And so people watch things live that are live like live news, live sports, live event and competition and event programming. So we feel very good about our pivot and the timing of our pivot because I think everyone now is kind of caught up with that, that, that is where you derive the value. But I would also look at the knock-on effect of primetime. The evolution of our primetime schedule that used to be 100% scripted that is now includes live sports, WWE on Tuesday night, which, by the way, beats Fox on a regular basis in the demos. But if you just look at our primetime schedule, the full 15 hours were up 41% season to date in 18 to 49 and 25 to 54 demos, it's really no other network that can make that similar statement, broadcast network. And so we continue to invest in the linear product when others have kind of pulled away for streaming and other things. And we're seeing the benefits of that. So we do think that it will manifest itself in our distribution discussions with our affiliates, because we said, we're going to do this. We have great plans for the CW. They said, great. We haven't seen any of it yet. We don't know if it will work, and we'll need some time to negotiate with our distributors to be able to generate the revenue to pay you. That all, I think, has taken place. The NASCAR races that we have on Saturdays, it's the first time in 11 years, I think that the first dozen races have had over 1 million viewers per race on any platform, broadcast or cable. And so people see the value in that. Our affiliates are kind of over the moon with what they have to sell. And so we would expect that they would increasingly support the network efforts to build the network out. We're trying to change the definition from the Big 4 to the Big 5, and that doesn't happen overnight. But when you're competitive and when you're beating Fox and NBC in primetime and you're beating the other sports on the weekend with your sports, it doesn't happen every weekend, but it is happening now. I think that's a green shoot, and will folks that are playing the long game, we'll certainly want to support that and grow with network as it grows.

So on that vision, do you see somewhere not so far down the line, CW going for bigger, larger sports? And is there anything in the market you think that's relevant to consider like Major League Baseball or PAC-12 is that kind of reconstitute as a conference?

Yes. I think, again, we're -- we primarily are targeting sports that are -- have been either exclusively or primarily on cable or streaming that would like the additional exposure of a broadcast network. Certainly, we are discussing ways to expand our relationship with the PAC-12 beyond the extension of football for this season. And baseball is an interesting proposition. It's obviously as we go into these discussions saying, we're not going to be your highest bid, but we can provide your broadest reach. And as an upstart network, we are, as I like to say, still playing money ball. So I don't see us being a topping bid in any rights negotiation. But we've added Beach Volleyball, we've added Grand Slam Track. We've added Bowling starting next year. And so we're continuing to experiment with things to see what resonates with the audience. And we've got a lot of sports on Saturday with our 33 weeks of NASCAR, and that's obviously where college football is primarily played. We would look for opportunities to add additional sports on Sunday or maybe Friday night. And so opportunities that would blend in with that, we want to be very cognizant of our stations, local newscasts where they make the vast majority of their money as well as our successful affiliates. And the network is there -- as owned by a broadcaster. So it will be a station-first programming strategy and would -- by definition, it kind of dampens our interest in Formula 1 when you have to preempt a local news show on Saturday morning or Sunday morning that's been very successful or maybe other programming commitments that those stations have. So it's genga, right, that we're trying to put together here. But those are all the elements that go into making the decision.

Got it. Maybe just with respect to your wider distribution cycle, can you just remind the audience the percent of your overall footprint up for renewal in '25 and just your confidence level? And this cycle still achieving strong rate step-ups.

Okay. Yes, we've got about 60% of our subscribers that are up for renewal this year, most of it towards the end of the year. We still -- I was just actually updating the numbers this morning. We still have a differential in terms of the amount of viewership that broadcast networks provide to the pay TV distributors versus the percentage of the total programming costs that the distributors or the affiliation fees that they pay to and the retransmission fees that they pay to the content companies. And so, we still believe there's a gap to be closed and there's an opportunity there to continue to grow that.

Got it. Before I move to ads, I want to touch on NewsNation. So the current political news cycle, I would think is a boon for the network. NewsNation is now 24/7. They held some major events recently. Perry, how do you think about the next step in scaling up the network?

Well, the distribution is there competitive with the other cable news networks. And for our perspective, we're trying to grow awareness, which when we started the network in 4 years ago, 11% of the United States knew what NewsNation was. Now it's 37%, maybe 38%, and then among new viewers, it's about half, but that means the other half, we still have to introduce and educate as to what we offer. And I look at what we're doing and the accomplishments we've made. We sent 2 people to Rome to cover the installation of the new Pope, CNN sent 60. We are on Air Force One and in the White House press room now, we weren't a year ago. And I think that adds credibility and validity to everything we're doing. And again, we leverage our local journalists across the country in 40 states where we have newsrooms and do business to continue to provide programming to the network. And I continue to look, okay, well, we talk about the President taking a plane from Qatar maybe the story is how come Boeing hasn't been able to produce a plane, produce the new Air Force One that is way behind schedule. And so just trying to approach questions differently, reminding people that we concentrate on the heartland and the center of opinion and what are people talking about at their kitchen table and not just what happens in the Acela Corridor, no offense. But I mean, that's one part of the country. And there's a whole lot more geography, but between the coasts that we want to focus on as well and give voice to people in those communities. So it's continuing to build awareness, continuing to cover news with a different perspective and to offer stories that maybe you won't see on other networks that are much more focused exclusively on politics.

Got it. So advertising was very much top of mind for investors this earnings season. Much of the commentary we heard from media companies was sort of no sign of linear slowdown yet. Maybe can you speak to see -- can you speak to what you're seeing across verticals, markets, channels?

Yes. I mean I think that how you describe it as very much kind of where we are in terms of not really seeing kind of any major change versus what we saw in the first quarter. We reminded everyone on our earnings call, just if you sort of look at our revenue composition, 63% of our revenue comes from distribution, which is fairly insulated from changes in the economy. And then you have 37% that's coming from advertising. Of that, we've got 20% that's coming from digital, which has been a nice stable and growing business line for us. And the remaining 80% comes from a combination of national and local. And when you really sort of take a step back, about 70% of our advertising revenue comes from local, which tends to be much more resilient than the national advertising spend. And then if you also sort of cut it a different way, if you look at our overall advertising revenue, about only 40% comes from goods-based advertising, which is much more a potential for tariff impact. But we have 60% that's coming from services. Our #2 category is actually attorneys, and that's not going to be tariff-impacted. So in terms of the last quarter, we saw impacts -- negative impacts on auto, insurance and sports betting because North Carolina was going live last year this time and not this year. So -- but it's -- there isn't anything really, I think, particularly glean from the overall category buildup other than we do see pretty much like, I would say, like a 6-point differential in terms of what services are doing versus goods and services to the better.

6-point differential in terms of the rate of growth.

Correct. Yes.

Okay. Okay. And that's a recent or that's been kind of steady.

It's just -- I would have to go back and look. Yes.

Okay. We're about 5 minutes left. Does anyone in the audience want to ask a question? If you do, raise your hand. Quiet room. Okay. We're in an off year for political, but kind of given all that's going on, I would think that's -- things are setting up nicely for '26, even '28. Perry, any kind of early view here?

Yes. It's kind of the way too soon forecast, but we do have an internal projection for 2026 that will be very stout. And again, you have to look at our geography. We're in Ohio where J.D. Vance's Senate seat will be contested. We're in Pennsylvania, where there will be Senate seat and governors. And if you just look at our footprint, we're in the battleground states for the '26 midterms. We actually expect to see -- we saw more money in the first quarter than we anticipated, and that was based on 1 race, which was the Wisconsin Supreme Court race, and we only have stations in Lacrosse and Green Bay, 2 of the smaller markets in the state. That alone allowed us to beat our company's political projection in the first quarter. And we see instances of that. And we have -- there are advocacy ads that are coming up for the budget for prescription medication for save Medicare, Medicaid, whatever, and so that we think -- I think be a constant and the drumbeat. I think you'll see people in certain statewide contests for '26 begin to start to spend money in the fourth quarter. So we tend to deliver on our political projections. And I tell people generally to bet the over. And I think you'll see a repeat of that. But '26 will be a substantial revenue contributor for us in political. And we also -- we hired a new Director of Political Advertising, and her focus right now is making sure we have competitive CTV inventory because there's been more demand for that in the last election cycle. You could say those that use that maybe didn't get elected, and so maybe that was a failed strategy, but I think we want to have a full suite of product offerings in the marketplace, and that's one area where we needed to bulk up a bit, and that's what we're in the process of doing.

I want to touch upon ATSC 3.0. I guess there's a regulatory element to cover here. But more interested on where the industry stands in your view on developing commercial applications and kind of what's your confidence in material revenue contribution in the near term?

Well, material revenue contribution in the near term, I think it's -- again, this is very much the case that you have to build the tollway before you can charge people to drive on it. I think that the FCC Chairman is keenly aware that there is a revenue component to the treasury on this. There's a 5% gross receipts tax on non-video uses of the spectrum. So as far as a pay for and budget discussions, I don't think we're there yet, but I do think the Chairman recognizes that this could be a revenue contributor to the treasury. There's also -- our country has no backup GPS system. We're the only industrialist country in the world that doesn't have a backup to our GPS. And if the GPS goes out, that means not only your navigation doesn't work, ATMs don't work, gas pumps don't work, surgical equipment doesn't work. Everything needs timing, fleet management and things of that sort. So there -- we have a proposal and our trade association for a notice -- a petition for rule making on our backup GPS system, which is terrestrial based, which would be superior to 2 satellites, 1 primary 1 backup, they could both be taken out by the same dirty bomb. So we think it's in the national interest. The DOT said it's in the national interest. The President signed an executive order in his first administration to encourage development of a backup GPS system. And so that could be a use of the spectrum that is in the national interest that may accelerate the conversion to 3.0 from 1.0, an actual mandate, perhaps a sunset date of 1.0 and then a conversion date to 3.0 that are all in the NAB's petition. So we -- and again, we're on record saying we think this could mean to the industry by the end of the decade, what distribution revenue means to the industry today, which is mid-teens billions dollars of revenue. And I think that if we get the sunset in '27 of 1.0, the simulcast requirement and the conversion of the top 55 markets in '28 with the rest in 2030, I think once that's established, you'll begin to see applications develop there. But we're in a spectrum consortia with Scripps, Gray and Sinclair. And collectively, those are the 4 largest owners of spectrum or licensees of spectrum in the country. And so it's a near nationwide footprint. So the infrastructure is there, we just now need to move policy along to get to the point where we can make the conversion and begin to generate meaningful revenue.

Got it. Okay. Guys, thanks so much for being here. We're out of time.

All right. Thank you.

Thanks for having us.

Thanks for having us.