Nexstar Media Group Inc (NXST) 2005 Q1 法說會逐字稿

Good day everyone. Welcome to this Nexstar first quarter earnings results conference call. Today's call is being recorded. All statements and comments made by management during this conference call other than statements of historical facts may be deemed forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 21 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21A of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. Our future financial conditions and results of operations, as well as forward-looking statements, are subject to change. The forward-looking statements and comments made through this conference call are made only as of the date of this conference call. We do not have to undertake any obligations to update any forward-looking statements reflective of changes and circumstances.

At this time I would like to turn the call over to today's speakers. Please go ahead.

Thank you Gwen. Good morning, everyone, this is Perry Sook from Nexstar Broadcasting. Joining me today are Bob Thompson, our Chief Financial Officer and Shirley Green, our VP of finance.

Thank you for joining us today as we review and discuss our first quarter 2005 operating results.

We will get right to the numbers and then we will make time for your questions.

Nexstar's reported net revenue for the first quarter of 2005 was 52.7 million. That's a decrease of -- I'm sorry, 2.8% from net revenue of 84.2 million in the first quarter of 2004. Our results are above the top end of the net revenue guidance that we issued last March.

Our core advertising revenues which exclude political increased 2.2% while -- as we expected -- our gross political revenues declined $3.1 million year-over-year.

Our Company's new local direct revenues developed in the first quarter totaled $2.8 million which helped to drive our local revenue increase. As for the category results, the following categories showed increases, the furniture category, packaged goods, infomercial, pharmaceutical, health and fitness clubs, travel, and agricultural advertising all were on the plus side.

On the other side of the ledger for the first quarter in three years, our automotive business was down 1.7% in total. However, our dealer group advertising revenue was up 1.1%.

Other categories showing declines in Q1 were fast food, department stores, financial, telecom, legal, and soft drink advertising.

Nexstar's first quarter reported station direct operating expenses, SG&A and cash program payments increased slightly from $31.5 million in Q1 of 2004 to $31.8 million in Q1 of 2005; and that is with the addition of the four new stations into the results.

Our corporate overhead increased to $2.8 million in Q1 of 2005 up from $2 million in Q1 of 2004, primarily due to the wrap up of cost -- of compliance on the initial filing period for Sarbanes-Oxley. All of this resulted in an adjusted EBITDA of 13.1 million for the quarter versus 15.7 million for the first quarter of 2004.

On a pro forma basis, our Q1 2005 net revenues declined 7.2% and our station operating expenses decreased 6.5%. With that, I will turn the call over to Bob Thompson. He will review some additional items from our first quarter financial statements for you. Bob.

Thanks Perry. I am going to first review our capital structure and then address some of the income statement items. Our cash on hand at March 31st, 2005 was $13.5 million. Our debt at March 31st '05 consisted of the following. Term loans of $233.2 million; revolver balance of 21.5 million. Our 12% notes had accreted to $156.6 million and we had $125 million outstanding on our 7% notes, yielding to operating Company indebtedness of $536.3 million, less the $13.9 million that cash on hand gave us net debt of $522.4 million at the end of the period.

On April 1st, 2005 after our call, the 12% notes and the bank refinancing our debt consisted of the following. Term loan of $355 million and 7% notes of $197.4 million giving us the operating Company indebtedness of $552.4 million as of April 1st, 2005.

Additionally, at the holding company level our 11 3/8% notes had accreted to $93.2 million on March 31st, giving us total debt through the whole total of $629.5 million at March 31st.

Our corporate overhead costs were $2.8 million for the quarter and we remain on track with our guidance of $10 to $11 million for the full year of corporate overhead expenses.

Leverage at March 31st as defined in our senior credit facilities was 6.1 times versus the covenant of 7.5 times under our new credit agreement. Our operating company indebtedness was 536.3 million less 13.9 million of cash on hand, giving us net debt of $522.4 million. Our last 12 months EBITDA calculated in accordance with our senior credit facilities is $85.2 million at March 31st, yielding the leverage of 6.1 times.

On April 1st, NetStar Broadcasting Group called all $160 million of aggregate principal amounts of our 12% Senior Subordinated Notes that were due April 1st, 2008. The Company funded the call with its $75 million add-on to our 7% Senior Subordinated Notes and $100 million of term loan borrowings under our new credit facility. The term loans priced at LIBOR plus 175 and our revolver has new product in this LIBOR plus 125 basis points based on our current senior leverage.

Due to this transaction the Company has opportunistically accessed both bonds and bank markets, securing attractive long-term financing with our bonds while improving bank price and creating covenant flexibility in the new credit facility.

In the second quarter 2005 Nexstar will recognize a loss on extinguishment of the debt of approximately $16 million; that is related to the call premium on the 12% notes and the write-off of unamortized discount on the note and unamortized deferred financing costs.

The refinancing of our 12% notes expect to reduce cash interest costs by approximately $8.5 million over the next 12 months, providing an immediate boost to our free cash flow. Our CapEx for the first quarter was $2.9 million with about 800,000 related to our DTV expenditures and that concludes my review and I will now turn the call back over to Perry for his final remarks before Q&A.

Thanks very much, Bob. Before we take your questions I'd like to briefly review our guidance for the second quarter and for full year of 2005. Our guidance for the second quarter is for net revenues in the range of $59 to $60 million which would represent a decline of 2% to 3.6% from the 61.2 million we delivered in Q2 of 2004.

Embedded in this guidance is a forecast of a low single digit increased on our core business, coupled with a decline in political spending of approximately $4 million for the quarter.

On the cable retransmission consent negotiation front, there is very little news to report but what news there is, I feel is good news. We certainly appreciate that Les Moonves of CBS is now publicly commenting that he is disposed towards asking for cash retransmission consent fees for the CBS station group; and we predict that other groups will follow as well.

As it relates to our business, a significant number of the advertisers in the affected markets that stayed away initially due to the uncertain effect of our ratings have come back now -- and now that the data from the data from the temporary Nielsen ratings is known. Meanwhile we will continue to seek a resolution in this dispute that is in the long-term best interest of the Company and our shareholders.

With that, Bob and Shirley and I will be happy to entertain any questions you may have.

Gwen, we will turn the call back to you.

+++ q-and-a.

(OPERATOR INSTRUCTIONS) Victor Miller with Bear Stearns.

Perry, you obviously exceeded first quarter guidance. You are in line pretty much with what is expected in second quarter. You did suggest that, for the full year, you expect to be at the lower end and that the business doesn't seem to be coming into core growth. Could you talk about what parts of the core growth are not there for you? And secondly there's been some vocal complaints about you taking the risk that you have done in some of the smaller markets and there might be some damage to the TV stations. Could you talk about whether you have seen advertisers lead the stations? Are ratings actually up or down? Are those criticisms warranted?

Thanks, Victor. As I think we said in our release we remained cautiously optimistic about the economy and you will remember, embedded in our full year guidance was a core revenue increase assumption of approximately 3 to 5% on a reported basis. Obviously in the first quarter, core revenue grew at 2.2%; and with our guidance for the second quarter, we would be on our core revenue assumptions at the low end or below the low end of the guidance range that we gave. And what we're saying is that at this point, if this is the tone that is set for the year on an all-in basis, we would come in toward the lower end or the lower half of our guidance range for the full year.

As far as the categories, as I think I mentioned, the automotive category was down 1.7% for us in the first quarter. Actually, our local dealer spending was the laggard there. In the individual dealers in the market that spending as a group was down a mid single digit amount while as I think I mentioned our local group, dealer group advertising was up 1.1% for the year. Or for the quarter -- so on an all in basis, automotive spending down a little less than 2%.

And just delving into that category, we had a good quarter for automotive from Chrysler. All of the Daimler Chrysler plates, with the exception of Mercedes, showed increases in the quarter. GM was up for us not insignificantly. Ford was down and there was a mixed bag of the foreign nameplates -- Lexus, Acura, Nissan increased while Honda, Hyundai, Kia, Mazda, Subaru and Volkswagen were down.

In terms of the other categories, obviously, we continued to see disarray in the fast food category of agency changes and new creative and lags in bringing commercials to market. That category continues to be troubling for us. We see no and those obviously are two major categories but of the categories that we mentioned, other than the normal ebb and flow we don't see any theme in the business that would say that there is going to be a dramatic turn in either direction.

So my comment was that if, indeed, the tone is set for the year and we are looking at 2% core growth, as opposed to 3 to 5% core growth, we are not guiding to that. But we're saying that if indeed that's the way things turn out in the back half of the year, then we would be towards the lower end of our guidance, but still within our range.

As it relates to the retransmission consent discussions that we're having, obviously, this is a measured negotiation and a very considered decision to seek cash retransmission consent payments for our stations and markets with considerable DBS penetration where we have dominant and, perhaps, multiple local news franchises in the marketplace.

We did see cancellations and advertisers that stayed away in the first quarter -- I think we talked about before. Interestingly enough as the February ratings date became known and ratings for the NBC station in Shreveport were up; the ABC station in Joplin were up, the 10:00 news for the ABC station in Joplin was up over the prior year and those facts became known to us and to advertisers, we have seen folks who stayed away because they didn't know what the facts would show that have started to come back. And we've added some new advertisers along the way as we continue to build our business. So the impact to us is decreasing as time goes on and life goes on and as people find out that our ratings didn't go down by the number of cable homes or the percentage of cable homes that we weren't reaching.

I think it is a misnomer to assume that because we are not going into the home on a cable wire does not mean that we are not going into the home. Either "rabbit ears" or we know that we continue to be a boon to particularly Dish network and to a lesser degree to DirecTV because of their penetration in these marketplaces and the affected markets for people are literally living from cable to a satellite service for their reception device.

Again we are glad to hear that there are others that see the value proposition that this would create long-term for broadcasters. And yet, these stations represent -- in aggregate -- a single digit percent of our revenue, more or less on an annualized basis in these effective markets. So it is, it was a considered decision. We have seen a spike in Dish Network registrations and we are being paid by the satellite companies on a per subscriber fee basis for that and it's a long-term proposition. It is a negotiation. We did not intend for it to become this public debate.

The cable companies were the ones that issued the first press releases not us. But it is a long road and we are firmly convinced that we will create value and we are disposed to continuing negotiations to determine how that value is created.

Jonathan Jacoby with Banc Of America Securities.

I know you probably get a lot of questions on the retransmission issue. But how do you see this eventually playing out. In the press release and in your comments you said it had less of an impact than originally expected. Can you give us some idea perhaps on a yearly basis or quarterly basis, how much this is costing you?

And then, secondly, is this more of a problem for you than for others? Some of your competitors in terms of local TV affiliate operators actually do get paid for retrans, whether they package some type of cable programming that they have with their sort of local service. And this now becomes an issue for Viacom as they look at splitting themselves. So, are there differences in the local market that maybe makes this a little bit different for you than for some of the others?

Yes, Jonathan, I first -- as to the impact, all I can tell you is that we had a number of the initial cancellations in these core markets. What I can't put a number on -- and that was a mid six-figure amount of folks who cancelled their business initially when the dispute was announced. What I can't tell you is how many people stayed away or what they would have spent had they not stayed away.

We do know that some that said they were going to hold off until they got a chance to see what the February ratings would yield -- that we are having discussions with those advertisers. And they are increasingly coming back and doing business with us. So the impact is less -- and obviously second quarter is still being written, so we don't really have a firm grasp on, nor do I necessarily know how to quantify it because you never know what people's intentions might have been or would have been. As it relates to the dispute itself I think you are exactly right, that it is probably a different dispute for companies in medium and smaller markets that it is for other companies.

We've looked at the 24 hour Weather Channel, and we've looked at providing some ancillary services to cable, and that remains a viable negotiable option for us. But at this point we think it would be a mistake to ignore the value that our television stations bring to the cable offerings in these local markets to begin with. We want to establish some foundation or basis there.

Now if you are in a market with a dozen TV stations and you don't produce local news you may not be playing the same hand as we would be in a Joplin, Missouri where we operate at one and only one of the local news producers in the marketplace or 2 of the 3. The same in Abilene and in San Angelo, Texas. Our 2 stations the Nexstar station and the Mission station are the only stations that produce local news in that marketplace.

So we do think that the dynamics are different and this may play out on a market by market basis. If there are other operators who decided that they can take a similar tack and all of a sudden the cable operator is faced with having no local signals to distribute vs. his competition of Dish that may have all the local stations to distribute, it may be a different dynamic than 1 station out of 5 taking this decision. But we think if CBS truly -- and obviously they are and will be a leader in this business in terms of not only the size of the company but their geographic footprint -- if they take a similar tack we'd expect other broadcasters to come into line.

And I will tell you I had three different broadcast companies -- 1 public and 2 private that approached me at the NAB that want to do conference calls. They want to learn what we learned at this point as they go to make their decision as to how and when they choose to engage in this debate.

I think you're right. I think -- there may not be a 1 size fits all strategy here for the industry. It may be done on a company by company basis and all of the options that you mentioned I would consider to be on the table as we continue to negotiate.

Perry, just a quick follow-up on this issue. Do the cable MSOs advertise on your stations? Is that some of the lost advertising that you are seeing in these markets?

I'm sorry -- cable? Surely in West Texas. Cox has cancelled their advertising although it's not as big a category for us as it is for other folks. It has never been a top 20 category for us if you look at cable advertising. Quite candidly, Cox had offered to substantially increase the advertising commitment to our stations which I said was all well and good. But we are not in the business of accepting advertising donations if you don't feel that you need to spend the money to permit your products and services and we haven't earned it, then by all means, you should make that decision. But we go out and earn advertising commitments from people every day and basically we only get what we earn.

Couldn't that just flow through in terms of how you're getting paid? Just a certain level of ad commitment from an MSO?

In our -- yes. In our negotiations we have asked for an ad commitment in addition to a subscriber fee and again the whole package is negotiable. We are resolved that we are not going to subsist and settle for ad commitment alone because we've been down that road before.

(OPERATOR INSTRUCTIONS) Sean Butson with Legg Mason.

I guess a couple of questions. The first one is I don't want to spend the whole call on the retrends -- just looking further outdoors at the -- over the next twelve months you have a bunch of cable negotiations that are going to be going on in your other markets. So can you just refresh my memory about whether I am right about that? And also how you're going to approach those negotiations? And, secondly, in terms of the NFL living from ABC on Monday night to NBC on Sunday night, you guys have a fair number of ABC stations. I know a bunch of them are in smaller markets but I think the NFL is pretty popular even in markets that are not quote in NFL cities and so you just maybe give us a little local color on that as well.

Let me start with the second question first. As you know our NBC stations and in the first quarter they represented 35% of our revenue. Our ABC stations represented 16%, our CBS were 28 and our Fox and UPN stations, 21%. So we see it as a huge positive for our Company with the NFL moving in again some of our ABC stations are in some of our largest markets. (indiscernible) Shreveport, Little Rock, Arkansas; Fayetteville, Arkansas, just to mention a few. So we see it as a huge net positive for our Company that the move goes to NBC and we think that 2006 is setting up to be a pretty good year particularly with our NBC stations having the Winter Olympics in the first quarter and the NFL coming to our stations in the third quarter.

So we think that all sets up pretty well for us in 2006 and we are glad to have the NFL back on NBC and think the idea of a four-hour block on Sunday night is a very solid one.

As it relates to the retransmission consensus discussions -- we have in place retransmission consent agreements with cable, certain cable operators that run all the way through 2012 at this point. But you are right in your assumption that we have a substantial number of agreements as I would suggest most of the rest of the industry that expire at the end of this year or early in 2006, it was the three-year cycle that people entered into three years ago.

So what I don't want to do is to publicly disclose our strategy as to how we plan to deal with those. Suffice it to say it will be a considered decision. It will be a calculated decision and the dynamics will be taken into account on a market by market basis.

Beyond that, I really don't want to signal our approach as to how we plan to look at this. As the year goes on, hope there are a lot of facts to be written in our existing markets. I will tell you that two weeks ago we signed the largest cable retransmission consent for subscriber fee deal in the Company's history at a company that I am not at liberty to name. But we are signing deals with wireline cable companies on a regular basis that are paying us on a per subfee basis. We just haven't cracked the top 10 MSOs yet.

We will -- a lot will play out in terms of what happens with other players in the industry; what the competitive dynamics are in our individual markets; and what we continue to learn as we evolve through the markets where we are currently in this discussion with the cable operators. So I really don't want to publicly disclose our strategy beyond that.

By the way thanks for all the great pro forma information you guys put in the press release. You guys are setting the standard among the peer play TV broadcasters.

Thanks. That's very nice of you to say.

Bishop Sheen with Wachovia Securities.

I will focus on the balance sheet. You are doing your usual (indiscernible) job talking about operation.

Robert, the 355 million pro forma debt. In that new facility, how much is term, how much is revolver?

The term loan is $355 million. The revolver is 97.5 million on the new facility. It is completely undrawn as of April 1. Really just rolling forward the old term loan or the old bank facility, we had 233 million under the old term loan; 21.5 million under the old revolver and then we had -- added $100 million to the term loan to take out the old 12% note. So that's your 355 million that's outstanding under the new term loan.

Then the 7% notes or the value of those notes is $197.4 million as of April 1st.

Right and that's net of 3.6 million of unamortized discount?

That's correct.

Now looking forward, you've done a lot of (indiscernible). This is last piece I think to put in place to get the balance sheet extended, the maturities extended.

That is correct. We are still a little ways away from a call date on the 11 and 3/8% note at the full (indiscernible) level but that would be the next opportunistic look that we would have at the balance sheet.

So when you look at this year without the benefit of political and you look at where you want to put your free cash flow.

Look, look, look. We will be very focused on taking our free cash flow this year and continuing to pay down debt throughout the year.

I love it when you tell me what I want to hear. As opposed to focusing on dividends or any buybacks.

There's nothing on that front at this point. Our focus here is short-term. We'll continue to pay down debt.

Another question in the event category. I know that you have some stand-alone markets. You have some properties that may not be the most strategic in the way that you operate. Would you be looking you think this calendar year to monetize those and do you think the M&A market is sufficient enough to give you a tail wind to reach your goals on that?

I'll answer that one, Bishop. There are properties in our portfolio that we do not see fitting our long-term strategic plans. We would look in our end conversations selectively to monetize certain of those properties. Whether it happens this year or not I wouldn't want to predict, but suffice it to say we are engaged in conversations -- various conversations that are at various levels of development -- and there is an intent there to monetize a few of these non-strategic stand-alone smaller properties that, for any number of reasons, we don't see in our long-term future.

Andrew Finkelstein with Lehman Brothers.

Just one question on the decline you've seen on the expense line. I was wondering if you could just give us a little more color (indiscernible) is coming from as you sort of have a quarter to operate some of these new stations and get those cost savings and what we can expect on those -- the expense line -- for the rest of the year?

For the year we gave guidance in December of '04 for expenses to be down flat minus 4 on a pro forma basis. We are beyond that in Q1 and will still deliver that guidance for the full year will be more towards the favorable end of that guidance for the full year as well.

Obviously, some of the costs come out in Q1, relate to our most recent acquisitions. And that's in northwest Arkansas, San Angelo and Utica and also in Fort Wayne. And we will continue to see cost takeouts throughout the remainder of the year. Those markets in particular. And there's still costs that we're taking out although not to the extent that we saw in '04 but from the forum stations as well. So we will continue to have favorable expense comparisons to the pro forma results from 2004 throughout the year.

Victor Miller with Bear Stearns.

Can you just remind us the NOLs right now, Bob?

NOLs at the end of 2004 were approximately $300 million.

Perry, are there any network compensation issues in terms of decline that are of a significant magnitude in the '05 '06 timeframe?

Our -- as a point of reference, our net worth comp in the first quarter was $146,000 less than the first quarter of 2004. So, a minor decline that was offset by the increase in cable, retrends, royalties by almost an identical amount.

And then anything else? Should we expect that kind of magnitude in both the cable and the broadcast -- the network comp for the rest of the year?

We have reached long-term affiliation renewals for all of the ABC affiliates whose affiliation agreements expired this year. We are still in discussion with CBS; and we have not yet begun to discuss with NBC the two stations -- Amarillo and Shreveport -- that are up at the very end of this year. But as I think I said, we have retained compensation in all of those discussions in every affiliation renewal to date. Very (indiscernible) levels and percentages. There will be a decline but it will not be of an order of magnitude.

Lastly -- could you talk about whether you have joined NBC's initiative on the Weather Channel? And secondly you were one of the first people to philosophically sign on with be with the broadcast initiative. Do you feel like that effort is still alive and well? Or is it in permanent dormancy at this point?

We certainly have taken a good hard look at the NBC Weather Channel. We think that there are some viable elements to the business plan. We -- quite frankly -- and I don't want to go into the nth level of detail, we are in disagreement as to some of the business points. So we have not signed on to date; but certainly don't hold anything against the concept. First and foremost in my mind if we were to launch something like that I would want to be paid the retransmission fees a subfee for -- from the cable operators and that's not a core tentative of the business plan of the NBC Weather Channel at this point. So honest people can disagree and we just have a disagreement on some of the business points at this point. But are glad to see an effort like that out there.

As to the broadcasters' digital initiative I think that Jeff has done a great job and a tremendous amount of legwork at MS Communications to try to lay the groundwork to put this together; and I think that it probably will take a major O&O group, signing on as a partner to push it over the top. I know that we lent our name as did a dozen other broadcasters -- give or take -- to support the initiative.

Obviously it was much more a conceptual stage at that point. Philosophically, it's an interesting question. Can a stand-alone low-priced limited service offering survive in an increasingly bundled world? Is there enough value proposition there? I don't know. I really can't say. I think that if it is one of the things that we can bring to the table or use to bring cable to the table to have substantive talks about the value of our primary signals. Then I think it is a good thing but I wouldn't want to comment on where it ends up but I did think it will take a major O&O group agreeing to join the venture to push the thing over the top.

Shannon Ward with AIG.

I just wanted a clarification on a couple of things. You just mentioned I think that your affiliation (indiscernible) all of your ABC stations have been renewed. Is that right?

Yes. All of the ABC affiliations for Nexstar and coincidentally also for Mission have been renewed through 2010. Those that were up this year, I should say, Shannon. Those that had expiration dates in 2005 have been renewed through 12/31/10.

And you also mentioned per subfee that you are getting in MSO. Is that fee larger than what you're getting from the DBS providers right now?

I'm really not at liberty to say but there is an escalator on a yearly basis. And certainly by the end of the agreement we will be substantially above what we are getting from the cable operators. Or from the DBS operators.

On that point, what percent right now of your DBS and cable homes are you getting paid for? That's a really badly crafted sentence but I think you know what I mean.

There's a lagtime in that we don't see the first subscriber check from the DBS providers. It trails the current month by 60 or 90 days -- 90 days. So there are certain markets that went on the air at the very beginning of the year that we know there have been signups but we have not been able to recognize the revenue because we haven't seen on a training basis what it is yet. But DirecTV is in 10 of our 27 markets and Dish Network on in 21 of our 27 markets.

But, again, some of those just went on the air. Operating local into local service within the last month or two. So we've really and the run rate on that review, by the way, is pretty substantial. It's got a pretty steep slope in a market that's introduced that ultimately levels at a much less steep slope after about a year. But the first year is a kind of a hockey stick growth as subscribers migrate to the service and take the local into local option.

So I guess what I meant to ask you if you took all of your viewers, all of your homes were 100% what percent of those are actually receiving a subfee for? Either an MSO or through DirecTV or Dish?

I'm not sure I would know how to calculate that. If you're saying what percent of our homes are a test local and local vs. our universe or what percent of our homes in a market -- I'm not sure I understand the question completely.

I guess what I want to ask is of the total possible stream of revenues that you could be receiving if you're getting first up fees from all of your sources all of your retrans sources where are you in that game right now? How far along is it? Is it really just those that are receiving your signal through DirecTV or Dish that we are talking about? How far had you penetrated the MSO base at this point, with retrans fees?

I think one way to look at it is we've reached approximately 8 million television households a week. The DBS penetration in our universe is about -- well, it's in the low 20% range. However not all of those homes that are DBS penetrated have the ability to receive local into local so I think you can further reduce it down into a number that is probably substantially less than 1 million homes out of the 8 million homes in our universe. That's a real back of the envelope answer for you, Shannon, but that's probably the best I can quantify -- again, the subscriber reports that we get from the companies lag by about 90 days.

So it's a real inexact science.

Assuming on the MSOs deal that you struck, one of the first of hopefully many but really at this point there hasn't been many signed?

We have -- probably it would amount to two handfuls of deals signed with cable companies but, again, none of the top 10 MSOs.

Clarification on your auto group and auto dealers. Delta in the quarter. I thought you said that the dealer groups were up but the national groups were down and that the 2 -- what's the combined effect of the 2?

Sure, let me clarify. Our total automotive spending was for first quarter -1.7%. Our dealer group advertising, the dealer association advertising was actually up 1.1%. However, the individual auto dealer Bob Thompson Chevrolet or Shirley Green Pontiac -- those taken as a whole was down a single digit amount which is what caused the automotive category to go negative for us. So individual dealers on market by market basis. Collectively that group was down a single digit.

It appears there are no further questions at this time. I'd like to turn the conference back over to you for any closing remarks.

Thank you all for joining us and we'll see you again next quarter.

Thank you everyone. That does conclude today's conference.