# Why I sold out of TTD

And individual growth rates of each channel. So taking a couple quarters of information, possible to work out real numbers.

Only for mobile as they give us the 45% number so we have a baseline.
We never get a baseline to start with for any other channel and you can’t figure it out without making assumptions.

We did get a little insight on “hundreds of customers spending \$100k per quarter” for CTV. We first have to assume a 20% take rate which we really don’t know. But if we have 200 x \$100k per quarter, then we have \$20M per quarter spent and \$4M per quarter in revenues. So we can use that assumption, but it may not be correct and growth would amplify the initial inaccuracy.

Either way, I’m still in TTD, but just pointing out that we really don’t know much about the actual numbers.

A.J.

Hello Ben,

We were not given precise numbers so it is fun to attempt to project the actual CTV revenue for
TTD in the recently reported quarter. I used the Pareto Principal to make the following estimate:

1. hundreds was assumed to be 250
2. Surely some of the 250 spent more over \$100,000 than others. I used an average of \$120,000 for the top 250. This equals \$30 million of spend.
3. Surely some other customers spent close to \$100,000 so I assumed an average of \$80,000 for the next 100 = \$8 million of spend.
4. Surely some other customers spent some on CTV. I assumed that the above 350 represented 20% of customers purchasing CTV. Under Pareto theory, the top 20% spent 80% of the total, therefore the total spend was 38/.8 = \$47.5 Mil. and TTD’s take at 20% = \$9.5 mil. or 7.85% of revenues.

No science here, but I think we can safely assume that Q1 2019 produced more than \$6 mil. of CTV revenue.

Best regards,

Mike

6 Likes

They have said whay % of biz is mobile and also Intl % in the past.

But those may be considered broader channels or categories than audio vs ctv etc…

Dreamer

Here is simple reason - it reported revenue growth rate of 41% where i was expecting something in 50s%… more importantly, the call did not address this drop, and even more importantly, the investor presentation posted projected 35% growth next year…

Is 41% bad? not in isolation… but it is >10% drop… and it matters when valuation is high…

will TTD continue to grow as a company? I believe so… I believe it may continue to grow in 30%s and 20%s for a long time to come… and that will help it “grow into” its \$8.6B market cap it fetches today…

I think this is a really interesting discussion both Nilvest’s original decision and the highly inconsistent range of reactions for a host of reasons. I don’t have the answers but I do have a view.

First I actually think growth expectations across the board are unrealistic. Whilst high growth opportunities in the past may have been 15-20/25% growth rates historically, we have seen small-mid size tech opportunities nudge 30-50% which we all agree has never been seen before. A few have reached 60-75% growth rates with innovative product launches or acquisitions - however no large caps have ever managed to achieve this consistently.

Whilst I’m all for the ruthless search for the highest growth opportunities possible and grabbing them when they represent high quality, long runway and large addressable market opportunities we seem to have thrown in an expectation of achieving these growth rates consistently. Billion \$ run rate companies do not grow at 50%+ period. That hasn’t stopped Amazon or Microsoft etc producing amazing returns but they just have not delivered those kinds of growth. SaaS might be an entirely innovative business model that allows for asset light incredible margin businesses and very steep uptake on launch but the SaaS in itself doesn’t produce high growth rates - it is more likely to produce higher margin and higher forward sales visibility (deferred revenues etc).

TTD is maybe a year away from being a billion \$ run rate company. Expecting this to grow 60%+ or even 50%+ is just unrealistic. I have stuck with SHOP as I do not think it is realistic for it to be a 1.5bn \$ run rate firm growing above 50% - same for Twilio who’s organic growth rate (minus Sendgrid) has dropped significantly. The fact that it still grows at 50% should be considered remarkable but a lot of us are focused on the failure to sustain 60/70% growth. TTD’s 41% may have disappointed many but I feel that is more to do with unrealistic expectations than a failure of TTD to deliver. It’s starting to hit the big leagues and is killing it still.

Secondly - the point about declining growth rates held against a valuation I understand however again, TTD now after its pull back is not at an EV/S of 30 that makes a growth rate of 41% look like a stretch or precariously priced - it has an EV/Sales of 15.6 from what I can see from 3 sources. I don’t see many companies growing at 40%+ on an EV/Sales so again I wouldn’t be selling out on valuation basis.

Thirdly - The TAM and SAM is huge. Advertising is one of the largest markets in the world - look at Google. Digital advertising is massive, digital advertising without the wall gardens is massive enough. I do not see a company better positioned to attack as large a target market as advertising. eCommerce is one of the few sectors that is larger but otherwise TTD without offline and without walled gardens still has a massive opportunity to penetrate and the tail winds of the programatic advertising growth rate of 20% should support it (just as 20% growth rates are supporting Ali Baba and Shopify).

The one concern I do share is the saturation of major clients and the disproportionate role a ~4 large agencies have on the TTD business. Having said that though, they have proven themselves able to land and expand, they are not dependent on new campaigns just selling matching space and viewers on a programatic basis so again I don’t see TTD being affected by recession as much as the advertising agencies themselves who might suffer if customers don’t commission new campaigns and re-run existing ones etc. I don’t remember Google or Yahoo or TVs left with blank slots during recessions. People still search and watch TV in recession.

I’m considering topping up my ~5% stake in TTD however I would be looking to see how the decline in growth plateau’s out. There are plenty of companies that are delivering 30% year in year out (New Relic, Service Now, Ring Central) that don’t face concerns of deteriorating growth and at some point we are going to need to reconcile these stalwarts vs shooting stars as they head towards terminal growth levels. on this point I don’t have the answer at all. Saul’s philosophy is to keep looking for the next shooting star and not look at the steady growers but then again we have never lived in an era where there are steady growers growing 30%+ let alone being out grown by 50-70% growers.

Ant

50 Likes
``````
```

Qtr	Yr 	CTV	CTV TTM	CTV Q/Q	CTV Y/Y	TTM Y/Y	CTV Mix	 Rest	Rest TTM	Rest Q/Q	Rest Y/Y	TTM Y/Y
Q1	2016	 0.1 	0.1				0%	 30.3 	126.2	  -29%	69%	125%
Q2	2016	 0.1 	0.2	33%			0%	 47.1 	148.8	  55%	93%	106%
Q3	2016	 0.2 	0.4	100%			0%	 52.8 	172.8	  12%	84%	93%
Q4	2016	 0.4 	0.8	100%			1%	 72.0 	202.2	  36%	69%	78%
Q1	2017	 0.2 	0.9	-44%	200%	1133%	0%	 53.2 	225.1	  -26%	75%	78%
Q2	2017	 0.3 	1.1	19%	167%	524%	0%	 72.5 	250.5	36%	54%	68%
Q3	2017	 0.5 	1.4	94%	159%	276%	1%	 78.9 	276.6	9%	49%	60%
Q4	2017	 2.5 	3.6	390%	535%	358%	2%	 100.1 	304.7	27%	39%	51%
Q1	2018	 4.7 	8.1	86%	2000%	770%	6%	 80.9 	332.5	-19%	52%	48%
Q2	2018	 9.5 	17.2	100%	3439%	1478%	8%	 102.9 	362.8	27%	42%	45%
Q3	2018	 6.0 	22.7	-37%	1050%	1508%	5%	 112.9 	396.8	10%	43%	43%
Q4	2018	 15.9 	36.0	166%	525%	914%	10%	 144.6 	441.3	28%	44%	45%
Q1	2019	 14.2 	45.5	-11%	200%	465%	12%	 106.8 	467.2	-26%	32%	41%

```

``````
``````Apologies for prior post, not sure why it posted before I finished.

Wanted to provide some additional context on the CTV numbers from a triangulation I did after Q4. These still can't be entirely pinned down, but I think when you consider all the
information provided since the start of CTV you have a pretty tight range (which is a bit above what has been quoted so far on the thread).

First, last conference call Jeff said <b>"In Q4, we had record spend in CTV. Over 160 advertisers spent at least \$100,000 each in CTV, with a double-digit number of them spending in
the millions."</b> Based on this I assumed:

<i>"The over \$1M club is "double-digit" so theoretically could be 10-99; I agree it is likely much closer to 10 given the phrasing and that only 160 customers are over \$100K. I also
agree that the spend over \$1M likely stays pretty close to \$1M, but say a reasonable guess is 15 customers with average of \$1.5M spend and you are at \$22.5M for this group.

The remaining customers (in my example ~145 customer) are somewhere between \$100K-\$999K. In this case, I think the average is likely well above \$100K. Maybe still tilted toward
the lower end, but I don't see why ~\$400K would be a bad guess on average for this subset. 145 customer with average of \$400K spend is \$58M.

Combine those two and we are at \$58M + \$22M = \$80M spend x 20% conversion to revenue = \$16M CTV revenue in Q4'18. So maybe the range is \$5M-\$20M but I think it is a very
reasonable estimate that is is double digit millions in Q4'18 and approaching 10% of revenue."</i>

Second, below are the data points we have been given on CTV the last 10 quarters:

Q4'16 2X+ Q/Q
Q1'17 3X+ Y/Y
Q2'17 167% Y/Y
Q3'17 159% Y/Y
Q4'17 535% Y/Y
Q1'18 2000%+ Y/Y (WOW)
Q2'18 2X+ Q/Q (DOUBLE WOW given Q1'18 growth)
Q3'18 10X+ Y/Y
Q4'18 525% Y/Y (9X+ full year 2018)
Q1'19 200% Y/Y

If we triangulate the ~\$16M estimate with all these data points aboveit would indicate a base of roughly \$750K in full year 2016 which is less than 0.5% of total revenue that
year. At some point you cant get much smaller than that in the base period which I believe helps validate the number being in this range.

Continuing this exercise into Q1'19 would indicate CTV revenue of ~\$14M in Q1'19 which is ~12% of TTD's revenue. Below is a chart with my estimates:

```

Qtr	Yr 	CTV	CTV TTM	CTV Q/Q	CTV Y/Y	TTM Y/Y	CTV Mix	 Rest	Rest TTM	Rest Q/Q	Rest Y/Y	TTM Y/Y

Q1	2016	 0.1 	0.1				0%	 30.3 	126.2	             -29%	     69%	  125%

Q2	2016	 0.1 	0.2	33%			0%	 47.1 	148.8	             55%	     93%	  106%

Q3	2016	 0.2 	0.4	100%			0%	 52.8 	172.8	             12%	     84%	  93%

Q4	2016	 0.4 	0.8	100%			1%	 72.0 	202.2	             36%	     69%	  78%

Q1	2017	 0.2 	0.9	-44%	200%	1133%	0%	 53.2 	225.1	             -26%	     75%	  78%

Q2	2017	 0.3 	1.1	19%	167%	524%	0%	 72.5 	250.5	             36%	     54%	  68%

Q3	2017	 0.5 	1.4	94%	159%	276%	1%	 78.9 	276.6	              9%	     49%	  60%

Q4	2017	 2.5 	3.6	390%	535%	358%	2%	 100.1 	304.7	             27%	     39%	  51%

Q1	2018	 4.7 	8.1	86%	2000%	770%	6%	 80.9 	332.5	             -19%	     52%	  48%

Q2	2018	 9.5 	17.2	100%	3439%	1478%	8%	 102.9 	362.8	             27%	     42%	  45%

Q3	2018	 6.0 	22.7	-37%	1050%	1508%	5%	 112.9 	396.8	             10%	     43%	  43%

Q4	2018	 15.9 	36.0	166%	525%	914%	10%	 144.6 	441.3	             28%	     44%	  45%

Q1	2019	 14.2 	45.5	-11%	200%	465%	12%	 106.8 	467.2	             -26%	     32%	  41%

```

Again this is triangulated data based on data points provided + assumptions... but looking at the data in this fashion leads to a few conclusions.

Growth in non-CTV business was lowest on record in Q1'19 at ~32% Y/Y... however it also had the toughest comparable (growth in Q1'18 in non-CTV was ~52% Y/Y)

Compares will be easier in non-CTV the remainder of the year... but can they grow it 40%+ given bigger base?

Tough CTV compare in Q2'19 as CTV in Q2'18 was almost \$10M... how will street react if CTV "only" doubles Y/Y Q2'19?

To beat their guidance by ~7% Y/Y in Q2'19 I estimate they need to do ~100% Y/Y growth in CTV (lower because of tough compare, this is still +\$4M Q/Q) and +41% Y/Y in the
``````
7 Likes

FlyFisher22,

That was an incredible post. Unfortunately it’s a bit hard to read. To everyone: when you use the “pre” tag for a table, make sure to only use it around the table data itself, not the entire post.

Compares will be easier in non-CTV the remainder of the year… but can they grow it 40%+ given bigger base?

I think you’re right – it will be interesting to see.

To beat their guidance by ~7% Y/Y in Q2’19 I estimate they need to do ~100% Y/Y growth in CTV (lower because of tough compare, this is still +\$4M Q/Q) and +41% Y/Y in the rest of the business.

This seems to mean you think the answer to the above question is “no.” Any reason?

Tough CTV compare in Q2’19 as CTV in Q2’18 was almost \$10M… how will street react if CTV “only” doubles Y/Y Q2’19?

I don’t think anyone is believing the multi-hundred-percent gains will last forever. I kind of think, based on your numbers, that CTV growth will look relatively pedestrian starting next quarter at sub-100% levels (from now on). Can’t imagine that will be a problem if overall growth is 45% or something. I think people (including many on this board) saw the 41% this past quarter and freaked out. I predict a tick back up. Maybe not over 50%, but well over 41%.

Bear

11 Likes

Hi Ant,

Thank you for detail post. One thing your post reminded that I forgot to mention before - TTD in my head is not really a SW company in the same way as MDB is or SMAR is. Those SW companies either get embedded very strongly in enterprise SW deck (MDB) or too many users on organization get used and put in too much information on it (SMAR) which makes it difficult replace them.

TTD provides best outcome to their customer today but tomorrow someone else offers it, customer has “relatively” much lower pain to replace TTD.

This to me is a big difference and tells me that a PS of 15 is expensive for me for TTD and I would consider MDB or SMAR as very cheap at PS of 15 (even if growth rate and gross margins are same). I am just not willing to pay same multiple to TTD as I am for MDB or SMAR etc.

So yes, thats why last week’s PS of ~17 resulted in low tolerance for TTD for me.

8 Likes

Thank you for detail post. One thing your post reminded that I forgot to mention before - TTD in my head is not really a SW company in the same way as MDB is or SMAR is. Those SW companies either get embedded very strongly in enterprise SW deck (MDB) or too many users on organization get used and put in too much information on it (SMAR) which makes it difficult replace them.

A very important distinction. A simpler way to see it:

• MDB and SMAR are technology providers. Clients use the software.
• TTD is a technology user that provides a service. Clients use the service.

but the above does not necessarily make technology providers better investments than technology users. That depends on the value they create for their customers, switching costs, etc.

Denny Schlesinger

14 Likes

One thing your post reminded that I forgot to mention before - TTD in my head is not really a SW company in the same way as MDB is or SMAR is.

Blank stare.

DSP software like The Trade Desk Platform is the lifeblood of their customer base. TTD gets the overwhelming majority of their revenue from big advertising firms who are using the TTD platform on behalf of those companies’ clients (brands).

So while your everyday office employee working for your average enterprise will probably never come into contact with The Trade Desk Platform(why would they?), their software is absolutely essential to their customers in advertising in the digital age.

Darth

11 Likes

Hi Darth - it not the essential part… its the switching cost part.
See Denny’s port - right on spot.
TTD is subject to “better mousetrap” problem in a big way.

They may do well for now but the falling off the cliff is a concern I would have with TTD.
I dont have that with MDB and SMAR and OKTA and SQ and SHOP… which get much more integrated in multiple facets of customer’s business and very very difficult to replace.

2 Likes

If you’re looking at it this way, you should have the same concern with ZScaler. ZScaler is the better mousetrap that is causing Symantec et. al. to fall off a cliff in the same way that you fear a competitor may do to Trade Desk. Yet ZScaler trades at a huge multiple.

You’re right that companies won’t need to worry about a lot of conversion costs for trying to switch out of The Trade Desk. So instead, you need to look at how easy it is to disrupt what The Trade Desk is doing. I think it is premature to worry about someone disrupting the disruptor.

Also, consider the flip side. It is easier for companies like The Trade Desk and ZScaler to gain new users, because companies can just flip the switch (albeit that TTD already has all the major ad firms under its belt). But for companies like MDB, AYX, and SMAR, companies need to consider all the switching costs when they adopt the product. This is my primary worry with SMAR. They are competing with legacy office and it is a hard sell for an enterprise to switch, especially when there are other options and different options can be used in conjunction with one another - options such as Project, Slack, Trello, Wrike, Monday.com, etc. I think Smar has a very clever onboarding strategy and they just might come out on top. But I worry much more about Smartsheet in terms of competitive pressure than I do about The Trade Desk.

15 Likes

Thanks Bear - first time inserting a data table so hope it will continue to get better… thought I used the “pre” correctly but obviously did not!

This seems to mean you think the answer to the above question is “no.” Any reason?

I don’t have doubts about CTV continuing to grow at a high clip, but if I am being honest with myself I have been a bit underwhelmed by its size and performance to date given all the hype and focus it gets on the earnings calls. It will be a growth driver for a long time, but unless it turns more exponential from here I don’t see it driving an acceleration in TTDs growth rate the way Atlas is for MDB - it seems more of a necessary uplift to keep them in the 40%+ range.

Also perception wise, I don’t know if growth of ~100% Y/Y in CTV this upcoming quarter will be well received. This is a downside of TTD sharing more cryptic bits of information (i.e. X% growth in CTV spend) rather than telling the actual \$s… most will not realize the tough compare. I do agree that if overall growth is 45%+ no one will be overly concerned.

Ultimately the trajectory of TTD is still primarily dependent on taking share in its core market in the near term (CTV, China, etc. are all too small) - I love the company’s approach and leadership and am holding shares because of this + their fantastic financials. However, I do get nervous that so much of the call focuses on these currently ancillary markets that aren’t generating significant \$s. Does this mean that market share growth in the rest of the business (hopefully 40%+ growth) is more of a foregone conclusion not worth delving into or is the CEO attempting to distract us from issues happening there or quickly pivoting to new drivers to make up for a slowdown?

I think the majority of concerns could be be alleviated if we had a breakout of revenue by region every quarter - I’m curious how Americas is doing. With all the other high growth stats being quoted, something has to be lower than the average… but how much lower and how large a piece of the overall pie? From the questions the analysts don’t seem concerned so may be much ado about nothing.

3 Likes

Hi Bobby,

Great points and I agree ZS subject this more than anyone else… however, like you said, looking at how easy it is to disrupt ZS, we have no sign of it… even legacy model model supplier in security - box supplier like PANW - are growing today. And there is no evidence of any one else anywhere near ZS capabilities in the market today. But you are right, it is one to keep a constant watch…

On your note on companies considering switching cost as an upfront issue and therefore resisting / slow adoption of MDB, SMAR would be an issue if thats really affecting their growth. More important point is they are growing at very high rate and they have a built-in proliferation in the customers they already have a foot in the door.

TTD is opposite - they will have low resistance to get customers right away and low resistance to lose them.

So you can expect all those companies growth - even when they decelerate at some point (they will) - you can expect a more linear trend… it just won’t fall off the cliff.

TTD - can fall off the cliff and you wouldn’t know until they did.
This is what happened with previous great thing in AdTech - that was Criteo.

Here is an article worth reading for investors in TTD.

At the end, TTD is a very different beast compared to other enterprise SW stack companies favored on this board and one should be cognizant of that with respect to growth expectations and competitive dynamics. That’s all I meant to convey.

4 Likes

Thanks Bear - first time inserting a data table so hope it will continue to get better… thought I used the “pre” correctly but obviously did not!

You have to close the “pre” with

Denny Schlesinger

Thanks Nilvest,

Your thoughts and the link you shared are much appreciated. I also found the same author’s thoughts on Roku. https://beth.technology/roku-earnings/?fbclid=IwAR2YQO4lol2W…

I found two more articles on the competitive landscape for TTD as well. I will get to this reading later today.

I have read the conference call, Saul’s commentary, the Rule Breakers commentary, and the discussions on this board. I hope Bert weighs in. As it stands, I’m undecided. I look at their sales growth rate, and if they can keep up anything close to the pace they are at now, and even if the multiple contracts considerably, they should trade considerably higher in a few years. But this is busted if their revenue falls off a cliff.

I figure the stock probably won’t drop much more in the next month, so I’ll take my time making a decision and if Mongo or ZScaler’s earnings create a buying opportunity, I may just trade my TTD shares for the other names.

1 Like

Nilvest,

Thanks for the link to FatTrader. What a great write-up that clearly spells out the good the bad and the ugly.

Gordon

The fatrader link was interesting and I thought fairly well written. I think the author and some here aren’t giving enough credit to the lead TTD has in software/platform development. Also, Denny hit the nail on the head regarding the discussion on whether there is a difference between other software companies and TTD. The thing that matters is value to customers. Right now it appears customers are quite happy with TTD.

It seems many people including the author are discounting TTD’s competitive advantage period. “Anyone can build their platform” is something it seems many people believe. I would suggest you sell TTD if that is how you feel. I happen to believe differently. They have spent enormous sums on R&D to make their platform provide higher and higher ROI for advertisers who can actually now measure that sort of thing by the way.

A.J.

4 Likes

Hi FlyFisher,

Is this how you meant the post to look?
I needed to reformat it to be able to read it and thought others might benefit.

Enjoy,
Brian

Apologies for prior post, not sure why it posted before I finished.

Wanted to provide some additional context on the CTV numbers from a triangulation I did after Q4. These still can’t be entirely pinned down, but I think when you consider all the
information provided since the start of CTV you have a pretty tight range (which is a bit above what has been quoted so far on the thread).

First, last conference call Jeff said "In Q4, we had record spend in CTV. Over 160 advertisers spent at least \$100,000 each in CTV, with a double-digit number of them spending in
the millions." Based on this I assumed:

"The over \$1M club is “double-digit” so theoretically could be 10-99; I agree it is likely much closer to 10 given the phrasing and that only 160 customers are over \$100K. I also
agree that the spend over \$1M likely stays pretty close to \$1M, but say a reasonable guess is 15 customers with average of \$1.5M spend and you are at \$22.5M for this group.

The remaining customers (in my example ~145 customer) are somewhere between \$100K-\$999K. In this case, I think the average is likely well above \$100K. Maybe still tilted toward
the lower end, but I don’t see why ~\$400K would be a bad guess on average for this subset. 145 customer with average of \$400K spend is \$58M.

Combine those two and we are at \$58M + \$22M = \$80M spend x 20% conversion to revenue = \$16M CTV revenue in Q4’18. So maybe the range is \$5M-\$20M but I think it is a very
reasonable estimate that is is double digit millions in Q4’18 and approaching 10% of revenue."

Second, below are the data points we have been given on CTV the last 10 quarters:

``````Q4'16 2X+ Q/Q
Q1'17 3X+ Y/Y
Q2'17 167% Y/Y
Q3'17 159% Y/Y
Q4'17 535% Y/Y
Q1'18 2000%+ Y/Y (WOW)
Q2'18 2X+ Q/Q (DOUBLE WOW given Q1'18 growth)
Q3'18 10X+ Y/Y
Q4'18 525% Y/Y (9X+ full year 2018)
Q1'19 200% Y/Y
``````

If we triangulate the ~\$16M estimate with all these data points aboveit would indicate a base of roughly \$750K in full year 2016 which is less than 0.5% of total revenue that
year. At some point you cant get much smaller than that in the base period which I believe helps validate the number being in this range.

Continuing this exercise into Q1’19 would indicate CTV revenue of ~\$14M in Q1’19 which is ~12% of TTD’s revenue. Below is a chart with my estimates:

``````Qtr	Yr 	CTV	CTV TTM	CTV Q/Q	CTV Y/Y	TTM Y/Y	CTV Mix	 Rest	Rest TTM	Rest Q/Q	Rest Y/Y	TTM Y/Y

Q1	2016	 0.1 	0.1				0%	 30.3 	126.2	             -29%	     69%	  125%

Q2	2016	 0.1 	0.2	33%			0%	 47.1 	148.8	             55%	     93%	  106%

Q3	2016	 0.2 	0.4	100%			0%	 52.8 	172.8	             12%	     84%	  93%

Q4	2016	 0.4 	0.8	100%			1%	 72.0 	202.2	             36%	     69%	  78%

Q1	2017	 0.2 	0.9	-44%	200%	1133%	0%	 53.2 	225.1	             -26%	     75%	  78%

Q2	2017	 0.3 	1.1	19%	167%	524%	0%	 72.5 	250.5	             36%	     54%	  68%

Q3	2017	 0.5 	1.4	94%	159%	276%	1%	 78.9 	276.6	              9%	     49%	  60%

Q4	2017	 2.5 	3.6	390%	535%	358%	2%	 100.1 	304.7	             27%	     39%	  51%

Q1	2018	 4.7 	8.1	86%	2000%	770%	6%	 80.9 	332.5	             -19%	     52%	  48%

Q2	2018	 9.5 	17.2	100%	3439%	1478%	8%	 102.9 	362.8	             27%	     42%	  45%

Q3	2018	 6.0 	22.7	-37%	1050%	1508%	5%	 112.9 	396.8	             10%	     43%	  43%

Q4	2018	 15.9 	36.0	166%	525%	914%	10%	 144.6 	441.3	             28%	     44%	  45%

Q1	2019	 14.2 	45.5	-11%	200%	465%	12%	 106.8 	467.2	             -26%	     32%	  41%

``````

Again this is triangulated data based on data points provided + assumptions… but looking at the data in this fashion leads to a few conclusions.

Growth in non-CTV business was lowest on record in Q1’19 at ~32% Y/Y… however it also had the toughest comparable (growth in Q1’18 in non-CTV was ~52% Y/Y)

Compares will be easier in non-CTV the remainder of the year… but can they grow it 40%+ given bigger base?

Tough CTV compare in Q2’19 as CTV in Q2’18 was almost \$10M… how will street react if CTV “only” doubles Y/Y Q2’19?

To beat their guidance by ~7% Y/Y in Q2’19 I estimate they need to do ~100% Y/Y growth in CTV (lower because of tough compare, this is still +\$4M Q/Q) and +41% Y/Y in the