S3E3: Unscripted: The Battle Over a Family-Owned Media Empire with James Stewart

Transcript:

Jason Dressel: Today on “The History Factory Podcast” we are joined by author and New York Times columnist James Stewart, author of “Unscripted: The Epic Battle for a New Media Empire and the Redstone Family Legacy.” I’m your host, Jason Dressel, and welcome to “The History Factory Podcast,” the podcast at the intersection of business and history. Last month, “Succession,” the highly popular show on HBO, concluded after a four-season run. For those of you who may be jonesing for more over-the-top stories of business and family dynamics coming together to create toxic dysfunction, you have come to the right place, my friends. James Stewart is here to talk about his new book he co-wrote with his colleague Rachel Abrams at the New York Times.

This may be a book for you to pick up for your summer vacation. In general, I’m not really into the corporate scandal genre as a category to just kind of fester in, but I think what’s compelling about “Unscripted” is how it really is going to be a document—an artifact, in my opinion—that authentically reflects a lot of themes of business and, to some degree, the values of early 21st-century America. James and I had a really wonderful conversation about that. We give you hopefully enough insight and context so that you have the rough contours of the story that unfolds in the book, but we also discuss, more broadly, many of the themes that the story covers. That includes changes to the media and entertainment landscape, the impact of the #MeToo movement in the C-suite, corporate governance, succession planning and even the vulnerability of the elderly and of the ultrarich, so lots to cover.

Let’s jump right into my conversation with James Stewart. James is a Pulitzer Prize–winning journalist who is currently a columnist for the New York Times and a professor at the Columbia Journalism School. He is not only the author of “Unscripted: The Epic Battle for a New Media Empire and the Redstone Family Legacy” but also the blockbuster “Den of Thieves,” as well as several other books, including “Deep State,” “Tangled Webs,” “Heart of a Soldier,” “Blind Eye” and “Blood Sport.” Without further ado, James Stewart. James, welcome to “The History Factory Podcast.” Thank you so much for joining us.

James Stewart: Well, thank you. Pleasure to be here.

JD: James, we have clients who come to us who want to sometimes publish their own histories, and sometimes they express the desire that their history will sell well as a book. We often grimace at that, because, in general, we find that business books that perform well in the marketplace more often than not—or typically—are because there’s a pretty significant conflict. And I think that would be a reasonable way to characterize some of the events that take place in “Unscripted.” The book and the story have been compared to “Succession,” so I’ll just start with “Unscripted” versus “Succession.” Which one is more far-fetched?

JS: Well, it has been compared a lot, and I’ve read a few interviews that have suggested that when gathering raw material for “Succession,” the writers did look to the Redstone Paramount story for inspiration as well as the Murdochs. I think it’s been more commonly compared to the Murdochs, but there is a lot of the Redstone story in “Succession.” As an aside, I deliberately did not watch “Succession” until after I completely finished writing “Unscripted” and we had turned it in. Only then did I start watching “Succession,” because I didn’t want it even subliminally affecting the real-life story that I was going to get down on paper.

But in terms of what’s more far-fetched, I think, first of all, “Unscripted” does have its edge of being true and meticulously fact-checked—so everything in there did happen. However, it has elements that are distinctly different from “Succession” and in a way, I think, make it more—if it were fiction, people would say, “Oh, no, no, that cannot possibly have happened.” I suspect “Succession” couldn’t go down some of these paths because it did seem maybe too far-fetched.

Primarily, I would say you have two elements in “Unscripted” that are really quite dramatic, and they’re related. One is the attempt by the mistresses/fiancée of the billionaire Sumner Redstone to wrest control of the power of his empire and his money, which is a big part of that story and “Unscripted.” You don’t really get any of that in “Succession.” And secondly, there’s the mental and physical decline of Sumner Redstone as the story unfolds. In the book, we get fairly deep into how serious that was and what the effects were. There’s a whiff of that in “Succession,” but, again, that is not explored very much. And then I would finally say, not in the unbelievable category but just from a dramatic point of view, I think “Unscripted” has an advantage in that while there is some really reprehensible behavior in there and characters, just as in “Succession,” there is kind of a heroine. There is Sumner Redstone’s daughter, who is thrown into this shark tank of Hollywood having no idea what she was getting into and having to fight one battle after another to emerge on top, so the narrative arc of the two stories are quite different.

JD: One thing that struck me as I was asking you that question was that I think the two mistresses in “Unscripted,” which, again, is a real story—I think that they were less qualified than any of the characters in “Succession.” But it’s also interesting—to your point, I did think about that as well: If this was a fictional account, who is the hero of the story? And it was interesting to hear you say that it’s Shari.

JS: Well, also, you mentioned the two women, the mistresses, who moved in—I mean, they’re fantastic characters. And I have to say “Succession” missed a real opportunity there. We sold the movie rights to the to the book, and I was chatting with the producers, and I was looking at the photographs in the middle of the book, and I said, “Look, here are the two women, Sydney and Manuela,” and I said, “Look at them here.” It’s a great picture of them, and they were very flamboyant and wore incredible couture outfits and stuff. I said, “The costume designer is going to have a field day with these two,” because, again, I just had one picture in there, but there are many pictures on the internet, and I have to tip my hat to them. They had, shall we say, a lot of fashion flair.

JD: Well, that only helps the story. So how did the story come about? You wrote this book, obviously, with your coauthor, Rachel Abrams. Both of you are at the New York Times. How did this come about? My understanding is that you both were working on different sides of the story, and then it converged.

JS: I was a columnist. I wrote a weekly business-oriented column, and sometimes I did longer features as well at the Times. Rachel was working in the media group, but I didn’t really know her. I got interested in the story really after the chief executive at CBS, Les Moonves, was forced out over #MeToo issues. I’d known him for a long time. He was a legendary figure in the media world—had an extremely successful career at CBS, did really well. He took it from the fourth-ranked network to the first, and then they stayed on top for 10 or 11 years, which is unheard of in the broadcast world, and he’s a very charming guy. This war had broken out between him and Shari—I might have written a little bit about that—but then the really surprising turn of events was that he was forced out over what seemed to be some articles in the New Yorker exposing his really terrible behavior with women.

I got some calls after that. That’s the kind of thing I wrote about: boardroom maneuvering and CEOs losing their jobs. So I got a call from some sources, and they were beginning to give me information that the story of his ouster was much more complicated. They had begun to give me some text messages between Moonves, the talent manager, and a woman whose name had never surfaced, but who he had allegedly assaulted many years ago. So I was pursuing that and had a confidential source who was giving me some of this information, and one day, Rachel just stopped by my desk. I did not know Rachel—I mean, I’d seen her in the office. I think I would have been hard-pressed to say what her name was. She said, “I hear we might be working on similar things.” And I said, “What?” She had done a story about how CBS was investigating what went on there and said, “I have a source who has come forward who has access to a trove of documents.” I quickly realized that some of those documents were the very same texts that I was getting, and I said, “Oh, yeah, I think we are working on the same story.”

That then launched our working together, and her source has now come forward publicly. The source appeared in an episode of the New York Times’ “The Daily” podcast maybe a month ago and publicly identified herself, so we don’t have to maintain her confidentiality anymore. But she, at considerable risk to herself, came forward and provided what was an unbelievable trove of documents of all kinds: internal emails, texts, minutes of boardroom meetings, communications among various executives, testimony given to the CBS lawyers from most of the main participants—I mean, it was a writer’s dream. Out of that, we ended up doing this relatively long story called “If Bobbie Talks,” Bobbie being Bobbie Phillips—this beautiful actress who, when she was quite young, Moonves had assaulted in his office. And it was trying to show: Here’s really why Moonves was forced out.

That story got a lot of attention, and immediately a lot of people were saying, “Oh my God, you should turn that into a book.” And we thought, “Well, yeah,” because we had more information from these documents, and also we had unanswered questions—which is something I always look for when considering a book project—which really mostly went to more about the board’s behavior and the strange mystery: Why had Moonves led this corporate attack that stripped Shari Redstone of her family control when, at the same time, he knew he had these skeletons in his closet? That, to me, was a conundrum that needed an answer.

So that’s how we launched the book, looking into that. I was thinking that the arc of the story would really be from the lawsuit to when he wound up getting ousted, but it didn’t take very long before we realized the story is—it’s deeper. It’s bigger. And to get the origins of that story, you had to go back much further—and particularly the beginnings of the mental deterioration of Sumner Redstone and then the emergence of those women, because they were not just paramours living in the mansion with him and taking his money, but they were actively maneuvering to gain control of the CBS Viacom Paramount empire.

JD: I’m glad you brought us here, James. Let’s go back to that origin story. Where does all this began? Who is Sumner Redstone? I mean, that was the other thing that struck me: This was obviously a very talented business person—ethically compromised, I’ll say. But in terms of his biography and where he begins, you would not have predicted that his career ends in Hollywood, so how does he get from A to Z?

JS: He had very humble origins. It’s kind of a classic American success story, at least in its early phases. He was born in very modest circumstances in Boston, but he was smart. His mother, I think, played a very influential role—really drove him, was extremely ambitious on his behalf, even though they had very little money. He got a scholarship to go to the Boston Latin School, where he excelled. Because he was the top student there, he got automatic admission into Harvard, and he sailed through Harvard. I think he completed the degree requirements in three years. He learned Japanese. He really was intellectually a force to reckon with. He was very brilliant. He worked obsessively. And this is worth remembering: As far as anyone could remember, he never had a date, and he later said in his memoir that he couldn’t because no girl that he would bring home or no one he would ever go out with ever passed muster with his mother. And I think that probably casts a long shadow over the rest of his life.

But anyway, in terms of his business career, the family eventually owned two drive-in movie theaters on the outskirts of Boston—again, the lowest circle of the entertainment industry. He parlayed that first into the concept of the multiplex, the suburban multiplex: many shows at once, big parking lots, using that cheap land in the suburbs. He used that to then go on some aggressive raids using junk bonds, and he just went from one deal to another, ultimately getting what was the Viacom empire. A lot of cable channels, many of them well-known—MTV, Nickelodeon—and then he got the CBS broadcast company, which was a big feather in his cap, and then maybe his crown jewel—he thought of it that way—the Paramount studio, which at the time owned both the movie studio and the Simon & Schuster publishing company.

He was 76 years old by the time he had rolled all this up into a big giant company, which he called Viacom, and then descended in Hollywood. He ended up divorcing his wife after a tumultuous relationship of many years, had a terrible relationship with the children, very “Succession”: pitting the children against each other, always competing with them. But then he moved to Hollywood at age 76 as a mogul, and that’s where the story really takes off.

JD: So he arrives on the scene. Didn’t he also do the Blockbuster deal in the ’90s?

JS: Nobody really wants to talk about that. He was smart, but he wasn’t foolproof. Blockbuster was a terrible deal, and they ended up unloading that at a great loss. There’s a games company called Midway that figures in the story, because his daughter Shari was opposed to that, and he was intent on doing it. Games, and computer games especially, have become a massive business—bigger than the movie business—and he was kind of right about seeing that. But Midway just floundered and never did really well and went into a downward spiral, and, again, they had to get rid of that at a massive loss. So he was not infallible.

JD: So at the tender age of 76, he’s rolled up all these companies into this incredible enterprise where he’s managed to go from starting as a drive-in movie theater owner to basically owning the companies that produce that entertainment, as well as a whole other portfolio of mostly entertainment companies and obviously CBS. Who then become the characters? There’s Shari; there’s the two mistresses. How do all these characters fit into the puzzle?

JS: Well, in the family, he had a son and a daughter, Brent and Shari. He and his son were at loggerheads almost from the beginning in a very “Succession”-like way. Sumner was cruel and humiliated his son, and the son finally just threw up his hands and said, “I’m not going to have anything to do with you or the company.” He sold his stake—I think it was a little over $200 million or $280 million—and he vanished, basically, never to be seen again, probably, and lives on a ranch in Colorado, but he had some children who came back into the story.

And then his daughter, Shari, who also, as you will see in the book—he tortures her on a regular basis throughout her career. But, amazingly, she tenaciously hung in there, although she came close to also selling out and cutting all ties with the family. So he had a terrible relationship with his two children, then once he divorced his long-suffering first wife and moved to Hollywood, he had a second wife, briefly. He dumped her. He took up with his Hollywood producer friend Robert Evans, this notorious womanizer, and he started dating, if you want to call it that, these various women.

His grandson Brandon, who was Shari’s younger son, moved out there to have a job with MTV, and he was with his grandfather a lot. Part of the story is the saga of—Sumner, the billionaire grandfather, was always trying to steal Brandon’s girlfriends and dates, and in many cases did, and showered money on them. It was Brandon who—finally, at the end of his rope and desperate—connected his grandfather with the Millionaire Matchmaker of TV fame. She was the one who introduced him to this woman, Sydney Holland, and they were quickly engaged, and she moved in. Then this other woman, Manuela Herzer, had been somebody else he dated. He met her at Robert Evans’ house and she said, “Can I can I move in while I’m renovating my house?” And she did, and then, of course, the house renovation went on forever, and she just stayed. The two women were living there with him, so there are the two women.

The other two characters you need to know about are Les Moonves, who was the chief executive of CBS, and Philippe Dauman, who was the chief executive of the Viacom Paramount part of the empire. At this point, at age 76—and then, as the years went by, he got older—Sumner was very involved. He called them every day; he was the chairman of the board of these companies, but he really let them run the companies, and especially Moonves was doing such a great job. He really didn’t have to do much except watch the stock go up.

JD: One question I wanted to ask is: Your career, as you noted, has largely been focused on covering corporate governance. And I think we would agree that corporate governance in this case was not exemplary. How did the behaviors of the family, who are the majority shareholders, and then ultimately executives like Les Moonves and the lack of control of the board—how does this start to affect the performance of the businesses?

JS: Well, as you can imagine, it did not help. The basic scene here was, you know, here you have an aging billionaire, and he’s surrounded. All of these characters, to varying degrees, were maneuvering to get their hands on his money and power. That’s a very “Succession”-like element of the story. And I think you see over and over again people who have a fiduciary responsibility to others—maybe they’re lawyers to their clients; maybe they’re executives to the shareholders of a company—behaving in ways that pretty transparently are about them and about their getting money and power and ignoring the interests of the people that supposedly they’re charged with taking care of.

There were many ways that this interfered with the progress of the business, but probably the most conspicuous was that the entertainment industry in this period of time was about to undergo and then started to undergo the biggest transformation probably since the advent of talking pictures, and that is the digital revolution: the advent of streaming, the direct-to-consumer model for distributing entertainment. That’s been a sea change, and while all of this was happening, they were all fighting, and the boards of Viacom and CBS were consumed with trying to either effect a merger or avoid a merger to the point where, as I mentioned earlier, Les Moonves and the CBS board led this lawsuit to try to strip Shari Redstone and Sumner of the family control of the company.

Now, they had an interesting governing structure, because the Redstones did not own a majority of the shares, but they did have a majority of the voting rights. This is not an unusual situation anymore. Most of the big tech companies have a similar thing. Many family media companies have this, and shareholders have long said, “Well, that’s not really fair.” But that has been a long tradition. And so they sued to try to overturn that, and that litigation—enormously expensive, bitterly contested—was a massive distraction from the company performance. Viacom did terribly. Paramount—the studio was terrible. I mean, the results—the stock just went down, down, down, down. CBS fared better, but it was becoming a dinosaur. The broadcast network and the cable distribution model was slowly dying, and you could see this was going to happen. So the results were really quite destructive for the shareholders.

JD: What were some of the biggest surprises for you over the course of this project?

JS: Certainly one of the biggest surprises was, as I mentioned, the mistresses, if you want to call them that, in the house, were—not only did they manage to get Sumner to transfer, by our calculation, well over $150 million to them, by the way, which they still have—

JD: That incident in the book, where there’s that single day where there’s that sum of money that is transferred into their accounts, was just jaw-dropping.

JS: Jaw-dropping, and they got $90 million in one afternoon. That was surprising. But, I mean, I sort of thought that’s what was happening. What really struck me was that they came very close to actually gaining control of the companies. I mean, everyone said, “Oh, that could never happen, because there is this irrevocable trust that actually controls this.” But Sumner was doing whenever they wanted, and they were consulting lawyers. All Sumner had to do was put trustees on there who would say, for example, “Let’s sell CBS to these two women for $1,” and then they would have had it. The trustees were completely under the control of Sumner, so it could have happened. And they were they were well on their way when this—again, I don’t want to call this a soap opera, but part of what’s stranger than fiction is the way the whole thing blew up. Sydney Holland, the fiancée, started having an affair. Now, it wasn’t just that she had an affair. She had an affair with a former con man who had gone to jail.

JD: And who had also, by the way, been an actor in a soap opera, since you mentioned it.

JS: Yes, exactly. I didn’t know anything about this character when I started the book. Rachel ended up making a huge contribution by spending a lot of time with him. He was a writer’s dream, because he had kept every email, every text, every photograph, every video, and he turned everything over. He was the kind of person who, yes, he’d been a liar and a thief and had done bad things in his life, but he was amazingly forthcoming and honest in some of the stuff he told us. We didn’t believe it at first, but then we would check it out with second- and third-hand sources, and everything we could check turned out to be extremely accurate. So he was the one—I mean, it’s all in the book, but Sumner found out about the affair and went crazy and kicked out Sydney. Manuela moved in to try to take advantage of that, and then she ended up getting kicked out. So if it weren’t for this bizarre affair, I think they would be they would be the chairmen of this company today.

JD: As much of a monster as Sumner was, I found myself feeling—and this was an interesting twist. I don’t know how intentional this was on your and Rachel’s part, but I found myself being empathetic to him and being like, you know, this dude’s in a bad spot. He was just completely disconnected, and when you think about the ability for—I mean, it’s probably a real theme of what’s happening in American life. This guy is a billionaire, but when you think about older people and how vulnerable they are to being manipulated, that was a really interesting component to this, and I found myself feeling sympathetic to him.

JS: Well, I’m always happy when readers have different reactions. And I think it is complicated. These are not cartoon characters. They’re multidimensional. I think, yes, it’s easy to have some compassion for him, but I think one of the kind of cosmic themes that emerges here that I found fascinating is that Sumner was always going around saying he was never going to die. Of course, we all knew he couldn’t really believe that, did he? But he had confided in one of his many girlfriends that part of the reason he said that is he knew that he’d done many bad things and that he was going to face a reckoning, and he didn’t want to do that. He didn’t want the last judgment, because he felt he would be sent to—he said, “I’m going to hell anyway, so why shouldn’t I just do whatever I want?”

And it occurred to me that sometimes you don’t have to die to get the last judgment. In his case, it was like he did end up in hell. He got the punishment that he feared while he was still alive. He didn’t have to die to have that happen. However you want to think about that, I found that a really profound insight into what happens to people sometimes in life. And you’re right, the family eventually sued these women for elder abuse, and then they settled that, so we didn’t really get a verdict on that. But anyone can read what was going on and see: This is terrible behavior. He was crying all the time. He was miserable. They cut him off from his family. That is really a very sad chapter at the end of his life.

JD: What do you think the moral of the story is?

JS: Well, another important theme is that, OK, he was a billionaire—he could hire the best lawyers, the best doctors, everything—and yet he was so vulnerable in part, I think, because he was so rich. It tilted the scales so that when people became close to him, they couldn’t help but think, “Oh, wait a minute, what’s in this for me?” So none of that ended up protecting him from this terrible fate.

This is not a new idea, but the idea that great wealth brings you happiness or anything even close to it—if you need to be reminded of that, this is a great story. And I don’t want to be simplistic about this. I’m not going to pretend that poverty is the road to happiness. I understand that people need a minimum standard of living and that a certain amount of money can definitely enhance someone’s quality of life. Where this line is, I’m not sure.

But when you’re really rich, and I mean in the billionaire category and up, it’s a different world, and I think people who want to be billionaires should really be careful about what they wish for, because the incentives change so much. I guess it’s true of people with great power as well, and with wealth comes great power. But you’re surrounded by people who never give you an honest answer. They’re always telling you what you want to hear, and in the end, it’s because they’re trying to get their hands on some of this. So I think it’s a tremendous cautionary tale about the risks of great wealth and how it can be exploited.

JD: You’ve covered business for a pretty long time. How do you think this book—when someone reads it 25 years from now, what will it portray in terms of some of the major themes and issues that large corporate enterprises were facing in the first quarter of the 21st century?

JS: This all unfolds at a pivotal time in American cultural history and in corporate history as the so-called #MeToo movement was gaining traction and more and more of these abuses were coming to light. In my years of covering corporations, they seem to me in many ways a little bit like medieval kingdoms in which the monarch, the CEO, had almost no constraints. They could do whatever they wanted. There was so-called corporate governance, which was pretty much a joke. The boards of directors charged with protecting shareholders were picked by the CEO usually, who was also usually the chairman, and were very beholden to them. Even you get a token woman, a token minority, on there, they were marginalized.

There were a handful, as you see at CBS, of aging male cohort directors who really wielded all the power. Les Moonves did whatever he wanted, and he got paid hundreds of millions of dollars for it. That was just taken for granted, that in this world of big companies, the CEOs were almost always men. They were almost always white men. And they did what they wanted. I mean, to me, one of the most shocking revelations was that—for adult listeners to this thing—Les Moonves had an employee working in his office whose job was to give him oral sex whenever he wanted it.

JD: Which is insane. As an executive who works with Fortune 500 companies, I’ve spent my fair amount of time on the executive floor of companies like this, and I can’t imagine. I mean, I’m not naive, but I would expect that’s the kind of craziness that happens in a dysfunctional family-owned private company. That was insane.

JS: I know. It just shows how far this had gone that there were no checks and balances here. So just as, centuries ago, England rose up and imposed a constitution on the king, I think women here in this case were rising up and saying, “We’re not going to accept this, and we’re not going to tolerate this. We’re not going to be exploited in order to get roles in Hollywood or get promotions,” or whatever else was going on out there. The problem isn’t over by any means, but this created, I think, a sea change in how boards looked at governance and the blindness that they were always taking toward the activity of chief executives.

There’s still a lot to be done. It was striking to me in our work how many victims of sexual abuse are still very afraid to be named or to come forward even now, because they fear some kind of damage to their career, some kind of retribution. So it’s not like this problem has been solved, but it has been brought to light, and I think more broadly—putting sexual abuse aside—the idea that the CEO can do absolutely anything with impunity, I would like to think, has come into question, and boards are now going to be exercising a little more oversight and imposing some checks on that behavior.

JD: Would this book have been written 20 years ago?

JS: No. Much of the material we got—and by the way, one of the things that I was drawn to here is that because of all this material, the documents we got, you get an unprecedented look at how boards really operate and what they were saying to each other. 20 years ago, CBS would never have investigated the CEO over an allegation of sexual abuse. These things were—it wasn’t like they just started yesterday. They were quietly swept under the rug, or some payments were made. Before Harvey Weinstein came forward, there were all those Fox News people. There’s a long history of this being quietly swept under the rug.

The reason our confidential source came forward, and she talks about this in this “The Daily” episode, is that she thought that CBS would investigate this and they, again, buried it. They said: “OK, we did the investigation, and we’ve taken appropriate steps. End of story. We’re not going to disclose what we found out, and nobody’s really going to be held accountable, and you really won’t see how this was all covered up in the company.” She didn’t want that to happen, and that would never have happened 20 years ago.

JD: Well, it’s an amazing piece of work that you and your colleague put together, so thanks for sharing the story. As a business historian, from the perspective of the—back to the core of this, that this is a true story. One of the things I’ve been particularly amused by, I guess, in the last few years is how companies and brands have become part of popular culture in entertainment. One of the things that struck me about that is, you know, there’s obviously been a lot of fictional stories, like “Succession,” like “Silicon Valley” and many others. Now there’s this emergence of real companies and real brands that are portrayed in, now, entertainment. But they’re still not, in a lot of cases, actually factually true stories, and it’s really kind of blurring the lines of what’s real and what isn’t. What’s really neat about this story is that it’s all true, but it really does read like a fictional saga, so thank you. Are we going to see “Unscripted” on a streaming service sometime in the future? Is that actually going to happen, do you think?

JS: Well, knock on wood, I hope. Everything is stalled at the moment because of the writers’ strike, but somebody has acquired the rights, and there was a lot of interest. So I’m hoping that, yeah, maybe it’ll all come to the small screen or the big screen—however big your streaming set is.

JD: Awesome. Well, we’ll have to have you come back if that happens, and we certainly wish you the best of luck with that. James Stewart, thank you so much for your time. It’s a pleasure.

JS: Bye.

JD: it for this episode of “The History Factory Podcast.” If you’re interested in learning more about this insane story that James and I were just discussing, I urge you to read or listen to his and Rachel Abrams’ book, “Unscripted: The Epic Battle for a New Media Empire and the Redstone Family Legacy.” It’s a really entertaining and informative book that reads like a prestige TV streaming series, but the story is all true. So check it out wherever you shop for books. Thanks again to James B. Stewart for joining us. I’m Jason Dressel. Be well.