From the outside, movie theaters look like an intense battleground where chains are locked in an arms race for the best locations, seats, food, and technology. But on the inside, theaters are identical to airlines. Both industries are capital intensive, deal in highly perishable inventory, operate within one-sided supply chains, and must constantly reinvest to stay competitive. Scale and equity are necessary for survival. What appears to be a free market is in practice a global igopoly where only the biggest and richest endure. Like airlines, any innovation in the movie theater industry gets quickly

commoditized. Revenue is determined by territory rather than product. Success depends on cash more than skill, and the game is about filling seats, stacking upsells, and squeezing every possible dollar out of each customer. Cinema is ruled by corporate chains who secured their turf as first movers in the '90s, building multi-story megaplexes in prime retail and shopping malls. Today, their impermeable anchor tenants and monopolies with the most valuable markets claimed decades ago, no independent can ever challenge these incumbents head-on unless they either own the land or were there first before the chains. The result is a lopsided landscape where corporations dominate and independents slowly disappear

without the capital to modernize. This attrition and consolidation over the generations has only benefited the chains as the only companies with the cash, leverage, and equity to afford renovations, downturns, and disruption. In this modern MBA episode, we dive into the economics of movie theaters and the territorial battlegrounds of the four chains that rule the world's biggest box office, AMC, Regal, Cinear, and Marcus. Modern MBA videos are watched by thousands every hour. In the past 6 months, we filmed from Texas and Tokyo to Shenzhen and New York City. As a bootstrapped business, we collaborate with local talent wherever we go to deliver quality and manage costs. If you

run a small business like Modern MBA, where your product and operations spans borders, how do you pay overseas talent? We've struggled with sending money for years with wires that get stuck in limbo and banks that refuse to talk to one another. Remittly is our favorite and preferred international money transfer partner. Setup takes minutes, payments are received fast, and pricing is transparent. We love Remmitly, and if you find yourself needing to pay someone overseas, give them a shot. With support for 100 plus currencies and banks, you can see for yourself exactly what your transfer will cost and just how competitive Remittly's rates and fees really are. As a special offer to Modern

MBA viewers, use code business to get a free $100 bonus after you send $300 with Remittly. That's an instant 33% return on spend with code business. A heartfelt thank you to Remittly for sponsoring this episode and powering modern MBA for the past 3 years. Like airlines, movie theaters face intense fixed and variable costs that make fundraising essential through the lifetime of the business. Buildout is 8 figures while staffing and renovations is generally six figures. Once the movie starts, the cost of every empty seat can never be recovered. In most industries, there are economies of scale where the cost of serving the next

customer goes down as the business expands. But in cinema, costs grow in lock step with revenue. The only way a theater can double its customer base is to double its footprint. You can't build a new theater a couple miles down from your current one. To avoid cannibalization, you have to open in an entirely different market. This means that every new location will always be just as expensive as the last. At the same time, a bigger theater means more screens, movies, showtimes, and seats. This greater revenue potential and capacity comes at the expense of efficiency and profits. Occupancy drops as blockbusters can't fill every room, while mid-budget films never draw the same crowd. Even though the cost of running one movie is the same as

another, it's the same problem with staffing. Most of the work is concentrated in 15-minute surges before and after showtimes, which leaves workers with nothing to do for long periods, even though they're all still on the clock. With these linear costs, movie theaters only get more expensive at scale with every added auditorium, screen, and location. These costs in theory can be offset by revenue, but the reality is that theaters are handicapped in how much they can make from their biggest income stream. The industry operates under a lopsided revenue sharing model that favors filmmakers. When you buy a movie ticket, more than half of that goes to the studio. Studios believe they deserve the majority cut

because they risk far more financially and create the product that enables the need for theaters in the first place. On the other end, theater owners assert that without a fair split, they can't cover the everinccreasing overhead costs, compete with streaming, and weather the downturns whenever studios release few movies or turn out duds. Ultimately, the studios hold all the cards. For the Star Wars reboots, Disney took 65% of every ticket and mandated that they be shown exclusively in every theat's biggest auditorium for four straight weeks. Even if there was no one buying tickets by week three, every theater had to keep showing The Last Jedi and The Force Awakens in these big

rooms just so Disney could crowd out other studios at the box office. And if a theater broke these rules, Disney could tack on a 5% penalty for a total cut of 70%. They've done this with other blockbusters like Endgame and Avatar. The other major studios do the same strong arming. When Christopher Nolan left Warner, he personally demanded a 20% cut of the grossbox office, and Universal simply pass the cost downstream by taking 60% of every Oenheimer ticket sold. Meanwhile, to get access to Warner's blockbusters like Superman, Minecraft, or Sinners, theaters must commit a portion of their screens to Warner's other films, regardless of their reception or performance. This guarantees distribution for the studios lower

budget titles, shifts the risk onto theaters, and allows them to recoup costs through broad availability even if the movie bombs on opening day. The smaller studios have fairer splits as they need the distribution more than margin and don't have the marquee titles to demand bigger cuts. The entire relationship is one-sided. Just like how airlines can't fly without aircraft and gates, movie theaters can't survive without movies. They have no choice but to accept whatever terms they're given. The blockbusters are the musthaves. They're guaranteed to fill seats, sell out rooms, and drive popcorn sales. They have no substitutes. You can't replace Avengers, Batman, Jurassic Park, or Fast

and Furious. If you don't have the hits, people will go out of their way to the competing theaters that do. Thus, for movie theaters, a bad deal is better than nothing at all. And as studios continue to consolidate, the scales tip even more in their favor. Getting blacklisted doesn't just mean losing this year's blockbusters, but their entire future pipeline of films. Industry titans like AMC in the US, Wanda in China, and PVR in India have better leverage compared to Independence, but they still don't get better splits. Ironically, these mass market giants have the most to lose if they don't carry the latest blockbuster.

What they get is called the house nut, a fixed dollar amount off ticket sales to cover their basic expenses like electricity, rent, and staff. Once that amount is hit, all ticket sales from that point onwards get split with the studio. Larger chains negotiate bigger house nuts, but this provision only helps them get closer to break even. It doesn't guarantee profits. In most industries, unit economics improve with scale as costs go down for every additional customer served. But under this revenue share model, the marginal cost is fixed. The studio takes 50 to 65% of every ticket sold, no matter if you sell a 100red or a million. As a result, theaters can never outgrow their biggest expense or develop the

purchasing power promised in traditional economics. Adding more seats, screens, and locations may grow the top line, but it won't change the bottom line. This is why theaters aggressively mark up popcorn, candy, soda, and chips while blocking customers from bringing their own. The concession stand is the only place where the theater retains complete control and can achieve economies of scale. Under this lens, theaters are more like snack retailers that happen to show movies. As studios demand more of the ticket sales for themselves, the industry has only leaned harder into concessions, expanding to gourmet food, serving alcohol, selling merchandise, and redesigning lobbies to feel more

like high-end food courts and bars. All of these factors, the intense capital requirements, lopsided revenue share, and poor unit economics make movie theaters a volatile, low margin business. But decades ago, movie theaters like airlines were seen as exciting, stable, high- growth investments. Going to the movies, like flying, was seen as a quintessential part of the American way of life. VHS couldn't compete, and theaters played a key role in suburban and mall culture. Banks loaned out billions in the 80s and '90s to support the expansion and build out of bigger and better theaters around the nation. Inspired by the big box retailers of that era, companies raced to build massive megaplexes anywhere

they could. The emergence of Walmart and Home Depot had proven that scale could be decisive. If you had the biggest, newest, and grandest store, you could wipe out the competition, serve the whole town, and own the entire market on opening day. This winner take all mentality sparked a nationwide arms race where theater startups competed to outbuild their rivals and even themselves under the sole pursuit of size and spectacle. But by the 2000s, the unit economics were too poor to ignore. There were too many theaters. The invention of highdefinition television radically elevated the athome experience, and the studios themselves were shrinking theatrical windows to push DVD sales. There was far more money

in selling a $20 DVD than splitting an $8 ticket with a theater. At a macro level, the saturation was impossible to ignore. US screen counts had grown by more than 50%, but ticket sales had increased by just 16% in the same period. There were simply far too many seats and too few customers. Theater chains were bleeding cash from megaplex construction loans, the fixed overhead of their existing theaters and declining sales. Customers were fragmented across too many venues. Ultimately, the only way to correct this over supply was to let the market return to its natural equilibrium, a process that the banks accelerated when they collectively refused to lend any more money to these

chains. Nearly every theater chain went bankrupt and the survivors merged to stop the bleeding. United Artists Edwards and Regal merged together for pennies on the dollar, forming the single giant we now know as Regal. AMC absorbed General Cinema and Lowe's Cinniplex at fire sale prices to become a national powerhouse. The overinvestment and saturation of the 1990s, followed by mass bankruptcies and consolidation in the 2000s, shaped the theater landscape as it exists today. This same pattern has played out in the airline industry, where carriers borrowed billions competing for customers, drove themselves to bankruptcy, and ultimately consolidated into an igopoly to survive.

Structurally, theaters are more than just low margin businesses. They're unwanted middlemen. They don't own the product that gets people through the doors and are handicapped by a cost structure that prevents economies of scale. Studios treat them as obstacles rather than partners. As retail consolidates and home entertainment improves, theaters are valued only for the foot traffic they generate for other tenants. Theaters and studios are making more money than ever. But this growth is driven by pricing and consolidation rather than demand. US movie attendance was already declining before the pandemic, and the shrinking customer base has been masked by M&A and rising ticket prices. Theater screens and locations are also in decline across the

board, even though there are more movies released these days than there were 20 years ago. Yet, the bread and butter that used to get customers through the doors year round, like comedies, adult dramas, and romcoms are now being released exclusively on streaming services. With fewer movies, fewer theaters, fewer seats, and fewer customers, the entire industry remains in a state of correction and consolidation. While the brands are visible, the experience itself is commoditized, and unit economics are similar across chains. For customers, the only factors that matter are which movies are playing, whether the seats are new or old, and what type of screen the film is playing on. Most independents exist as nonprofit civic

assets, while the for-profit theaters that remain are either corporate chains or backed by real estate developers looking to elevate their properties. Today's largest theater chains, just like airlines, have survived only by going public or taking money from private equity. The few that don't need these levers are typically small, regional, family-owned companies that uniquely own the land below their theaters and have passed down these assets through generations. Ultimately, the vast majority of for-profit theaters don't have this luck and must depend on dilution, debt, and scale to survive. By selling shares, they can perpetually

trade equity for no strings attached cash to pay down loans, fund capital expenditures, and inject liquidity during downturns. The reality is that the movie theater industry is a product of regulation as much as capitalism. During the 20s, 30s, and 40s, studios didn't just make movies. They owned everything from the lots to the theaters. And they manipulated distribution to strangle competition. They banned films from competing studios in their own theaters. If you wanted to see a Paramount movie, you had to go to a Paramount theater. They forced independent exhibitors to buy films in blocks of 20 to 50. This gained profits

since every title was pre-sold rather than earned on individual merit. At the same time, studios kept blockbusters as exclusives for their own theaters in order to capture every penny of the box office for themselves. This continued until government intervention in 1948. The Supreme Court banned movie studios from owning theaters, arguing that their vertical integration had resulted in illegal monopolies. This ruling was not a liberation of an oppressed market, rather an amplification of an inherently fragile business. Independent theaters had been struggling long before the vertical integration and studio manipulation of the 30s and 40s. The nation's largest theaters were suddenly

orphaned and thrust into the free market to survive on their own. They had no choice but to chase scale in order to address the underlying fragility, regain leverage with studios and secure external funding. The pressure to survive is what drove the relentless expansion and multi-story megaplexes of the 80s and '90s, which worked briefly under the suburban and shopping mall boom. Today, studios are allowed to own theaters again. But the irony is that most no longer have any interest in doing so. Streaming has solidified itself as a superior, higher margin direct to consumer channel that scales better and captures far more value than DVD sales ever did. Instead of relying on a theatrical window, ticket splits,

and one-time purchases to turn a profit, studios can now continually monetize their films through recurring subscriptions on platforms that they fully control. At the same time, all the data since the 1950s have proven theaters to be perpetually low margin and volatile businesses. The returns just aren't worth the risk and overhead, even for studios as rich as Disney. Just like airlines, theaters are so consolidated, capital, and slowmoving that any innovation and strategy gets commoditized. When one corporation tries something that works, its rivals simply follow suit to avoid falling behind. What is meant to be a differentiator quickly turns into a new industry baseline. AMC is the world's second largest chain behind only Wanda in

China. They dominate leading urban metropolitans where real estate, population density, and household income rank the highest in the nation. The cost of land and construction in these territories are what keep competitors out of AMC's turf. With the most seats in the country, AMC makes the most money. Their presence in the country's largest markets enable them to serve more customers than anyone in the West. But this scale comes at a cost. These territories are expensive and they pay more rent than anyone else in the industry. The reality is that AMC needs these locations more than the landlords need them. They can't walk away and give up this turf to their competition no matter how bad the rent gets. As the

industry leader, everyone watches what they do. Through the '9s and 2000s, theater chains collectively chased volume under the belief that the only path to growth was more butts, more seats, more screens, and more locations. But in 2010, AMC diverted and took a page from the airline industry. It was during this time when airlines were starting to realize they could no longer survive in a race to the bottom. Instead of trying to fill planes, they had to maximize yield per passenger, even if that came at the expense of capacity. They cut legroom to cram in basic economy, gutted standard economy seats to make room for first class, and use this tiered pricing to make more money

on the same flights. AMC applied their playbook to cinema. The chain slashed capacity by 60% and proactively replaced thousands of stadium seats and legacy projectors with luxury recliners and Dolby screens across the nation. This pivot from lowcost, high volume into high-spend, lower volume was reinforced with additions like pizza, hot dogs, cocktails, branded merchandise, and policies like reserved seating, mobile ordering, and loyalty programs. These upgrades have collectively cost AMC nearly $3 billion over 15 years, yet have been successful in getting customers to spend more than ever before. The 2D screen has effectively become basic economy. It's fine on its own, but its true purpose is to make

that additional $5 to$10 upgrade to IMAX or Dolby Cinema feel mandatory. Today, AMC serves 40% fewer customers than it did a decade ago. Affluent urban professionals are the ones who are most likely to have streaming subscriptions, premium home entertainment setups, and comfortable living rooms. They need a compelling reason to leave their homes and go to the theater. This dynamic shows up in the numbers. AMC has the highest average ticket price in the industry as customers spend on average more than $17 per ticket, a number that's only possible with IMAX and Dolby upcharges. Concession spend has roughly doubled over the same period. Yet, despite all the upgrades, average spend

on food, drinks, and merchandise is only about a dollar higher at AMC than the rest of the industry. This indicates that there may be a hard ceiling on what customers are willing to pay for theater food, regardless of how elevated the offering can become. In effect, the company has offset declining attendance with higher yield. Total spend per customer is double what it was 10 years ago. The chain has accepted the reality that going to the movies is no longer some habitual mass market pastime. With so many entertainment alternatives, their goal is no longer to drive frequency or really loyalty, but to capture that casual consumer and maximize revenue when they do show up once or twice a year for that MCU

blockbuster. Still, AMC was the first to proclaim that going up market is the only way to survive. But to go up market, you need money for upgrades. And the only way to get that money is with more debt and equity levers which are only accessible with scale. By snapping up legacy chains like Odon and Carmich who hold the turf but lack the capital to modernize, AMC gets the assets to justify bigger loans and higher equity raises. Despite positioning themselves as the high-end leader in the world's most valuable markets, their bottom line is the opposite of a premium business. Their greatest strength is also their greatest liability. For much of the past decade, the chain has operated on razor

thin margins. Profits had been declining well before the pandemic. The high rent and overhead of being in the flashiest cities mean that even though they gross more money, their actual break even point per theater is far higher than that of their rivals. One way to see this inefficiency is guests served per screen. It's a measure of how effectively a theater fills seats across showtimes. By this metric, AMC carries on average more empty seats than its competitors. Although the chain has started closing its weakest locations, it's still forced to maintain many of these old theaters to keep the competition from moving in on its turf.

They've also tried to fight back against the studios. In 2011, AMC put aside rivalries to launch a movie studio of its own with its closest competitor, Regal. The two chains bet that theaters could make quality mid-budget films of their own to fill the void during the quiet, slow, non-blockbuster months. Open Road was a creative success with titles like Spotlight, Nightcrawler, and Chef. Yet, the movie business is Sink or Swim, and a string of flops like Snowden drove Open Road to a loss of $100 million. With the studio bleeding invaluable cash that could have gone into venue upgrades, AMC quickly abandoned its ambitions of backward integration. These days, the company has put all its chips on distribution rather

than production. They directly partnered with Taylor Swift and Beyonce to show their documentaries in AMC theaters. Without a studio in the middle, these artists kept more of the ticket sales for themselves. In return, AMC got to capture more of the box office, secure a superior ticket split, and collect royalties from competing theaters who wanted access to these exclusives. Still, 3 years later, the chain has been unable to replicate these hits, and the number of artists that can command this level of attention at the box office is tiny. At the end of the day, AMC is only alive because of equity. When the

pandemic hit, there was no cash coming in, but hundreds of millions still going out to service the billions of debt. The chain was running out of cash, and no lender was crazy enough to loan them even more to get through the lockdowns. If it were not for the $2 billion raised from retail shareholders and meme valuations, AMC today would be bankrupt. While they outspend everyone else in capital expenditures, their footprint spreads those investments thin. In contrast, their rivals spend less, but get to focus their dollars far more intensely on fewer screens. The only solution is dilution. The company is not operationally stronger or financially healthier than its peers. It's really

just because they've had the cash to outlast the rest of the industry. AMC's greatest rival is Regal, who is their closest competitor in scale and proximity. These two giants have gone head-to-head for generations over the most lucrative movie markets in the nation. When the business boils down to squeezing a $5 to $10 ticket upsell and another $10 on concessions, neither chain can afford to let the other look better, especially in the eyes of fickle, affluent urban professionals. AMC has put its chips on Dolby Cinema, marketing it as the most cuttingedge and immersive way to watch a movie. Only at AMC can you experience Dolby Cinema.

Regal has countered by investing in the premium formats that AMC doesn't have like the multiensory 4DX and 270 degree screen X. Because 4DX adds smells, environmental effects, and motion synchronized seats. It's the most expensive upgrade yet yields the most distinct experience and highest upcharge. Regal's imitation of AMC has essentially resulted in a local duopoly of two nearly indistinguishable chains. The market remained split over the decade with both chains growing through location and feature parody. Yet, it was Regal who emerged as the more efficient operator. While AMC took on billions in debt to expand into Europe and lock down

hightra real estate, Regal maintained discipline. By selecting cheaper, less visible sites, they secured 30% cheaper rent, which in turn drove double-digit operating margins. In many ways, Regal's profits were built on this rent gap. Regal's success in spite of fierce direct competition caught the eye of the UK cinema giant Cinnow World. Cineworld was small compared to Regal, but its leaders were willing to stake billions to enter the world's largest box office. They borrowed $4 billion to acquire Regal in 2018 with the goal of scaling into a global powerhouse, but it all fell apart as soon as the pandemic hit.

Unable to operate, Cine World's income vanished, but their monthly rent obligation and interest payments did not. While AMC survived selling hyped shares to American retail investors with more enthusiasm than Sense, Cine World did not get that same attention on the London Stock Exchange. With lenders unwilling to float any more cash and little European appetite for meme stocks, the company went bankrupt. Today, the Regal acquisition is regarded as one of the worst time deals in history. Regal has since exited bankruptcy and shuttered underperforming locations under new leadership. Yet, the strategy is the same as before. Invest in 4DX, upsell tickets, expand

concessions, and maximize per customer spend to generate the most revenue possible with fewer screens and workers. While AMC and Regal dominate the coasts, Cinear rules the South and Marcus controls the Midwest. Cinear is the number three in scale, but outperforms as the most profitable chain in the world. Unlike the top two who chase after the wealthy urban professionals, Cinear targets middle-class suburbs where families are unlikely to have premium home theater setups, treat going to the movies as a routine social event and will not hesitate buying that large popcorn and soda combo. On the coasts, CineArk avoids the expensive destination cities of Los Angeles, San Francisco,

and Miami in favor of the more residential Sacramento and Jacksonville. While AMC and Regal theaters are built like palaces, Cinemark's venues are simple, singlestory, compact rectangles, they serve twice as many customers as their larger rivals, proving that if it's not about the cards you play, but instead about the table you sit down at. The chain leads in productivity, serving more guests with fewer screens and grossing more revenue per square foot than anyone else in the West. Instead of building full kitchens with fresh ingredients and skilled cooks, Cinear has kept its concessions grab and go. To them, a $5 bag of Takis is just as valuable and far more scalable than a

$15 hand toss salad or fancy burger. They've still followed AMC's footsteps, swapping stadium seats for recliners and pushing premium large format upcharges to double guest spend compared to a decade ago. In spite of all the upgrades and upsells, the average ticket spend at CineArk is still several dollars below the industry leaders. For what they lack in customer spend and highv value territory, the company makes up through sheer volume. They gross $10 million on average per theater, more than AMC and twice that of Regal. Yet, the company's growth is ultimately fueled by more than just the American middle class. While all the turf in the US and Europe has been claimed over decades of buildouts

and consolidation, Cinear has chosen not to waste money, contesting mature incumbents. Instead, they've gone south past the border where the US dollar goes further. Labor is cheaper and the territory sits ripe for the taking. Backed by American equity, Cinemark is the most powerful operator in Latin America and market leader in Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, and Peru. Unlike its quiet suburban locations in the US, Cinear theaters down south are sprawling urban megaplexes and anchor tenants in Latin America's biggest cities like Bogota and Buenosire. While the only way to go up in mature markets is to raise prices, Latin America is still in its growth phase. With a rising middle class

and social life physically rooted in shopping malls, the movie theater is one of the main local outlets in a desert of mass market entertainment options. At the same time, the lower labor and land costs only lower the risk, and 80% of Cinemark's capital expenditures today are dedicated to South America. It's a greater growth and stronger future potential that just doesn't exist for any other US-based theater chain. Thus, it's no surprise that Cinemark leads the industry in profit. In a time where the big giants like AMC and Regal are reeling, they're the ones putting the foot on the gas to renovate and expand.

Marcus is a distant fourth, but owns much of the real estate that its theaters are built on, which means less debt, less overhead, lower scale, but steady margins. With a more favorable cost structure, Marcus was able to adopt AMC's playbook at a much faster pace in the Heartland. Today, every Marcus theater has heated recliners and offers premium immersive formats for an additional fee. With few competitors in the region, Marcus pushes its own in-house formats to avoid licensing fees that it would have to otherwise pay to an IMAX or Dolby. At the same time, their control of the underlying land enables the company to take concessions deeper than any other chain with full

service restaurants, diners, arcades, and bars built into nearly every lobby. Ultimately, Marcus theaters are more like entertainment hubs. They can run movies as true loss leaders, no matter how bad the ticket splits get. Their concessions are standalone destinations, and the theater is just one of many attractions to get Midwesterners to spend as much time as possible in their space. Yet, the region itself is the company's greatest limiting factor. Marcus' customer spend is the lowest in the industry, and the company doesn't have the muscle or assets to expand, especially when most of their empire has been built on generational land. The movie theater industry is a modern case

study of the difference between value creation and value capture. Just like the airlines, these four giants have realized the only winners are those who maximize yield. Whether it's the firstass luxury of an AMC Dolby screen, the budget efficiency of a suburban cineark, or the regional moat of a Marcus, the era of theater hopping, $5 tickets, and $1 popcorn are all relics of the past. Today's survivors are territorial middlemen who have learned to ruthlessly extract every possible dollar from customers just to stay alive in a supply chain where studios hold all the power. Every business is asking the same question. How do we make AI work for us? The possibilities are endless and guessing is too risky. Here's the

problem. While you're trying to figure it out, the competition is already moving. And every day you sit on the sidelines, you're losing ground. Forget the buzzwords and snake oil pitches. With Netswuite, you get real, actionable AI that actually gets your business. No fluff, big zany words, just results you can use literally tomorrow. Netswuite is the number one AI cloud ERP trusted by over 43,000 businesses. Netswuite is a unified suite that brings your financials, inventory, commerce, HR, and CRM into a single source of truth. Even great instincts only get better with data. By connecting all the data in Netswuite, your AI gets smarter. It doesn't just guess, it knows. Netswuite

intelligently automates routine tasks so you can deliver real value, cut costs and make fast AI powered decisions with confidence and total flexibility. Now with Netswuite AI connector, you can use your favorite AI to connect to your actual business data and ask every question you've ever dreamed of from key customers and cash flow to inventory trends and accounting projections. Plus, it'll automate all your tiresome manual processes. Let's see your competition do that. Netswuite isn't another chat rapper. It's AI built into the system that runs your business. Our goal at modern MBA is to grow to seven figures and once we reach that milestone, we plan to adopt Netswuite. We sit on a

mountain of data, but production is so intense that no one has the bandwidth to analyze the business. We're constantly balancing creativity with economics, but it's hard to derive without pulling ourselves away from production. If your revenues are at least in the seven figures, get the business guide, Demystifying AI, free at netsweet.com/modernba. The guide is free to you at netswuite.com/modernba.