Thank you very much, Ms. Royer, for the supportive comments. They're greatly appreciated at this time or at any time, and thank you for the question as well.
You asked what it means for the service.
In order to make these decisions on where to cut, we've had to become selective in areas in which it's difficult to do. It was an informed decision. We looked at who our audience is, and we looked at the top content that's being viewed. We went back to our mission, which is one of public service. CPAC in no way, shape or form is meant to be competitive.
If there was an area of duplication, that's where we opted to trim. It was not trimming fat; it was trimming very good content. Individuals have had stellar careers and were unbelievably hard-working and dedicated, and it was in no way, shape or form a reflection of their talent or their abilities or the programming we were offering. In a time when belts need to be tightened and subscriber erosion has reached absolutely new heights, we were operating with the budgets that we had in 2006. Imagine your own salaries or the budgets you're working with being frozen for 20 years. That is CPAC's reality.