No. 333: Food52 and Linear Commerce

food52.jpg

There have been few meaningful exits over 13 years. As such, questions surrounding the direct-to-consumer industry’s lack of exits have reached fever pitch. Investors have long questioned the viability of marketplaces and DTC brands. Initially pitched as technology companies, platforms like Shopify and BigCommerce streamlined the technical requirements for many go-to-market strategies. This left many investors questioning defensibility, proprietary advantages, or the value of a brand’s intellectual property – if any.  With many DTC companies raising capital with the intention of growing like software companies, it begs the question: do they understand their true value? The short answer is no.

No Title

I’m not sure that a lot of DTC brand owners realize that they’re building companies valued at 1 – 1.5x revenues.

When venture capitalist Fred Wilson published his thoughts on the Great Public Market Reckoning, he set the stage for an important discussion on the valuations of venture-backed companies. WeWork’s 2018 revenue was $1.8 billion on $1.9 billion in losses. In August 2019, America’s finest investment banks were selling consumer investors the story that the company’s discounted cash flows (DCF) justified a $47 billion valuation at IPO.

If the product is software and thus can produce software gross margins (75% or greater), then it should be valued as a software company. If the product is something else and cannot produce software gross margins then it needs to be valued like other similar businesses with similar margins, but maybe at some premium to recognize the leverage it can get through software.

Softbank, WeWork’s latest investor, believed that the company could eventually exceed $100 billion in value. As of today, that IPO filing has been shelved indefinitely; the IPO prospectus that once valued the company at nearly $50 billion has been rescinded. WeWork is back to the drawing board and on a hunt for a healthy EBITDA, as it’s likely that a company like that will be judged by a different standard. This may be a difficult path. The coworking company maintains 20% gross margins. Until recently, the cognitive dissonance between value and valuation continued to widen.

Peloton is trading at 6x revenues, rather than the 7-8x that underwriters intended. Based on their gross margins (46%), it’s likely that the multiple will 5x. Lyft maintains a 39% gross margin; Lyft is trading at 4-5x and may eventually fall to somewhere between 3-4x. The commonality shared by Lyft, Uber, and Peloton is the software leverage that they share. Each of the three maintains a software angle that places a premium on their respective valuations.

For many DTC brands, that same leverage rarely exists. For every StitchFix, there are dozens of retailers that fall within that range. These are companies without much technical IP, if any at all. This is a gift and a curse. Shopify has streamlined many of the requirements that would have required a technical co-founder just a decade ago. It’s for this reason that tech’s multiples of revenue shouldn’t be the measure at all. Online retailers are EBITDA businesses. And it’s time that the category optimizes for improved gross margins and sustainability. This may mean less venture capital raised and slower growth over a longer time horizon.

Venture capital isn’t right for many businesses, but if you do want to raise from a VC at some point, you need to understand that often investors care more about growth than profits. They don’t want high burn rates but they will never fund slow growth. [1]

The public market’s rebuke of WeWork is just one of the latest hits to the private market’s penchant for marketing overestimated valuations. In online retail, there is a key adjustment that can be made to better position the DTC industry for exit optionality. The first of which is to learn community building from digital media publishers.

A common DTC multiple of revenue is 1.5-2x. The Steve Madden acquisition of Greats Brand was reportedly within this range. A $13 million revenue year resulted in a sale for $20-25 million. A common marketplace multiple of revenue is 2-4x, this is a company like Chewy.com or StitchFix.com. A common multiple of revenue for a commerce-first media brand is 3-7x. Glossier has been valued at over $1 billion with a revenue total ranging between $100 – $150 million. For tech companies, SaaS has a premium. In some cases, 10x revenue multiples.  For retailers, valuation multiples are influenced by organic audiences.

Linear Commerce and Revenue Multiples

1565363735634-buyables2_2Food52 is a member of a new breed of digital platform, one that combines commerce and media operations. This aids diversificaton of revenue channels while minimizing the rising costs of traditional customer acquisition. It is not easy but it can be rewarding. There are a number of publishers in this category, to include: Barstool Sports, Uncrate, Highsnobiety, Hypebeast, and Hodinkee. And remember, Glossier began as a blog called Into The Gloss.


No. 314 Linear Commerce: for the brands that are most suited to the modern retail economy, media and commerce operations combine to optimize for audience and conversion. This is the efficient path for sustained growth, retention, and profitability.

Screen-Shot-2019-04-22-at-1.01.30-PM (4)
Food52 is a ‘Version 4’ retailer. Most DTC brands maintain a ‘Version 1’ structure.

Each of these publishers attracts a niche, passionate audience. Their audiences fuel several revenue operations: affiliate marketing, display advertising, native advertising, and DTC retail. Commerce is prioritized and traditional advertising is minimized.

The deal does fit in with the direction The Chernin Group has been headed: The company, which once had plans to put together a very big internet conglomerate after acquiring an big anchor like Hulu, has instead been buying and building a stable of internet companies aimed at distinct audiences, all of which rely on revenue streams beyond internet advertising. [2]

In early September, 25 operators spanning digital media, traditional media, and commerce were seated in a Manhattan dining room. Of them were the founders of Food52, Amanda Hesser and Merrill Stubbs. The venture firm and host of the evening’s festivities let the cat out of the bag. In a surprise announcement, The Chernin Group mentioned that they were set on acquiring a majority of Food52. The room applauded the founders. It was a rare exit in an industry that has struggled to gain its footing.

TCG owns a controlling stake in MeatEater Inc., a digital media company aimed at hunters, fishermen and home cooks, and has also invested in Action Network, a sports-betting analytics startup. [3]

The attendees brushed the impromptu announcement aside and allowed the natural public relations cycle run its course. And that it did. Yesterday, a number of outlets reported the sale. Here are the numbers:

  • $83 million acquisition of the majority of the company
  • A valuation of $100 million
  • $13 million raised over four equity rounds
  • A reported 2018 revenue of $30 million (not profitable)
  • Traffic: 7 million monthly active uniques
  • Paid traffic: less than 2.5% of overall volume
screen-shot-2015-07-06-at-9-27-09-pm.0.1486507956.0
Mike Kerns, President

A Fund 1 investment by Lerer Hippeau, the Food52 acquisition was a positive outcome for investors and founders alike. It’s also a glimpse into the methods that more digital-first companies employ to improve their exit optionality. Those methods? Building brand equity, fostering community, and owning their audience. In a 2PM conversation, Mike Kerns, President of The Chernin Group, stated:

We love to invest in entrepreneurs who are building enduring brands that have engaged audiences. Food52 has built a growing commerce business with very little marketing spend. Their marketing is building their enterprise value and defensibility which is the investment in to their content and community.

Kerns continues:

For TCG we like businesses that can build businesses with their audience established versus trying to purchase the audience from someone else.

In Kerns short statement lies a bit of truth that many in the DTC space fail to recognize. The stronger the organic audience, the higher the premium on a company’s valuation. All revenue is not equal. If a retailer can earn a sale without buying an audience each time, this becomes attractive to potential investors. So why the resistance towards this approach? In short, it isn’t easy to do.

The most viable companies across the digital ecosystem will share a common trait: established, organic audiences. Content and community are core to that outcome. For the well-executed linear commerce brands, retention rates will be high and CAC will be low. The road map is there for the brands looking for a sustainable advantage and improved optionality. Perhaps, the public and private markets will reward more of them.

Read the No. 333 curation here.

Report by Web Smith | About 2PM

 

No. 332: Risk and Religion of Peloton

AllyLoveYall

Today’s public markets seem to penalize the cults of personality. For an example, look no further than WeWork’s current debacle. In a sequence of events that may remind you of the ouster of Uber’s founder and CEO, WeWork also raised venture capital from Softbank and Benchmark. And the company’s board happens to be at odds with its own founder and CEO, just in time for a long-anticipated initial public offering.

It’s kind of stunning how quickly Adam Neumann has become a pariah. I have always thought the business was of questionable value. But it goes to show you how many people are ‘outcome over process.’ And the second the IPO stumbles, the knives come out.

Nick O’Brien

Two venture-backed companies with growing losses and questionable paths to profitability and only one of them looks to clear the bar to IPO. One possesses a cult of personality in Adam Nuemann, the other lords over a cult of fitness thanks to consumers like you. A notoriously fickle industry, Peloton has combatted the ebbs and flows of fitness micro-trends by recruiting and retaining top management. To Peloton, retention is the KPI.

Led by John Foley, Peloton is equal parts: quality of product, quality of programming, and quality of its users.  These users are Foley’s collective x-factor. It’s also a cohort that is more vulnerable than you’d think.

Peloton reported an impressive $915 million in total revenue for the year ending June 30, 2019, an increase of 110% from $435 million in fiscal 2018 and $218.6 million in 2017. Its losses, meanwhile, hit $245.7 million in 2019, up significantly from a reported net loss of $47.9 million last year. [1]

As Peloton nears IPO, the company has chosen to experiment with a new sales promotion. The expectation is that Peloton will bolster a few key metrics: new users, new subscriptions, and number of streams. By instituting the “30 day guarantee” found in informercial fitness products like NordicTrack and Bowflex, Peloton runs the risk of reducing lifetime value (LTV), increasing churn, and ostracizing the company’s highly motivated base by marketing to casual users and moving down market.

In the beginning, Peloton buyers were required to purchase the equipment in full. By partnering with Affirm, the consumer finance startup, the hardware / software company opened the doors to 0% financing over 36-48 months. This opened the product to middle class consumers without degrading LTV and average order value. This week, the company took one final step to reduce friction.  But while analysts laud the move as an enabler of growth, I’d argue that it may backfire.

Peloton is unlike anything that we have seen. For power users, the matte black cycle has become a source of inspiration, motivation, and even accountability. Personalities like Ally Love and Alex Toussaint have become household names. Just this summer, tennis legend Chris Evert made note of her apreciation for Ally Love during the broadcast of Tennis’ US Open. She noted that Love was “her spin instructor.” Before that moment, they’d never met in person. In my own household, I ocassionally ask my wife about her training sessions, “How was Alex, today?” She laughs every time; the running “joke” between us is that she refuses to stream another instructor.

The cult of Peloton isn’t anchored by the equipment. Rather, it’s the company’s human resources that remains the draw. And surprisingly, the company seems to be willing to manipulate it for short term growth.

IMG_0113As of the June filing of the the company’s S-1, Peloton showed over 511,000 subscibers and nearly 85 million cumulative sessions. To many users, it is an addiction of sorts. But the addiction is less a result of the physical product and more of a product of its efficacy. That takes time to materialize, much longer than a month. The hardware company’s marketing flywheel is perpetuated by the consumers who evangelize it. I’d argue that the time horizon to understand its value is closer to three months. A one month trial seems like a churn engine, not an acquisition funnel.

I’ve sold a number of colleagues on owning a Peloton of their own. This is commonplace, the S-1 suggests a high rate of word of mouth sales. In selling the product to peers, I’ve noted that the rides are painful but well worth the commitment. The hardware is beautiful and the augmented live stream is extraordinary. But it’s the sense of accomplishment and the commitment to the platform that I have found to be most valuable to the product’s brand equity. So yes, part of the lock-in stems from the commitment to ownership.

Understand the dualing strategies in the fitness industry:

  • Planet Fitness thrives on low motivation, short-term commitment, relatively minimal lock-in, and low attrition. The costs are so low, many members forget that they are still paying. This is by design. Costs are minimal because volume is key. If every member showed on the same day, there would be no space to exercise. Planet Fitness is a gym model.
  • Equinox thrives on high motivation, network effects, longer-term commitment, and low attrition. Costs are relatively expensive;  this cost prevents overcrowding and funds amenities. The network and those amenities keep customers coming back. Equinox is a club model.
S1
A high participation, high retention model resembling a club model.

At the height of the functional fitness craze, CrossFit’s growth was driven by high participation, efficacy, and peer-to-peer evangelism. Patrons from traditional gyms paid a premium to join one of 7,000 grungy, glorified garages and warehouses around the world. These customers were seeking a twisted enjoyment of challenging workouts (and the physical transformation that followed). But more importantly, they sought an active community. Peloton is shifting from the exclusivity of the club model to the inclusivity of the gym model. And this is where things become trickier for Peloton. The new pricing strategy conflicts with the longterm viability of its market position.

Nothing happens in a month

The 30 day trial promotion has been widely reported in publications like Bicycling Magazine and Shape.

This new offer is a clever way for the brand to give potential long-term customers a true taste of the bike experience and the wide variety of workout classes. For you, it’s a great way to try before you buy. [2]

This messaging conflicts with many of its value propositions. If I had to guess, it was likely a point of conflict within the c-suite. The company’s corporate structure is unique. It has nine members in that c-suite. Yet, a chief of marketing (CMO) is not one of them. It’s one example of an unfortunate trend in consumer retail.  After three years as PepsiCo’s senior brand manager, Carolyn Blodgett left a short stint with New York Giants organization to become Peloton’s senior marketer. As an SVP, it’s likely that she reports to the Chief Revenue Officer (Tim Shannehan) or the Chief Content Officer (Jennifer Cotter).

In this way, the lack of a singular vision may play a role in Peloton’s decision to test a trial system. While pricing incentives aren’t rare in SaaS sales or the marketing of physical goods, they do tend to be the tip of the spear for brands seeking to introduce further discounts and incentives. And they spell trouble for a company that will be largely defined by the best practices of fitness clubs and software-based network effects. Peloton will have a hard time explaining the supremacy of its product as the trial periods grow from one month to three or four. Or worse, when the $2,300 cycle that you paid for is on sale for $1,200 over the holiday season. Pricing incentives are a slippery slope.

With marketing and real estate costs eating into Peloton’s net profitability, the writing is on the wall.  The company believes that growth costs have become too expensive and with a $1.2 billion IPO in waiting, the story of efficient growth may determine the company’s viability over the next two quarters. Unfortunately, this may be a short-sighted injection of growth.

Like WeWork’s attempt to silence its cult of personality, Peloton risks weakening its cult of fitness. Only one of these seems intentional. It’s unclear whether Peloton’s management fully understands the risks involved. The company’s strength is two-pronged: its on-screen talent and its cult-like early adopters. The market may reward Peloton for leaning on new methods of influence and acquisition. However, their management won’t begin to see the unintended effects of mass adoption (and increased churn) until its marketing flywheel begins to sully.

In the unfortunate case of that happening, Peloton will become just another in-home cycle with a screen. And in that case, consumers will see a lot more of the words Peloton Infomercial 20:00 in their cable guide’s lineup. And that’s no place for a religion to be sold.

Read the No. 332 curation here.

Report by Web Smith | About 2PM

Additional reading: Peloton vs. Tonal (Member Research)

 

No. 331 Part One: As Seen on TV

2PMAsSeenAs

In a private New York City dining room sat a few dozen executives across digital media and retail. Of them included companies like The Chernin Group, Cameo, Instagram, Barstool Sports, Stripe, Digiday, Seat Geek, theSkimm, Andie Swim, 2PM, and Zola. These companies ranged from venture-backed DTC brands to digital media companies that are valued well into the nine figures. Everyone had a particular problem to solve. We discussed industry-wide concerns to include: advertising efficacy, margins, scale, and sustainable growth.

On this night, Instagram wasn’t the center of the universe. At least not at first. A rarity given the social media giant’s surroundings. The moment that quieted the room wasn’t one devoted to the foretelling of a new marketing technologies, innovations, or hacks. Rather, it was an anecdote about traditional marketing channels.

Andy Khubani is the CEO of Ideavillage, a holdings company that pumps out well-researched, highly marketable “power brands.” Flawless, a hair removal system for women, was the brand name of his latest success.  A power brand tends to be asset-light, high growth, with high margins, manufacturing leverage, logistics prowess, and a sustainable competitive advantage. 

In 2018, he sold Flawless to Church & Dwight for $450 million (or 2.5 times revenues). In year two, his company grossed $180 million with a 30% EBITDA margin, according to a March 2019 press release. 

To scale the company, he used a traditional style of advertising and promotion. 

Backed by print advertising, ads on New York City taxis and blogging campaigns— to go with the full-scale DRTV campaign— Flawless has quickly become a top-selling retail beauty product in As Seen On TV sections and in-line beauty and shaver departments. [1]

In a room full of digital advertisers, platforms, and merchants – everyone was likely asking themselves the same question: how did he reach critical mass so quickly? With no outside capital raised and no performance marketing spend alloted, Khubani built a brand worth nearly half of a billion dollars in just two years. Absolutely no one in DTC is doing that. The most recent acquisition was of Oars & Alps for $20 million. They raised nearly $7 million. This week, Tristan Walker recorded his episode of “How I Built This.” He sold his company to P&G for less than $40 million. Greats Brand sold to Steve Madden for less than $30 million. I could go on.

Khubani’s magnitude of exit is incredibly rare in the DTC space. Since 2007, fewer than seven DTC brands have exited for a price as high as $450 million. Flawless’ early profitability contrasts most in an industry where LTV:CAC optimization is a law akin to the Old Testament. The widely held consensus is to spend heavily now, despite a lack of profits, to earn a customer for a lifetime. This method extends the horizon and heightens the capital requirement but it also absolves executives of the near term pressure to achieve scale early. The LTV:CAC optimization theory is one that I have found to be disingenuous at best. Markets change, competition arises, technology improves, and consumer sentiments shift with the gusts of pop culture and the zeitgeist.


From No. 310: The DTC Playbook is a Trap

As long as DTC brands attempt to follow what’s been done before them, you too should be skeptical of the industry. Many investors seem to look for a DTC Playbook to hand their portfolio companies. As if to say, “Here is how it’s done. Now execute the game plan!” But it’s likely that it will never be that way. As digital-natives begin competing in traditional retail’s territory, heritage brands should serve as a reminder. They had unique paths to critical mass, very few encountered the predictability that the DTC era seeks.


There seems to be two considerations for challenger brands of today. Either optimize for the early exit or settle into growth over a 15+ year horizon. Venture capital doesn’t typically compel either outcome. It is the pursuit of the uncomfortable “in between,” the 5-10 year horizon, that may be a root of DTC’s liquidity problem. For many companies in that space, there is a lot to learn from power brands. The ones that scale fast and exit. Flawless is but one of many.

As Seen On TV / As Seen In Stores

Over the past weeks, several data points suggested that the days of DTC playbook are long past. As traditional brands adopt the technologies and the web-first approaches to growth, many of them have widened their advantages between their own companies and the challenger products vying for the same shelf space.

eCommerce is a tremendously challenging, frequently unprofitable business. It also doesn’t take into account how much consumers still want to be in person with brands and products and people.

Andy Dunn

In an interesting breakdown by Yotpo VP Raj Nijjer, the retail executive presented a few surprising metrics [2]: Sealy Mattress’ direct to consumer sales surpassed Casper’s total revenue in 2018 despite Casper taking the mindshare of online retail advertising and consumer chatter. He also noted that Madewell: a brand that is primarily driven by physical real estate, traditional advertising, and traditional brochures – will do $534 million through online retail channels.

[Dunn] said that, in the case of Bonobos, the brand’s “most profitable business” today is its partnership with Nordstrom. Bonobos now also boasts 66 brick-and-mortar stores known as “guides shops.” [3]

When Khubani detailed how he built Flawless into a relative powerhouse, he made it clear that part of the problem with the DTC era is the inability to truly compel purchases. In short, few DTC executives know how to actually sell. Many are dependent on the superficiality of the impression as a metric rather than the depth found when executives target more than a consumer’s eye balls.

I don’t really like digitally native vertical brands. What gets me excited are brands that are really strong and direct-to-consumer, but also have got omni.

Andy Dunn

He believes that he has it down to a science. And it’s hard to argue that he’s wrong. When the typical DTC brand or digital media operator considers the word “targeting”, it instills a sense of modernity. “Television ads are inferior to the quantitative capabilities found with Facebook and Instagram,” a refrain that you will hear from the typical media agency founder. Khubani suggested that brand managers should reconsider the definition of “targeting.” While television advertising espouses a broader approach to reach, it targets a different part of the consumer.

Screen Shot 2019-09-16 at 3.32.01 PMThe consistent approach to an Instagram or Facebook ad is to engage the eyes. We visit the app to mindlessly consume images. Rarely do we stongly recall what we’ve seen after we’ve left the app. We don’t tweet about it; we rarely talk about it. That collection of targeted, inline advertisements are calculated impressions. They are visuals that spark a mental consideration by capturing a consumer’s eyes – if only for a second. It’s why you see scrolling .gifs of coupon codes, diagrams with price incentives, or photos of marked with fabric qualities. On social, brand advertising is often a science and not an art. Brand managers are working to compel the sale through the logic of price and comparison. Television is different. It inspires the heart. When we consume our favorite show, we talk about and we spread the joy of consumption through social channels.

On this night, Instagram wasn’t the center of the universe. At least not at first.

Just as a physical billboard that is uploaded to Instagram or Twitter becomes a social ad; a consumer good that we discover on television accelerates the growth curve through social and distributive channels. Those crude “As Seen” advertisements have been known to compel purchases so well that stores devote aisles to the category of products. But in this era, the benefit is even greater for brands like Flawless. Early traction, often fueled by television can equate to wider physical and online distribution. This perpetuates affiliate deals, social influencer participation, and earned media. These are all key performance indicators of DTC marketing traction for many brands.

The Two Andy’s: Dunn and Khubani

It’s been rumored that for that $180 million in 2018 sales, Flawless paid for less than $2 million in traditional advertising. With a $450 million exit + incentives, the return on advertising was clearly remarkable in size and in velocity. But surprisingly, that wasn’t the key takeaway.

As DTC brands improve their ability to sell, they will advertise more like the original direct brands, ones that intrigued consumers through their televisions. These brands compelled the sale via phone, computer, or that distinct shopping aisle in Walmart or Target.

The report, which synthesizes information from 125 top DTC brands representing 52 different categories, found that DTC brands included in the study spent 60% more on television ads in 2018 than they did in 2017, totaling $3.8 billion in television ad spend last year.  [4]

Consumers are due to see more television ads from brands like Away.  But for some categories of products, the production style will shift away from brand statement and towards the longform style of selling that you’ll only find on TV. This new era of retailer will be slow to use television in the longform manner that marketing executives have mastered. The traditional television demographic may not be suitable for many new brands or their products.

But, for certain categories, marketing and distribution strategies will continue to evolve in that direction. These will include many of the cues found in those hard-selling infomercials.  There are new tools available to brands that are looking to adopt more of the merchant’s DNA. As television, billboard, and QVC-like platforms feature more DTC brands, these selling strategies will make their way to digital-first platforms.

In this way, Andy Khubani’s thoughts were prescient. The direct-to-consumer industry commonly appeals to consumers through two styles of media: (1) the lofty brand statement or (2) the coupon code value proposition. The style of advertising that drove Flawless from $0 to $180 million was a combination of both styles, designed to carry the potential customer from discovery, to intrigue, to conversion, to evangelist. As Andy Dunn noted, digitally natives brands will continue to struggle without an omnichannel approach to growth.

Brands are using traditional retail sensibilities to achieve half billion dollar exits by year three. Nearly $534 million in DTC revenue by Madewell, a J. Crew-owned private label headed towards IPO. Walmart building their own brands rather than acquiring digitally natives. And the godfather of the term “DNVB” noting that being a digitally native is now a disadvantage.

In the coming months, DTC brands will build around the aforementioned style of television advertising. They will test it on platforms like Instagram, ads will playfully mimic the cadence and tone. They’ll build the processes out on newer platforms tailor-made to achieve efficiently scalable levels of reach and engagement. The two Andy’s seemed to be advocating for similar best practices. By 2018, the cloud-based technologies commonly used by online-first brands had been widely adopted by legacy retailers. For challenger brands to regain their competitive advantages, they should look to the proven advertising and distribution strategies of the old guard. And then, they should make them their own.

Read the No. 331 curation here.

Report by Web Smith |About 2PM