No. 334: The Relevance of The Letter

BoF

This week, The Atlantic’s Kaitlyn Tiffany wrote a nuanced and worthwhile report on the history of the newsletter industry. The length of the history depends on whom you ask. To her point, Substack would like you to believe that their team pioneered the movement. She argues, correctly, that they’ve successfully adapted it for a different audience. They’ll likely see great, longterm success. One glance at Substack’s paid leaderboard screen and you may understand the point that the author made throughout. In her piece, she writes:

“[Newsletters have] been a thing,” says Ann Friedman, who has written a weekly newsletter since 2013, has 40,000 subscribers, and is widely recognized as one of the leaders of the first newsletter boom.

In many ways, Tiffany’s article was relevant to a few thoughts that I’ve been managing for some time. She aptly stated the argument that while Andreessen Horowitz’s $15.3 million investment into Substack signaled a beginning, it became a useful tool to make newsletters “cool” to other groups. She provides a bullet-by-bullet history of some of the most important names in the newsletter industry’s history. The report is worth your time.

Backstage at September’s Destination D2C, a dozen or so colleagues convened to chat about the professional world, a passion that each of us pursue in our own ways. We each shared a few things in common but the most important was our interest in the direct-to-consumer industry. Now memorialized in Modern Retail‘s “The Rise of the DTC Bro,” that backstage scene was a significant moment and one that would not have been possible without the aid of the mainstreaming of newsletters as a media platform, to Kaitlyn Tiffany’s earlier point. Cale Weissman began:

It started with Paul Munford, founder of the luxury newsletter Lean Luxe, alongside Web Smith, founder of the site 2PM, who sat beside Helena Price Hambrecht, the founder and CEO of Haus. Then came Marco Marandiz, a DTC strategist and consultant, who sat down and joined a conversation about their clients. After that, Nik Sharma, whose Twitter profile describes himself as “the DTC guy,” joined the fun.

What, perhaps, the Modern Retail reporter didn’t see in that scene was the disproportionate amounts of rejection tolerated by each member of that seated group. Helena Price Hambrecht, a now well-known direct-to-consumer founder, began as a creative. In her own right, Hambrecht is a master communicator.

She proved herself quickly but for those of us who knew her before the bottles shipped, she was already proven.

But before Haus launched to a sellout crowd, the brand that she cofounded faced an uphill battle. No one wanted to fund her idea. Early on, reporters privately panned her concept and approach. I know, personally, that she pitched over 500 times to complete her $1 million seed round. That’s an extraordinarily high failure rate. Traditional VCs consider: geography, industry, age, gender, and more. Pattern matching provides comfort and a bit of insurance. Hambrecht was not a pattern match. However, the next round that she raised would close within days. In a comment to 2PM, Haus founder Helena Price wrote:

Our first $1 million took eight months and about 500 pitches. We heard a lot of no’s. There were plenty of dark points and moments of doubt. That said, if you truly believe that there is an audience for what you’re building, you’ll find those people in VC too. I tell people raising, now, that they probably haven’t met 90% of the people who will ultimately invest in them. You just have to keep getting intros and sending cold emails and you’ll eventually find your people.

She proved herself quickly but for those of us who knew her before the bottles shipped: nothing had changed, she was already proven. She just didn’t match the idea of a retail executive and manufacturer. As for the idea of a eCommerce industry leader or thinker, few of those of us who sat backstage matched that pattern either. Marandiz, Sharma, Munford, nor I are the prototypical resources for the higher rungs of the commerce and media industries. You wouldn’t find a single one of us on this list of industry insiders. There are several of the list’s members who subscribe to 2PM or Lean Luxe, however.

In an industry that glazes over contributions of those who don’t match the proverbial pattern, the newsletter movement has provided a platform. What each of us shared in the moment was memorialized by that paragraph. Before we were publishers, we were operators at some point: founders, directors, managers, builders. And that hard-earned experience was the wind the pushed our personal projects forward.

Sharma, once the Director of eCommerce for Hint Water (and then Vaynermedia) is often a co-writer to the prolific David Perell. A public relations executive by trade, Munford launched Lean Luxe within months of 2PM launching. Marco Marandiz made his name publishing now-famous Twitter analyses of DTC brands like Away and Glossier. He began doing so while leading product at HomeAway. And before I managed commerce for media publications Gear Patrol and Uncrate, I cofounded Mizzen + Main. Still, those credentials often fall short.

358225C3-66C6-4B54-894E-979C7563A454 2
Sherrell Dorsey, Dan Runcie, QuHarrison Terry, and Web Smith

Just three months ago, 2PM was featured on a National Association of Black Journalists (NABJ) panel with successful (and lucrative) newsletter publications: The Plug, Inevitable Human, and Trapital. The topic was on “building paid subscription media companies.” But the common thread throughout was easy enough to observe: without the critical mass of a newsletter audience, our ideas would likely be re-packaged at a traditional outlet through on-the-record or off-the-record conversations with professional reporters. Newsletter publishers strive to own the distribution of their ideas and the communities around them.

So when I read the article by Modern Retail, I wasn’t upset. Weissman is a great writer and he likely meant no harm. But I was confused by how no one saw what we did. I am not sure that many readers understood how proud we were to be sitting there in the first place. Just three years prior and that scene wouldn’t have happened. To me, the moment felt like an enormous privilege. In each instance, we found our own ways to deliver our practical and experience-driven ideas to a very competitive ecosystem. And on that day, the founding team at Yotpo recognized the validity of them all. It was an important moment.

The Pre-Substack Era

Goal: publish 180 letters. Reassess. Launching 2PM, Inc. in 2015 was a hail mary of sorts. In December of that year, I was no longer co-running a DTC operation. Instead, I was advising and / or building eCommerce operations for publishers. As a side project, I started 2pml.com as a way to maintain accountability to myself.

2PM was a simple proposition: understand everything to get better at the one thing.

I wanted to get better at my profession. At the time, my focus on one task was leading to more blind spots than tangible progress. As such, I was missing out on the practical knowledge that follows reading, thinking, and hard analysis. The first 2PM email published to 11 people; I’d monetize it after 180 letters out of necessity. Building this company became my full time job.

By understanding how 2PM’s commerce-adjacent industries interact to negatively or positively impact one another, I was able to map the best steps for the projects that I was attached to – then and now. With 2PM, I hoped to duplicate those same abilities for other industry colleagues. It is a simple proposition: understand everything to impact that one thing.

If there were any blindspots in Tiffany’s Is Anyone Going to Get Rich off of Email Newsletters? [1], there may be one. There is a growing collective of former operators who spend the majority of their time honing their publishing skills. They understand commerce and marketing and branding and logistics and data science. They’ve shipped packages, negotiated distribution deals, and led performance marketing efforts. And readers appear to be drawn to the raw perspectives of those who are discussing industries from within the walls. Whether you’re reading Emily Singer’s Chips and Dip, Magdalena Kala’s Retales, Richie Siegel’s Loose Threads, Jenny Gyllander’s Thing Testing, or Paul Munford’s Lean Luxe, the presence of operational experience is felt.

The Operator-First Publisher

So yes, Substack left out relevant history on their July 17th “A better history for news” blog. Of course they highlighted Ben Thompson and Jessica Lessin, luminaries of the indie paid subscription industry. But Substack may have missed another trend. Substack concludes their homage to publishing with:

One hundred and eighty-four years since the New York Sun first went on sale, we are standing on the cusp of a new revolution in the news business. The time for mourning the loss of the old media model is over. Now is the time to look ahead to the next two centuries.

The revolution itself is not new. But it is reaching new types of thinkers looking for a platform to move their industries forward. Will it make publishers rich? Maybe, maybe not. But publishing as a platform is altogether different than sending newsletters alone. Gyllander just completed a sizable angel round from many of Silicon Valley’s best and brightest. Her subscription-based approach is fresh, credible, and engaging. Siegel just successfully held a one-day retail conference that wouldn’t have existed without his Loose Threads newsletter. Munford fills Lean Luxe social events each time they are held. While not a paid-subscriber driven platform (for now), he’s successfully monetized through weekly sponsorships. And 2PM is launching its first members-only forum for commerce and media executives: Polymathic. Each company has tremendous opportunity ahead of them.

The era of the operator-first publisher is a fascinating one to observe. In some ways, it’s leveling an exclusive playing field within media tables. But at one table, in the backroom of Yotpo’s well-appointed venue, a group certainly stood out – literally and figuratively. We carried ourselves differently and we looked different. Non-traditional voices in business-adjacent media are positively impacting traditional media circles. And the hope is that those newsletter-turned-platforms continue to provide new ideas to the executive levels of established digital industries. 2PM is once again observing a quiet movement from within.

Read the No. 334 curation here.

Report by Web Smith and Edited by Tracey Wallace | About 2PM

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)