Memo: Planet of the Apes

We are living in a brave new world, a planet of the apes.

This week, decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) took another step into the mainstream with the airdrop of Bored Ape Yacht Club-licensed ApeCoins to BAYC’s existing community of crypto-wealthy ape owners. Andreessen Horowitz was heavily involved in this DAO, accruing nearly 14% of the available coins along with Animoca. The DAO drop follows Bored Ape parent Yuga Labs’ recently-announced $450 million round led by Andreessen Horowitz, according to the Financial Times:

The four founders of Yuga — until recently known only by their online pseudonyms such as Gargamel and Emperor Tomato Ketchup — were allocated 8 per cent. A group of “launch partners”, including Andreessen and Hong Kong-based NFT and crypto investor Animoca Brands, were together given a 14 per cent allocation, in exchange for helping prepare for the issuance.

This isn’t A16Z’s first rodeo. In December 2021, it was announced that Andreessen Horowitz made an investment into PleasrDAO, a blockchain-aligned group of crypto investors who partnered to acquire high-priced NFTs to fractionalize. One was the $4 million purchase of the Doge image, sold as 17 billion pieces that once amassed an implied market cap of $100 million. Just three years ago, the idea of this was unfathomable. The deal was highly visible to the crypto power users.

But unlike the intent behind many DAOs, ApeCoin ownership does not give you a governance interest in Yuga Labs, A16Z’s recent investment. Casey Newton explained:

ApeCoin DAO is not Yuga Labs, its PR firm took pains to explain to me in a press release Thursday. (This information was highlighted for me in a section of the release that was outlined in a box and headlined “Important facts.”) Rather: Yuga Labs gifted ApeCoin DAO a one-of-one NFT featuring a blue version of the Bored Ape Yacht Club logo. This NFT conveys along with it all rights and privileges of the logo’s intellectual property to the ApeCoin DAO. The ApeCoin DAO will decide how the IP is used.

This may not always be so easy to do from a regulations perspective. This week, I sat with an official at the Securities and Exchange Commission; she and I riffed on the next generation of securitization. I began researching the Howey Test in the context of the increasing popularity of DAOs. According to the Howey Test, a transaction is only an investment contract if:

  • An investment that requires money
  • There is an expected profit associated with the investment
  • The investment is a common enterprise
  • Profit comes by way of the third-party or promoter’s efforts

Oh yes, the SEC will certainly regulate investments like these. It was easy to see that most web3 consumers are unaware of what they are purchasing. In a recent academic paper published in the Boston University Law Review, it explains the potential for market failure due to information asymmetry or “the lack of understanding about what investors are buying.” It goes on to suggest that:

The relatively high perceived value of the interests in non-cash-flow monetizations suggests that some investors, possibly influenced by the recent history of rapidly rising prices, are looking to resale value.

Casey Newton’s recent essay mirrors this concern with respect to information asymmetry:

My guess is that it falls into the category of “legal for now,” a time-tested way for Silicon Valley startups to make money. But perhaps the Securities and Exchange Commission will have other ideas.

Regardless of the web iteration we’re operating in, consumer startups live and die by how well they live up to the promises they’ve made. It’s typical for investors to help founders fulfill those promises. In some cases, they can end up getting in between the vision of the founders and the reality for consumers.

The original direct-to-consumer retail boom was fueled by the same funds interested in Web3 today. In the worst case scenarios, failed startup autopsies reported stories of pressures to maximize investor interest, potentially clouding product decisions and roadmaps. They became cautionary tales. Web3 businesses are now pooling money from investors who view it as the next big opportunity. In The New Class System, 2PM laid out this opportunity in relation to how much time is now spent in online spaces:

Density precedes agglomeration, which influences consumer behaviors. Agglomeration economies are the benefits that come when firms and people locate near one another together in cities and industrial clusters. In short, agglomeration, once a physical phenomena, has digitized.

Consider the year-over-year growth in use for services like Slack, Microsoft Teams, Zoom, Instacart, Amazon, or Jokr. Consider the distance learning boom, the shift to home school, and the rising American ideal of remote work. And if you’re the type that is intensely into the internet, notice what seems like a sudden Web3 boom: NFTs, DAOs, and the normalization of cryptocurrencies as stores of value. We do more on the internet than ever before.

As early Web3 startups grow, how they handle the demands of their investors with the wants of their end users will play a role in shaping the future of Web3. I’d argue that the launch of ApeCoin is an example.

Understanding the Power of DAO

Bored Ape Yacht Club (BAYC) and its owner Yuga Labs is now the most powerful player – and among the most recognizable – in the Web3 space. Their decisions set the groundwork for others. The token associated with BAYC can be used to buy virtual goods and land in the Yuga Labs’ metaverse, according to the company. But the ApeCoin DAO is being held at arms’ length by Yuga Labs.

So far, ApeCoin DAO has decided to use the IP to reward all of Yuga Labs’ earliest backers. On Thursday, just a few days before today’s announcement, the DAO gifted a healthy chunk of the 1 billion total ApeCoin tokens to Yuga Labs, Yuga Labs’ founders, and the VCs who backed the project. Bored Apes owners got tokens as well. The coins hit a high of $40 per coin on trading markets before settling down to $12.20 today. At that price, VCs’ tokens are worth around $1.7 billion — far more than they have invested in the project to date. And that’s in addition to their equity stake.

DAOs are core to Web3’s promised land in that they are meant to decentralize control: they put the power in the hands of a community, which can mean everyday customers, fans and loyalists have the opportunity to buy into an organization they care about. With their tokens, they receive voting rights and other privileges that separate Web3 companies from Web2, in which only goods and services can be bought. In Web3, tokens are traded for control – or at least, a piece of it. With the majority of ApeCoin’s allotted tokens going to Yuga Lab’s major investors, can it still be considered decentralized?

ApeCoin risks diminishing the trust of its community by leaning into pleasing its investors and conventionally wealthy NFT owners. But there’s the potential of a favorable outcome for ApeCoin holders. By giving investors a return on investment long before the typical investment horizon, Yuga could be freed up to prioritize the consumer and the promises it made to its community. People will be watching. Whatever Yuga Labs does next will shape Web3’s next steps and, more than likely, the Security Exchange Commission’s.

Decentralized organizations were a key tenant of the Web3 promise. It may require one of our nation’s centralized organizations to determine which was the dominant species: the intelligent apes or regulators. The outcome may mean fewer airdrops for preferred guests, friends, family, and venture capitalists.

Memo: Instant Needs Industry

Whether we are post-pandemic or not, some behaviors are beginning to return to the way things were. Of them, quick delivery grocery appears to be one of the pandemic practices that may not reach the zenith that was once predicted. And now, the fall out. On the heels of a recent report by the New York Post, Petition published a deep dive on a struggling sector. From the NY Post:

Investors in Gopuff — a Philly-based delivery service that’s backed by Softbank — were eyeing a valuation of up to $40 billion in January as the company enlisted Goldman Sachs to help prepare for an IPO. But investors have lately been scrambling to unload their stakes at valuations as low as $15 billion — and have still been unable to find buyers, The Post has learned.

Petition places GoPuff in the same category as the 15 minute competitors that are competing in a crowded market. In addition to GoPuff, Petition rattles off Getir, Jokr, Gorillas, Just Eat, Fridge No More, Buyk and Food Rocket in the lengthy list of upstarts wanting to compete alongside DoorDash, Uber Eats and GrubHub.

The category has seen massive growth padded by venture funding, but the smoke is starting to clear, and market capitalizations have plunged as investors look to cut their losses. The problem, at its core, is that grocery retail is an industry built atop of stubborn customer habits – people fall back to their old ways, especially when prices rise. But larger competitors are not faring much better. Instacart has been marked down and Amazon has yet to find profitability in grocery delivery, according to sources. If Amazon can’t figure it out, it’s bad news for the VC-backed category. Petition sees the entire category “going puff.” Investors are turning their backs, legislative forces are cracking down, and customers may be realizing that hefty delivery fees and tips aren’t worth paying for in exchange for quick service.

Petition’s insights are rarely wrong. But as we discussed in Consumer Trends 2022, there is potential for GoPuff to separate itself from the likes of Gorillas, UberEats, DoorDash, Getir, and Jokr. The quick delivery service recently launched its own private label and has begun the process of verticalizing its business (with one critical fault that may hinder margins for the foreseeable future). In Consumer Trends, we explained:

सूची में सबसे उल्लेखनीय है गोपफ, जिसने अल्ट्रा-फास्ट डिलीवरी पर आधारित व्यवसाय का निर्माण करने के बाद अपने कुछ माइक्रो-पूर्ति स्थलों को ग्राहक आउटलेट में बदल दिया है। रॉयटर्स द्वारा रिपोर्ट किए जाने के बाद गोपफ के इस साल आईपीओ की उम्मीद है, इसने लगभग 15 बिलियन डॉलर के मूल्यांकन के साथ सार्वजनिक होने में मदद के लिए बैंकों को काम पर रखा है। भौतिक स्थान ग्राहकों को डिलीवरी पॉइंट तक लाकर गोपफ को और भी तेज़ बना सकते हैं, जिससे कर्मचारियों को ग्राहकों के घर तक सामान पहुंचाने में लगने वाला समय कम हो सकता है। स्टोर सामान्य सुविधा स्टोर नहीं हैं, बल्कि ऑर्डर हब हैं, जहाँ ग्राहक डिजिटल कियोस्क का उपयोग करके ऑर्डर देते हैं जो फिर गोदाम से पूरे किए जाते हैं। इस ओमनीचैनल रणनीति को सुविधाजनक बनाने के लिए, गोपफ ने जमीन हड़पने में कंपनियों का अधिग्रहण किया

This is a timely separator between GoPuff and the other brands that rely on the storefronts of convenience stores and small retailers. To further circumvent any potential legislation, GoPuff will have to further invest in its physical real estate. This is a recent point on regulatory scrutiny made in a recent report by Vice:

Ultrafast delivery companies like Gorillas, Jokr, and GoPuff are facing increasing government scrutiny at the same time as profits for their services are failing to materialize. The Information reported Jokr is looking to sell its New York operations to a competitor in the face of losses of some $150 per order, which Jokr denies. And GoPuff, in an attempt to prove its storefronts are not warehouses and avoid regulatory scrutiny, have claimed its New York locations will also sell directly to walk-in customers, although the New York Post found even such “retail” locations are unmanned and have no prices listed on items.

GoPuff wants to be less reliant on third-party vendors by using its warehouses like retail stores, but it will likely find that operating retail stores is by no means an easy fix to future-proofing its business in an unstable market for pureplay delivery services. By layering delivery on top of the stores, GoPuff wants to do both. But does that really put it in a position to compete with the likes of Amazon? Or by splitting its attention, is GoPuff undermining both sides of its business without successfully pulling in customers to its stores? As Seeking Alpha reported:

The goal is to make GoPuff more like Amazon than like Uber. That was the elevator pitch captured in a recent Axios profile, with vertical integration that hasn’t even occurred to its competitors. Whereas the aforementioned companies rely on someone else to provide the goods, Gopuff has almost 600 micro-fulfillment centers, up from 380 in 2020, filled with the staples of daily life. Cutting out the third-party vendor, Gopuff ships directly to its customers who are saved a trip to 7-11 or the corner grocery store.

So what we are beginning to see is that the service side of the quick delivery business may not make it with a solid vertical operation attached. As Amazon has learned, this gives the advantage to the grocery retailers whose foundations are built atop physical retail penetration.

Whether it is for margin protection or product availability (after publishing Consumer Trends 2022, it was noted that GoPuff sources some products through Instacart to maintain stock), big grocery’s eCommerce pioneers will be the traditional companies who’ve built the technology atop their existing storefronts. This mirrors the world’s of GPG and digitally native brands. Though eCommerce began as a digitally-native sport, its accelerated adoption means that the old guard is employing many of the tactics pioneered by modern brands. In this respect, the grocery industry is no different.

Petition was correct in a number of its statements. The funding and the IPO markets for such services seems to be drying up for now. But if there is one exception to the quick delivery rule – it may end up being GoPuff. They are steps ahead of impending legislation in New York, its biggest market. But in the longer term, they will have to contend with the same reality that Instacart and others are now contending with – the advantage goes to the delivery company with the inventory on hand. Refer to the graph above. True digitally native vertical brands don’t always begin online. In grocery, it appears quite the opposite.

वेब स्मिथ द्वारा | हिलेरी मिल्नेस द्वारा संपादित, क्रिस्टीना विलियम्स द्वारा कला 

Memo: Apple and Performance Marketing

Though founded in the 1960s, Walmart came into its own as a “mom and pop” store killer by the late 1970s. Overnight, independently-owned stores folded as Walmart sold products with greater efficiency and lower prices. Product marketers worked tirelessly to place their products on Walmart shelves. Sixty years later, the company’s grasp over physical retail remains.

We will remember the Apple iOS privacy changes as a similarly transformative moment for retailers. Like then, it is beginning to separate the haves from the have-nots.

For a small, small selection of brands, performance marketing is not essential. This essay is about two of those companies and everyone else who seems to be playing a different game all together.

Two digitally-native brands are in the press for their growth; their founders are two of the most visible human beings on the planet. First, Robyn “Rihanna” Fenty is floating a $3 billion IPO for her brand Savage x Fenty.

Savage x Fenty was launched in 2018 and has since collected a healthy stash of venture capital to support its growth. The brand has raised $310 million to date. Most recently, it raised $125 million in January in a round led by Neuberger Berman and other existing investors L Catterton (LVMH’s investment arm), Avenir, Sunley House Capital and Marcy Venture Partners. Positioning itself as an anti-Victoria’s Secret by embracing all body types, genders and customers who have felt excluded by the mainstream lingerie giant, Savage x Fenty has become a formidable industry force. Owned by TechStyle Fashion Group, the brand built up hype around its eCommerce store with annual fashion shows airing on Amazon Prime. Last year, Savage made moves into physical retail, with five stores now open and plans to hit 10 this year. Though IPO plans are not confirmed, as reported by Bloomberg, they’re on the table for 2023.

Meanwhile, Kim Kardashian is expanding the Skims brand to include swimwear. In a recent report in Business of Fashion, she and co-founder Jens Grede (also behind brands including Frame and Good American) eschew performance marketing for a brand like hers:

Skims’ brand work, plus Kardashian’s promotion on social media, have made performance marketing all but unnecessary.

“[Performance marketing] would be very ineffective for us because we’re always running out of stock,” Grede said. Besides, he doesn’t believe it suits Skim’s long-term goals.

Instead, the report says, Skims spends on “brand-building” marketing efforts that include billboards, high-profile photographers and Kardashian tagging the brand in her own Instagram posts. Skims is on track to add 2 million customers by the end of this year, and it’s biggest restraint is fulfilling orders and keeping items in stock as supply chain disruptions drag on. It’s a problem and a curse, but overall, the brand’s in a healthier position than other DTC brands that are now trying to grow outside of paid marketing.

But most brands do not have the visibility or influence of a Kardashian on their cap tables. That leaves two options for many: partner with a celebrity that reduces the cost of marketing and improves cash conversion cycles or build systems to reevaluate how the brand measures marketing conversions.

A recent report by Catherine Perloff of AdWeek covered the strategies employed by Ben-Zvi, an agency-based performance marketer with brands like e.l.f. Cosmetics, Etsy, and Revlon. The report explained how he built strategies around third-party tools (and his agency’s proprietary technology) to identify correlations between active campaigns and conversion outcomes.

Before identifier deprecation, measuring a campaign’s effectiveness depended a lot on statistics from Meta, said Ben-Zvi, who works with brands such as e.l.f. Cosmetics, Etsy and Revlon. “It was all about figuring out what is the proper attribution window based on what Facebook is telling me,” he said.

Now Ben-Zvi relies on various tools, including looking for correlations between when a campaign was active and certain conversion outcomes, leveraging his agency’s proprietary technology. For example, when the campaign was active, did the advertiser see a lift in direct sales on its website or an increase in branded search via Google? Ben-Zvi said he has also looked to third-party tech, such as Blackcrow.ai, which helps brands build their own audiences to target without Meta.

Another strategy mentioned in this AdWeek report was the collection of first-party data:

Ashley Karim-Kincey, vp of media at creative agency Dagger, said she uses tech such as floodlight tags on the brand’s website to track who has visited and double-click tracking tags within their ads to cross-reference the data, both of which are Google ad-tech products.

In a series of essays devoted to the likelihood of this type of disruption, in April 2021 we highlighted the utility of first-party data as iOS changes were due to disrupt the performance marketing industry. From On First Party Data and Media:

First-party data will define the next wave of advertising and sales. American businesses are now in a race: They’ll build, acquire, or market to the audiences that have it. The independent media industry is quick to discuss outcomes but rarely do we dissect the early steps. As more pursue first-party data, audience development will become one of the most coveted skills on the market.

To acquire targeted customers, first-party audiences are replacing third-party collections.

In our follow up on content fortresses, I continued:

First-party data was well on its way to becoming the key asset for advertisers; Apple’s decision further moved advertisers to prioritize its collection, refinement, and monetization. Apple will eventually eliminate data sharing across vendors, a long-time complaint of many of its users. In doing so, walled gardens will take the place of the open web funded by this data practice. Media companies and commerce companies will become indistinguishable, in many ways. The law of linear commerce is no longer just about brands and their content strategies or publishers and their eCommerce development.

But how did we get here? Wayne Ma of The Information published an inside look into Apple’s decision to “blow up the digital ads business.” Apple’s pivot to privacy has had serious implications for Meta, Facebook’s parent company, which “ expects the changes to shave $10 billion off its revenues this year because of their impact on the company’s prodigious data collection practices,” according to Ma.

But in interviews with The Information, people with direct knowledge of Apple’s privacy deliberations stressed that Meta wasn’t the primary target of the company’s changes, despite a long history of thinly veiled rhetoric from Cook viewed as critical of the company’s practices. Instead, Apple was going after the most egregious forms of abuse—for example, weather apps that sold data about users’ locations to brokers, the people say.

Apple is now trying to close the “Pandora’s box” it opened with its data sharing that was upholding entire surveillance and advertising industries. While one is more nefarious than the other, they are inextricably linked. And performance marketing is in the crosshairs of the crackdown. Already, marketers have become aware that over-reliance on Facebook and Instagram ads spelled bad business. But weaning off of the platforms has gained a new urgency thanks to Apple’s decision. With it, Meta has learned its own lesson in reliance on outside businesses. And while Apple’s driving motivation is eliminating bad actors who abuse its user data, something else is true at the same time: it no longer serves Apple to prop up Meta and other platforms’ ad businesses. Google is now following Apple and will introduce similar privacy changes for Android. Brands that relied on performance marketing are now at a disadvantage in a way that the Skim’s and Fenty’s of the world are not.

So here we are, two worlds represented within the same category of brands. One is highly dependent on the advertising methods of the last decade or so and the other seems to scoff at them as if they were never necessary. Skims’ Grede told Alexandra Mondalek of BOF:

You cannot advertise your way to success. Advertising is certainly important as a part of it, but sales-driven marketing has never built brands.

Meanwhile, a founder of a venture-funded brand that, itself, is nearing a potential IPO chimed in on the report published by The Information:

What this [The Information] article doesn’t do is analyze the downstream implications for DTC brands and small businesses, which have been catastrophic.

It is unlikely that Apple reverses course on its ATT changes and its diminishing of the IDFA but an entire industry is in need of a middle ground. For many founders and executives, their livelihoods are on the line and it isn’t Facebook that will be remembered as the culprit. Apple must either resolve its decision in favor of the advertisers reliant on sales-driven marketing. Or the company needs to partner with major social media platforms and media companies to offer its own advertising network (fueled by Apple’s first-party data, coincidentally). In either situation, Apple will face pushback for hypocrisy. But the digitally-native brand industry, as it stands, may not survive the privacy changes attributed to Apple. That is unless, a global icon is on the brand’s founding team.

There’s never been a greater disparity between the haves and the have nots for brands growing in the age of Apple’s privacy power moves.

वेब स्मिथ द्वारा | हिलेरी मिल्नेस द्वारा संपादित, एलेक्स रेमी और क्रिस्टीना विलियम्स द्वारा कला