备忘录Solo Brands 的新颖战略

A once-obscure brand just outside of Dallas, Texas evolved into a generational model for how business is done, brands are built, and liquidity is achieved for stakeholders. Founded in 2010 and trading today at $DTC with a market cap that hovers around $500 million, Solo Brands has an exceptional story.

The maturing of Solo Brands is as a masterclass in strategic expansion and fiscal diligence. While many navigate the turbulent waters of the DTC marketplace, Solo Brands has set a gold standard, embodying a synergy of vision, cooperation, fiscal responsibility, and an understanding of its target customer. And they’ve just made their latest acquisition.

The company started as Solo Stove, a portable fire pit retailer, and evolved into a powerhouse of diverse outdoor brands. Their acquisition strategy stands testament to their understanding of who buys their products. By integrating brands such as IcyBreeze Cooling, they’ve not only augmented their product line but also enhanced the holistic experience for their consumers. The company’s genius in curating complementary and diverse offerings, and capturing the essence of outdoor adventures, is not novel. However, it is novel at the relatively early stage at which Solo Brands is operating. Thirteen years after its founding by brothers Spencer and Jeff Jan and bootstrapped since inception, the company has risen to a level that other brands can only dream of.

In 2016 it was still just my brother and me — no employees. We didn’t have an office;  we worked out of our homes. We used third-party fulfillment providers and other vendors for various tasks. We wanted a lifestyle business, one that offered a balance for careers and time to ourselves. By 2016 the company was growing beyond what we had envisioned. […] So in 2016 we started exploring a sale. But the response came back that the business wasn’t salable since we had no employees, staff, or systems. A buyer couldn’t step in and keep it growing. We spent the next three years building a company to sell. That was our focus. (Practical eCommerce)

What truly sets Solo Brands apart is its unwavering commitment to the consumer. More than just selling products, they invest in sincere market needs; it’s in the company’s DNA. By focusing on forging genuine consumer connections, they’ve successfully transformed one-time purchasers into loyal brand evangelists. The burgeoning popularity of products like IcyBreeze, revered by renowned events and global influencers, is a glowing endorsement of Solo’s dedication to quality and consumer satisfaction.

Financial acumen is the other separator for Solo Brands. Their alliance with Generational Equity is a testament to their vision and commitment to fiscal prudence. Operating with discretion and strategic foresight, Solo Brands ensures that every financial move, every acquisition, is a carefully choreographed step towards sustainable growth.

In today’s digital era, a brand’s reach determines its success. Solo Brands, in its pursuit of ubiquity, has crafted a multifaceted distribution model. This tapestry of eCommerce platforms, strategic wholesale partnerships, and physical storefronts ensures they’re omnipresent and catering to consumers across diverse touchpoints.

The power of synergy shines brightly in Solo’s approach to brand integration. Brands like Chubbies, Oru Kayak, and ISLE, while distinct in their offerings, coalesce seamlessly under the overarching vision of Solo Brands. This harmony ensures that while each brand retains its individuality, they collectively cater to the myriad facets of the adventurous lifestyle. That list of offerings recently grew by one, further cementing Solo as a destination for well-built, profitable, niche-drawn DTC brands:

IcyBreeze, based in Sweetwater, Texas, has carved a niche in manufacturing and direct-to-consumer distribution of personal air-conditioning and heat relief solutions. The pioneering firm said its products combine a portable AC’s efficiency with an insulated cooler’s convenience. (Dallas Innovates)

Leadership, they say, determines the fate of a venture. Solo Brands’ monumental success can be attributed to its leaders, both pre- and post-private equity majority ownership. At every stage, the company’s leader steered the ship with precision and passion while maintaining the venture’s original inspiration. Their astuteness in facilitating strategic collaborations, as evidenced in the partnership with IcyBreeze, showcases their expertise in harnessing collective strengths for shared success.

Innovation is a core tenet of Solo Brands. Their commitment to breaking new ground is evident in their association with pioneering products, be it Oru Kayak’s groundbreaking designs or IcyBreeze’s unique cooling solutions. This constant push for innovation ensures Solo remains not just relevant but a trendsetter in an ever-evolving marketplace.

Yet, even as Solo Brands continues its rise, another potential avenue beckons: shared financial services. Despite Solo’s public push for more and better retail spaces (see below), the company still purports to earn upwards of 70% of its volume through DTC channels.

Since consumers are seeking more in-person experiences, Dick’s Sporting Goods aims to utilize its physical presence and introduce a contextual commerce experience in its brick-and-mortar stores. The company intends to expand by introducing 20 new Dick’s House of Sport concept stores, which offer rock-climbing walls, batting cages, and putting greens to enhance the customer experience. (PYMNTS)

Such a unifying product as a shared financial service could revolutionize the consumer experience for most brands, but especially a savvy aggregator like Solo Brands. Imagine a Solo co-branded credit card or a consolidated loyalty program, offering incentives across all of Solo’s brands. This would not only elevate sales but further deepen brand loyalty. Such integration could provide unparalleled insights into consumer behavior, enabling Solo to tailor experiences, offers, and products with pinpoint accuracy. Furthermore, these shared services could enhance brand cohesion, reminding consumers of the interconnected ecosystem that Solo Brands offers, catering to every nuance of their outdoor lifestyle.

In the grand tapestry of DTC brands, Solo Brands stands tall, a luminous beacon of strategic prowess and fiscal wisdom. Their journey, replete with lessons on growth, diversification, and consumer engagement, is a playbook for brands across the globe. As the narrative of Solo Brands continues to unfold, their legacy serves as a testament to clear leadership, innovative strategy, and unwavering commitment to an underserved target consumer.

作者：Web Smith | 编辑：Hilary Milnes，美术：Alex Remy 和 Christina Williams

备忘录即将到来的流媒体内容短缺

The news of the recent cancellation of HBO’s sports drama “Winning Time” was met with palpable disappointment, and rightfully so. For me, it was jarring. A little bit of history, drama, and sports? That’s my happy place but even as a fan, I took it for granted. The series, which portrayed the rise and shine of the LA Lakers in their Showtime era of the 1980s, was a brilliant encapsulation of a period that reshaped professional basketball. Yet, just after two seasons, HBO decided to pull the plug. The questions that arise are why, and what if it had been on a different platform, say, Netflix?

A new Luminate x Variety report suggests that broadcast TV experiences the highest overall cancellation rate (26.6%) in comparison to streaming (12.2%) and cable (7.2%). But streaming’s worst culprit is worse than broadcast. Max cancels 26.9% of original programming, followed by Disney+ (21.1%), Paramount+ (16.9%), and Hulu (15.2%). However, Netflix stands at a modest 10.2%, while Apple TV claims the lowest cancellation rate for original programming at 4.9%. Given this scenario, where does the blame for content cancellation lie?

It’s a misconception that Netflix, with its massive library, has a trigger-happy approach to cancelling shows. On the contrary, the platform’s cancellation rate has consistently dropped between 2020 and 2023. Despite its enormous volume of content, it remains in line with most major streaming services in terms of cancellations. A vast portion of its 2020 cancellations were attributed to pandemic-related factors. If “Winning Time” had found a home on Netflix, it may very well have been met with a different fate. With HBO’s decline in traditional viewership and the ongoing writer and actor strikes causing hitches in promotions and content creation, the series was caught in an unfavorable storm. Netflix’s expansive reach and varied demographics could have offered “Winning Time” the viewership it deserved.

Netflix’s method of releasing content worldwide simultaneously allows for a larger, diverse audience to access shows at the same time, creating a global conversation. HBO’s limited promotional capabilities due to the strikes would not have been an issue for Netflix, which has mastered the art of promoting its originals even amidst external challenges. Moreover, HBO’s business model largely depends on traditional metrics of success. In contrast, Netflix, due to its subscription-based model, can afford to prioritize viewer retention over sheer numbers. For them, a show that cultivates a dedicated, albeit smaller, audience can still be deemed a success. Netflix values viewer engagement, ensuring content gets the breath of air it genuinely deserves.

Warner Bros. Discovery’s Max has been termed a “content butcher”, with its massive content purge last year drastically elevating its cancellation rate. Such an approach contrasts with Netflix’s strategy, which is more about curating content that resonates with different demographics rather than indiscriminate culling. Considering the relatively low cancellation rates for streaming platforms, especially Netflix and Apple, it’s evident that the narrative of streaming giants ruthlessly cancelling shows is misguided. Their focus on global audiences, engagement metrics, and viewer retention ensures that good content doesn’t go unnoticed.

The premature ending of “Winning Time” is emblematic of the broader shifts and misconceptions in the entertainment industry. While traditional networks grapple with content volume and promotion challenges, streaming platforms, especially Netflix, are emerging as sanctuaries where content can genuinely thrive. It’s high time we adjust our perceptions about content cancellations and recognize where the future of quality content truly lies.

The cancellation trends we are witnessing, particularly on streaming platforms like Max, foreshadow an impending content shortage across all streaming platforms. As these platforms, driven by immediate metrics of success (net subscription figures), continue to truncate promising series prematurely, they risk not only alienating dedicated viewers but also stymieing the growth of diverse content. When networks like Max give up on shows such as “Winning Time”, they’re not just ending a series, they’re halting creativity.

Such a content deficit will inevitably lead to a vicious cycle. As platforms fail to retain viewers with a lack of engaging and varied content, subscription numbers will dwindle for some platforms and/or shift towards a greater allegiance to Netflix. Declining viewership and subscription numbers, in turn, can result in reduced funds for content creation, leading to even fewer new series or movies. It’s this very spiral that threatens the survival of under-performing networks.

Furthermore, a content drought can have cascading effects on the larger entertainment industry. Production houses may become wary of investing in new and unique ideas, fearing premature cancellations. Talented writers, actors, and directors might find themselves entangled in projects that never see the light of day or are cut short prematurely, thereby stunting creative growth. In an era where content is king, any shortage or consistent termination of high-potentials series can severely undermine a platform’s value proposition. If unchecked, this trend might just turn streaming platforms into barren wastelands, characterized more by what they could have offered than what they do. In this high-stakes environment, it’s imperative for networks to reevaluate their content strategies, ensuring they nurture and not negate their most valuable asset: compelling narratives and the passionate followings that they collect.

Content, undoubtedly, is king in the realm of entertainment. However, even a king requires territories to establish dominion, and for content, visibility serves as these expansive lands. Without adequate visibility, even the most compelling narratives remain confined, their potential unrealized. Like a king without land, content without a proper platform and audience is devoid of its true worth and influence. For a tale to truly reign, it must be seen, heard, and celebrated. Without its rightful land of visibility, even the mightiest content cannot claim its deserved throne.

Long live Winning Time.

作者：Web Smith | 编辑：Hilary Milnes，美术：Alex Remy 和 Christina Williams 

品牌：下一个关注点（微塑料）

零售业的整个细分市场都在滴答作响。在不久的将来，由于公众情绪的变化和日益严峻的挑战，未能适应的运动休闲公司将处于不利地位。今日家纺》解释道：

一项针对 527 名美国成年人的定量在线调查发现，49% 的人熟悉 "微塑料 "一词，这些成年人最有可能将塑料袋（76%）和来自保健及美容产品的微珠（61%）视为微塑料污染的制造者。略高于半数（52%）的人知道聚酯等合成材料制成的衣服会对微塑料污染问题产生影响。(更多信息）

到 2028 年，严重依赖微塑料的零售品牌将面临反弹和认可度下降的问题。服装业因使用从石油中提取的塑料纤维而臭名昭著。大多数服装（包括瑜伽裤、夹克等）中约 70% 的材料都含有尼龙、聚酯纤维和类似的不可生物降解纺织品。目前，美国环境保护署指出，这些纺织品中只有约 15%得到回收利用。

随着环保意识的增强和立法压力的加大，品牌在维持以廉价、不可生物降解材料为基础的商业模式方面可能会遇到挑战。正如变革市场基金会的乔治-哈丁-罗尔斯（George Harding-Rolls）所强调的，严重依赖合成纤维的超快时尚品牌将首当其冲，如果通过立法限制这类材料的使用，它们的商业模式可能会被淘汰。危险材料杂志》（2021 年 2 月）的一篇有趣文章指出：

随后，我们估计全球平均每周人类可能通过各种接触途径摄入 0.1-5 克微塑料。

像 Reformation 这样的公司已经在铺平道路，他们制定了大胆的目标，尽量减少合成材料的使用。他们与 Kintra Fibers 等初创公司合作，探索从玉米中提取生物可降解聚酯等替代品。然而，如何扩大这些创新的规模，以满足当前对合成纤维的需求，将是一个巨大的挑战。

5 月中旬，Lululemon 对澳大利亚初创公司 Samsara Eco 进行了少数股权投资，此举是对服装行业不断变化的可持续服装理念的一个重要回应。这项为期多年的承诺标志着 Lululemon 首次涉足回收利用领域，展示了利用酶将旧纺织品回收利用为新纺织品的转变。Lululemon 希望通过这种酶解工艺，将损坏或废弃衣物中的废旧尼龙和聚酯转化为新系列的材料。

我认为，这只是在更大的伤口上贴了一张创可贴。时尚品牌的传统回收方法包括机械回收和化学方法。然而，这些方法都有其缺点，从依赖原始塑料来保持质量，到分解聚合物所需的高能量，不一而足。相比之下，Samsara Eco 公司采用的酶解方法可以在碳中和、低热的环境中有效分解塑料。由于这种创新方法能够有效回收利用现有塑料，因此有可能减少对新塑料生产的需求。

在时尚界努力应对对微塑料的依赖之际，这种方法的意义不言而喻。根据《Vogue》杂志最近的一篇文章，我们约有三分之二的服装是由聚酯、尼龙、腈纶和氨纶等合成材料制成的。这些从化石燃料中提炼出来的材料不仅会向环境中释放微塑料，而且需要几个世纪的时间才能降解。

因此，具有先进技术特性的有机纺织品的兴起将引领未来的新趋势。

业界从原生聚酯向再生聚酯过渡的方向是正确的，各大品牌承诺到 2025 年采用再生聚酯。然而，这种聚酯主要来自塑料瓶，使回收过程从闭环系统变为线性系统，基本上是将这些材料在时装中使用后直接送往垃圾填埋场。时尚产业，尤其是运动休闲产业，正处于一个十字路口。随着消费者越来越意识到服装选择对环境的影响，他们要求更多可持续发展和环保的选择。

合成纤维的使用量持续上升。但是，到 2028 年，该行业对含有微塑料的合成纺织品的严重依赖将不得不大幅减少，甚至消除，以确保以目前的形式生存下去。这时，具有先进技术特性的有机纺织品将占据主导地位，成为未来的新趋势。

微塑料困境

正如《洛杉矶时报》所概述的，"超细纤维 "这个曾经是多功能清洁产品的代名词，如今却成了环境的噩梦。这些超细纤维主要由涤纶和腈纶等合成材料组成，在洗涤过程中脱落后，会进入我们的海洋、河流和湖泊。微塑料无处不在，甚至在我们的食物链和水源中都被检测到，这引起了令人担忧的健康问题。慢性炎症、癌症和不孕不育只是这些微小颗粒侵入人体系统后的一些潜在风险。

如果考虑到微纤维一旦进入环境，就几乎无法挽回，那么问题的严重性就更大了。

解决方案的出现：酶技术

随着微塑料问题的日益严重，领先的时尚品牌和初创企业开始探索解决这一危机的创新方案。Lululemon 与 Samsara Eco 的合作标志着这一历程的关键时刻。在这里，有机纺织品与技术的结合有望带来变革性的解决方案。

Lululemon 承诺使用 Samsara Eco 的酶驱动技术，这不仅体现了向循环时尚的转变，还强调了行业内对可持续解决方案日益增长的需求。这项技术可以有效地将使用过的尼龙和聚酯混合物分解成与新时装系列相匹配的形式。由于服装材料中令人震惊的 70% 都含有合成的石油衍生纤维，因此这种举措不仅值得称赞，而且势在必行。

为什么选择酶法解决方案？ 机械回收等传统方法在使用寿命和效率方面存在局限性。它们还需要添加原始塑料，进一步加剧了微塑料问题。而化学方法则需要消耗大量能源。然而，酵素解决方案却能改变游戏规则。据 Samsara Eco 公司的保罗-莱利（Paul Riley）介绍，这种技术需要的热量较少，能有效分解塑料，使其与原生质量材料一样好。随之而来的碳足迹减少也是一大优势。

这种进步并非孤立存在。亚马逊（Amazon）、卡夫亨氏（KraftHeinz）和巴塔哥尼亚（Patagonia）等全球巨头与研究机构的合作正在快速推动这些基于酶的解决方案的开发。值得注意的是，京都技术研究所（Kyoto Institute of Technology）发现的堺Ideonella sakaiensis 201-F6细菌证明了正在取得的重大进展。

未来之路

像 Carbios 和 Protein Evolution 这样的初创企业与著名时尚品牌合作，将重新定义时尚的未来。通过倡导酶回收利用，它们证明了时尚产业确实可以与环境共生。

然而，尽管未来前景广阔，但过渡不会一蹴而就。它需要时间、投资和包括消费者在内的所有利益相关者的共同努力。正如《洛杉矶时报》的报道所指出的，拟议中的洗衣机设计变更包含了捕捉微纤维的过滤器，这展示了所需的整体方法。

随着消费者倡导更加环保、注重健康和可持续发展的时尚理念，时装业转向以有机纺织品为基础、辅以尖端技术的做法将不仅仅是一种趋势，而是一种必然。正在进行的合作、技术进步和投资凸显了时装业充满希望和可持续发展的未来。虽然酶法回收有望减少纺织品废弃物，但更广泛的时尚产业必须正视对微塑料的依赖。到 2028 年，一场巨变即将来临，重点应放在创新、可持续替代品和解决生产过剩的根本问题上。

在快速演变的市场环境中，不适应环境的零售品牌可能会被边缘化。

作者：Web Smith | 编辑：Hilary Milnes，美术：Alex Remy 和 Christina Williams