No. 317: The DTC Playbook is a Trap

dtcplaybooktrap.jpg

Harry’s delivered a sizable outcome in their recent $1.37 billion exit. The men’s grooming company should be viewed as somewhat of a wake up call to DNVB leaders. Yes, Harry’s sold a simple product but it also disrupted the DTC playbook on its way to an exit. The company wrote and followed its own playbook, why don’t more digital-natives do the same? It has been reported that just 20% of Harry’s sales volume came by way of direct to consumer revenue. Everything about Harry’s ascension opposed the presumed operating instructions of the DTC era.

Yes, Target and J. Crew accounted for nearly 80% of Harry’s overall sales. But that isn’t only what sets Harry’s apart from the tendencies of other digital-natives. By all reports, Harry’s is a well-run business: the logistics operation is flawless, the company is reportedly profitable, and they’ve essentially retooled manufacturing for the demands of the DTC era. Simply put, Andy Katz-Mayfield and Jeff Raider have been extraordinary leaders.

Harry’s accomplished a great deal in six years. The razor manufacturer was an early omni-channel pioneer: partnerships with Target and J. Crew were pivotal in their ensuing mainstream success. Collaborations with digital publishers like Uncrate reminded consumers that Harry’s was an elevated brand, something more than their competitors. Harry’s was one of the first to launch pop-up activations. Each of these decisions countered conventional wisdom at the time.

From a 2014 interview with CNBC: Warby Parker takes on Gillette

Raider and Katz-Mayfield believe the key to Harry’s growth lies in this vertical integration, or what they like to call v-commerce. Simply put, the company now owns the entire process—from R&D to manufacturing to selling direct to the consumer. “It creates this virtuous cycle that makes for really happy customers, and then they become our best advocates,” says Katz-Mayfield.

When Harry’s acquired their manufacturing partner, the company became one of the few truly vertical brands of the DTC era. This was also antithetical. But, it allowed them to iterate their core product quicker and streamline product iteration for their sourced products like skincare, soaps, and shaving additives. The result was a Target aisle that began to reflect that Harry’s was more than a product brand, they were a category leader. In this way, Harry’s began challenging Gillette in an asymmetrical fashion by becoming one of the first true DTC category brands. By designing appealing products in other product verticals, Harry’s gained an advantage. This leverage helped them to amass over 2.4% of the entire razor market. In short, Harry’s wasn’t just great at marketing and design – they disrupted their industry.

I’m bearish. It’s hard, only the disruptors will survive.

Anonymous Founder

Skepticism of the direct to consumer era of online retail isn’t new. General Partner of Great Oaks Ventures, Henry McNamara recently tweeted:

Henry McNamara on Twitter

DNVBs Valued @ $1B+ & Funding 👓Warby $1.75B- $290M raised (6x) 👟Allbirds $1.4B- $77M raised (18x) 🪒Harry’s $1.37B- $461M raised (3x)* 💄Glossier $1.2B- $187M raised (6.5x) 🛏️Casper $1.1B- $339M raised (3.5x) 🪒Dollar Shave $1B- $163M raised (6x)* 🧔Hims $1B- $197M raised (5x)

He later corrected his figure on Harry’s ($375 million in equity sold) but the point stands. Is investing in digital-natives worth it? Yes. But only if the brand is capable of disrupting prior growth tactics and brand positioning. Dollar Shave Club and Harry’s represent two of the most notable exits of the DTC era, both found ways to acquire customers and sell a growing catalogue of products to them. Both were valued between 4-6x the capital raised. These companies found innovative ways to market, distribute, and grow. In turn, they innovated their way to earned market share, at the expense of incumbents and other challengers.

THE DTC PLAYBOOK IS A TRAP

It goes without saying that I’m bearish on DNVBs as a whole. As a whole, the industry tends to rely upon left-brain operators with systems and definite plans. But, I’m bullish on the challenger brands who’ve figured out that winning is often a result of rewriting the playbook. For the brands looking to grow to (efficient) critical mass or even an exit, the DTC playbook is a trap. The journey from zero to one is not one backed by b-school theory. Brands won’t be able to project tomorrow’s viability by analyzing yesterday’s LTV:CAC ratio, alone. But DNVB growth isn’t an art, either. Digital-natives will have to be more than beautiful design and savvy copywriting. The proverbial DTC playbook must be rewritten each time. If the DTC playbook were to be written, it could be boiled down to this:

There is no playbook. DNVB growth must be a malleable and agile operation. Brands must find opportunities where there were none. They must seek to do what hasn’t yet been done.

So yes, I am bearish on many of today’s DNVBs. Brands are merely following the paths of the brands before them and I believe that it hinders more than helps. Their paths to their early-stage milestones are often unproven anecdotes written by investors who’ve likely never sold a physical product.

In a recent thread by Ryan Caldbeck on this same topic, the founder and CEO of Circle Up expressed his similar skepticisms with the following points:

    • I’m not that convinced that DTC is going to kill a lot of incumbents. If we look at share loss for Pepsi, Unilever, etc- much of that is not DTC, it is products/brands that meet unique needs of today’s fragmenting consumers.
    • I’m deeply skeptical that the DTC startups have nailed online marketing. Almost all of them are burning cash at levels unprecedented in CPG (most of $ for marketing). Does that mean they are good at marketing, or just that they have convinced venture capitalist to to give them money?
    • A question might be: can they sustain the innovation? I haven’t seen a lot of startups come out with more than a small handful of products. Most of the DTC companies are not using DTC for what I think it’s great at – which is iterating on product development.

YOU SHOULD BE BEARISH

In a recent Member Brief, I wrote on the asymmetrical warfare that Caldbeck summarizes so eloquently, “A dynamic brand enables more than product success, it enables category success. As brands known for one thing enter the categories of other competitors, the companies with the most brand equity and marketing sophistication seem to be best positioned to make the leap from product company to category brand.”[1] But brand equity is just one component; Harry’s operational superiority and omnichannel sophistication has been on display over its six years as an independent company. It should be a message to younger companies that achieving an exit will take more than a beautifully-crafted facade that hides operational chaos (as is often the case).

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.

Rather than determining speculative best practices with few data points, DNVBs should review the small number of successes from the DTC era. There have been but a few unicorns minted and even fewer exits earned. Those that do exit are often quiet, EBITDA-driven brands that represent “scalable profit.”  Great examples of this are Schmidt’s Naturals or Native Deodorant. These retailers earned a place atop the market by responding to forces, maintaining agility, promoting executive autonomy, and thinking a few steps ahead of the curve. That should be the only guidance that earlier-stage founders need.

Read the No. 317 curation here.

By Web Smith | About 2PM

Editor’s Note: Edgewell backed out of the Harry’s acquisition in February 2020, some eight months after breaking the news.

 

No. 316: The Rise of “O2O”

In a recent report in the Minnesota Star-Tribune, Jackie Crosby details Target’s latest plan with their recently rebranded media company – Roundel.

Target Corp. does more than just sell merchandise to shoppers. Since 2016, it also has operated a separate, in-house media company that creates digital advertising for a host of major brands and businesses, not all of whom sell products at Target stores.

According to the recently-named president of Roundel, Kristi Argyilan believes that the in-house agency “represents a different way of thinking.” Target serves as a bridge between its customers and nearly 1,000 business partners in a novel way: “We infuse math — the insights and analytics that make our media company successful, with magic — the great, guest-focused design and shopping experiences that differentiate Target.” Roundel develops ad campaigns for Target.com and about 150 digital platforms like Pinterest and Instagram.

Facebook’s foray into Instagram eCommerce was more defensive than analysts have so-far remarked.

The Star-Tribune report noted that the retailer isn’t the only company reconsidering the strength of an in-house media business. Walmart debuted an overhaul to Walmart Media Group in recent months. In addition, Amazon generated $10 billion in advertising in 2018 per the report. With Target, the report indicated, a new advertising identity would show to potential new clients that offerings extend beyond Target.com display ads. For Roundel – data and advertising design aren’t the differentiators, the physical stores are. The agency’s hope is to pioneer the analytics to correctly determine online-to-offline sales efficacy.

Target gets you every time

Most of us underestimate the potential at the intersection of performance marketing and physical retailers like Target. Outside of Foursquare’s private data, there isn’t yet a sufficient means of quantifying the marketing influence that the internet has on the traditional DTC-era consumer who also shops in physical environments. I’ll try to explain with my recent, one-off anecdote.

On a recent visit to Target, I was searching for place mats when I walked past the Quip display along the main corridor. On a mission to spend no more than $30, I felt pulled to the display like a tractor beam. Without the physical display, a Quip purchase would have remained a long-term “maybe.” As such, I disregarded my $30 commitment and picked up a Quip box. But this funnel began long before that walk past the display of battery-powered toothbrushes.

Observations:

  • Awareness of the product: I’d read about it in tech media and retail publications (top funnel), I’d seen the product in searches (middle funnel), and I’ve passively noticed a few retargeting advertisements over the past several months. None of this visibility moved me closer to the sale.
  • The packaging design: structurally unique when compared to the incumbent brands like Oral-B, Philips Sonicare. The box, itself, was taller. Target stockists have no choice but to place the product on the top shelf – prioritizing the Quip over the likes of traditional devices.
  • Branding: The colors popped and the design was superior, because the incumbent devices all possessed some variation of blue and white packaging.
  • Value: The price was 30-60% cheaper than the conventional, powered toothbrush.

Familiarity, appeal, and price were factors in my decision to purchase. But Target isn’t the only retailer that is competing to develop an O2O-capable, in-house media business. Walmart has overhauled its team – with the anticipation of a long period of growth. And Amazon generated $10 billion in advertising in 2018. Display advertising through Target, Walmart, and Amazon has been used to offset the rising costs of traditional advertising services like Facebook and Google. We expect this to grow. Digiday+ recently surveyed 71 media buying executives in March 2019. Nearly 80% anticipated increased spend on Amazon.com, 20% of the executives were planning to spend more on Walmart.com, and 14% were scheduled to spend more on Target.com through their reinvented advertising house.

Web Smith on Twitter

Target is a retail marvel, you walk in for one $20 item and you leave $140 poorer. There isn’t a brick and mortar retailer that is better for certain DTCs. It’s the ultimate retargeting ad.

Fostering DTC brand relationships has been a strategic advantage for the Minnesota retailer; no marketplace retailer has more of them. There are few companies with DTC recruitment initiatives to match Target’s recent partnership speed. The retailer selects rising brands, markets them with prime real estate, and presents great products within an environment known for soliciting impulsive purchases. Even so, the largest DTC brands have taken the digital-to-physical sales funnel into their own hands.

The online-to-offline Sales Funnel

In No. 272: A Path Forward, I discussed the positives of DTC brands operating within existing retail developments, improved sales potential, foot traffic KPIs, and the decline of Tier B and C malls.

There are 1,100+ malls in America and approximately 320 are graded Tier A. We have an oversupply of malls but that does not mean that traditional, anchored shopping centers no longer have a place in modern consumerism. Tier A malls have yet to see their best years. We expect their footfall traffic KPIs to grow, while B and C tiered malls continue a drift toward repurposed real estate.

O2O or “online-to-offline” commerce is a strategy that develops consumer affinity through digital channels and then brings consumers into physical settings to purchase in-store. The brand treats online and offline channels as complimentary offerings. The advantage of this model is three-fold: these retailers can assess consumer behaviors, share payment information between online and offline channels, and targeted consumers can be served at the top of the digital funnel for eventual offline purchase (or vice versa). Facebook’s foray into Instagram eCommerce was more defensive than analysts have so-far remarked.

We compiled a list of 14 brands that have publicly reported revenues in the Top 1000 and one retailer who has yet to publicly report revenue. The following DTC brands have almost exclusively avoided marketplace wholesale deals in exchange for focusing on direct sales through physical locations.

[table id=43 /]

Whether through advertising agencies like Roundel or through their own channels, these brands have benefited from a growing means of commerce: online-to-offline. With the exception of Casper, which is partially owned by Target, these top digital natives have insourced all brick and mortar sales to their direct channels. As the ability to attribute sales improves, we anticipate an increased use of O2O for customer acquisition. For performance marketers who are judged by conversion rates and return on ad spend (ROAS), O2O is a welcomed opportunity to develop new methodologies for sales attribution and new advertising models to increase targeted foot traffic for retailers straddling the digital and the physical.

Read the latest curation here.

Report by Web Smith | About 2PM

No. 315: The Digitally Natives

Native

Aggregation defined an era. The aggregation throughout media, retail, and service platforms determined the economic viability of many in the vendor-class throughout the modern digital economy. Uber began as a luxury black car service. Spotify streamed music. Youtube published silly videos. Amazon began by selling books. And Netflix rented films by DVD. Imagine a world without these companies as aggregators. Companies grew market share by adding products and services, rendering their analog competitors incapable.  Like the inevitability of westward expansion, the aggregation theory continues to move certain platforms towards critical mass.

The theory is akin to the digital version of Manifest Destiny. For a time – platforms maintained an advantage, much like physical retailers possessed an early advantage over e-tailers. In the traditional retail model, individual product brands were less important than the shelves that they were marketed on. Consumers came for product selection, ease, and the universal checkout process. The one stop shop was the draw; product loyalty was a secondary feature.  In this way – content publishers, product brands, and services were merely value-additives for existing platforms. Few learned this hard lesson like popular musicians at the beginning of the streaming era. Podcasts seemed to have learned from those difficult lessons.

Gaining leverage is the mission.

The market-making opportunities that began with early digitally vertical native brands (DNVBs) began to influence adjacent industries as that sales model had its success. For decades, it was nearly impossible to achieve critical mass in retail without partnering with a brick and mortar retailer or a department store. To defend against what seemed (for a time) to be physical retail’s Manifest Destiny, digitally natives circumvented the infrastructure and went direct to consumer (DTC). This meant that they had access to increased margins, efficient customer acquisition, access to data, and stronger relationships with the consumer.

With little access to mainstream consumer channels, physical brands launched native channels with the help of platforms like Shopify and BigCommerce. It’s unclear whether or not the intent of the DTC industry was their indefinite independence from big box retail. I’d argue that it wasn’t the goal. But, regardless, the result of the last ten years has been palpable: product brands have never possessed more leverage than they do right now. Even if that leverage is temporary.

As newer platforms go to market, vertical brands are beginning to notice a shift in leverage from platform to the vertical. This is an untimely shift in momentum for platform companies, businesses that once had the leverage to act indiscriminately.

DNVB-speak in digital media

In early April, comedian Russell Brand was interviewed by the host of the Joe Rogan Experience (JRE), a wildly popular podcast that covers everything from combat sports and geopolitics to archaeology and sociology. It’s important to note that JRE is consistently ranked in the top five of the most downloaded podcasts. Toward the end of the discussion between the two men, Rogan prompted Brand to promote his business interests. And though it was a subtle promotion, this is where things became interesting.

Luminary is the premium audio publisher and content aggregator that has set out to become the Netflix of podcasting. Founded in 2018 by Lauren Sacks, the company raised $100 million from New Enterprise Associates. The funding equipped Sacks and team to recruit several sizable podcast networks and high visibility media personalities to include: The Ringer, Guy Raz, Trevor Noah, and Wondery Media. Wondery is the last remaining podcast network known for its original programming and Ringer, a successful podcast network in its own right, is still in search of Barstool Sports-level network effects. In hindsight, Spotify’s acquisition of Gimlet and Parcast were as defensive as they were offensive developments.

In the episode – Russell Brand promoted his latest venture, a podcast with Luminary. The elevator pitch had somewhat of a dual purpose: (1) use one of the most influential platforms in audio to promote a business interests and (2) recruit Rogan into the fold of the Luminary-faithful. The second part did not work, the jury is still out on the first proposition. But the effects of that conversation were immediate. Within 72 hours, JRE was pulled from Luminary’s catalogue. From Hotpod News: 

The [JRE] team explicitly cites licensing issues as the reason behind the intent to withdraw. “There was not a license agreement or permission for Luminary to have The Joe Rogan Experience on their platform,” a representative from the team told me last night. “His reps were surprised to see the show there today and requested it be removed.”

The Joe Rogan Experience wasn’t the only big name in podcasting that removed content from the platform. Spotify denied Luminary access to their shows and the New York Times pulled The Daily. PodcastOne, Barstool Sports, Endeavor Audio, and many others followed suit. From No. 304: In-app audiences:

The pending acquisition of Gimlet Media is about more than building a direct-to-consumer podcasting powerhouse, it’s about monetizing DTC audio in new ways. Spotify doesn’t own the music that millions of us listen to, they license the rights from three music labels: Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment Group and Warner Music Group. With Gimlet’s pending acquisition, Spotify is positioning themselves squarely as the Netflix of audio. And Gimlet’s portfolio of audio properties could be another tool that Spotify uses to convert casual subscribers to premium, paid users.

And here’s Luminary CoFounder and CEO Matt Sacks:

We want to become synonymous with podcasting in the same way Netflix has become synonymous with streaming. I know how ambitious that sounds. We think it can be done, and some of the top creators in the space agree.

Spotify and Netflix were exclusively aggregators before they began to pursue their modern subscription growth strategy. By acquiring popular properties (like Gimlet and Parcast Network) or by investing in the development of  the native properties that Netflix is now known for, both companies moved further away from aggregation and closer to becoming digital natives. For Netflix, this was timely. Media companies like Disney have begun to pull their properties to develop their own digitally native businesses. Another sign of aggregation theory’s diminished role for newer companies.

Perhaps, the age of aggregation is nearing its maturity. According 2017’s Defining Aggregators by Ben Thompson:

Aggregation Theory describes how platforms (i.e. aggregators) come to dominate the industries in which they compete in a systematic and predictable way. Aggregation Theory should serve as a guidebook for aspiring platform companies, a warning for industries predicated on controlling distribution, and a primer for regulators addressing the inevitable antitrust concerns that are the endgame of Aggregation Theory.

Two years later, we’re witnessing a war over proverbial land rights. As platforms have begun to lose leverage over specific verticals, they’ve heavily invested into the development of their own properties (private labels / native brands / native media projects). In some cases, like Spotify’s acquisitions – they chose to acquire the properties to move consumers along the content-to-subscription funnel. For Luminary Media and their Head of Partnerships / Business Development Meaghan Quindlen, the stakes are much higher than they would have been 3-5 years ago.

She has an unenviable job; she must convince alienated podcasts to work with them by communicating her vision, by employing a new licensing compensation structure, or a combination of both. Even Spotify and Apple Music had their own similar episodes. But with $100 million in funding and grandiose aspirations – Luminary will have to out-Spotify Spotify on its way to becoming the Netflix of podcasts – a title that the first audio platform to achieve 100 million paid subscribers wants all to itself.

Who is to say whether digital media properties returns to the types of  platforms that were once required for growth; there is now a dueling loyalty between independence and potential reach. This contradiction didn’t exist a few years prior.

Digitally native retailers are open to working with big box retailers (the original aggregators) as long as they can maintain a unique in-store appearance with access to some form of consumer data.  In this way, DTC retail is a decent enough analog for what’s happening in podcasting today. Product and media brands now hold the levers – they’re the draw. Consumers walk through the door, proverbial or otherwise, for their beloved brands. Aggregators must learn to operate in a world where the leverage exists with digitally natives. At the very least, aggregators need to learn to develop real symbiosis.

Luminary may need to raise more money.

Report by Web Smith | Join the Executive Membership