- The Outdoors Crowd
- Posts
- Solo Brands 'deep dive' & Media Impact Value in the outdoors industry
Solo Brands 'deep dive' & Media Impact Value in the outdoors industry
What do Snoop Dogg and the outdoors industry have in common? We take a deep dive into Solo Brands, examine the Impact Media Value of 'power' outdoor apparel brands, and take a look at CRUA's new product development process.
Derek’s Deep Dive into The Outdoor Industry: Chapter 4.
Welcome, and thanks for reading. It’d really help if you could forward this email to anyone or any group you think might be interested. And if the email was forwarded to you, you can sign up for our free weekly Deep Dive here. Also, there is a poll three quarters way down - I’d sincerely appreciate you completing it. It’ll take 5 seconds! Your input is important.
In this week’s Chapter:
CRUA’s investment round is closing this week - the inside line and what’s next
Deep Dive - Solo Stoves, becoming an aggregator - Solo Brands, and …Snoop Dogg..!
Media Impact Value™ - is it a good barometer? And here is the list of the most powerful brands in outdoor wear worldwide in 2022 according to MIV.
Our brand new crowdfunding newsletter - what it’s about and why
New Product Development for outdoors brands - Don’t miss the wood from the trees - Step 1
CRUA’s equity crowdfunding round - nearly there
So, our round is closing this week. It has been a roller-coaster, and certainly more difficult than expected. But we’ve seen a good level of interest in the last couple of weeks, from existing investors in the US which is greatly appreciated. Here’s what we’re sitting at now:
Of the 287 investors, I estimate at least two thirds are previous investors. We now have several thousand investors on the platform, so that’s to be expected, and appreciated. This is technically a ‘down’ round. A few factors dictated this.
Macro economic and investment sentiment
Interest rates
Discussions with existing investors ref more recent business progress and projections
Opex vs sales - realignment that’s required
Among others.
Taking my biased hat off, I think the valuation was fair. The market just about agreed. But I’ve a few extra gray hairs in the process. This type of fundraising is enormously time-consuming, and isn’t for everyone. For an outdoors brand like CRUA, crowdfunding (both equity and rewards) have been instrumental in our growth, and indeed our survival. I don’t believe we’d be here without the economic stimulus, and the community build opportunities that they have given us.
Now, it’s about unit economics and realistic opex for us. In the past we’ve spent too much on paid media and worried more about the marketing processes than selling. The ‘shiny’ new things. We have to mature now. And we already have, enormously. Amy, our Financial Controller joined earlier this year, and is forcing us to think much more in this ‘grown up’ way. Building a business model around losses, and raising every year is folly. We want to stand on our own two feet, and that’s what 2024/25 are about.
An aside. I strongly believe that the availability of a lot of VC money ruins some start-ups. It gives them too much of a cushion, and allows them not to have to think like a real business. While some growth capital is required, it’s a fine balance. Incidentally, we didn’t have to worry about the over availability of VC - Not Techy, Blockchain or AI enough it seems!
BTW, in that always selling mode, still time to invest - but only just: https://www.seedrs.com/crua-outdoors5
Solo Brands - from an idea to major outdoor aggregator to….Snoop Dogg?!
Upon researching the Solo story, I’m baffled by the bullshit. Marketing jargon such as “Solo Brands exists to create good moments and lasting memories through outdoor activities”, a backstory on the website that mentions ‘two brothers’ but no founder names. A company that looks a lot older than its fourteen years.
Well, I can now say that the founders were Spencer and Jeff Jan. They grew up in the Canadian outdoors and saw the camping stove as an opportunity to innovate. Spencer mentions that they are ‘thinkers’ and not engineers, which I suspect helped them think about benefits rather than features.
Until 2016 the two brothers were still the only employees. They had no office & used 3PL and other vendors for what they needed. Astounding considering that five years later there was an IPO.
Spencer says that they decided to take some chips off the table in 2019 and exited the company, while staying on the board. The sod further in 2020 and left the board, which was then run by the PE firms. And the company went to IPO in October 2021. I’ve read the S-1 paperwork for the offering. By then Solo brands comprised of 4 D2C lifestyle brands:
Solo stoves - the original
Chubbies - the shorts
ISLE - paddle boards
Oru - the foldable Kayaks
Becoming this type of a niche aggregator in the D2C space wasn’t unusual at the time. Think complimentary brands helping each other with community and marketing, and the Opex economy of scale. But, the failures of Thrasio and Bentiago led a number of others that didn’t survive. So worth taking note.
Anyhow, back to Solo - from their S-1:
Really impressive stuff, to be fair. Of course, Solo brands timed their IPO on the back of inflated covid figures, but so did many others as 2021 had the highest ever number of offerings for one year. They went public on Oct 29th, 2021, at a share price of $18.36. And like many other of these companies that went public around the, Solo’s share price has plummeted, trading at $1.92 at the time of writing.
But, it must be said that Solo is fighting the fight. While sales have dropped, it’s not as dramatic a drop as some others in similar spaces, such as Weber and Traeger. Let’s take a look.
Full Year 2023 Highlights Compared to Full Year 2022 (from their full year guidance)
Net sales of $494.8 million, down $22.9 million or 4.4%
Net loss of $195.3 million, down $187.7 million
Net loss per Class A common stock - basic and diluted of $1.84, down $1.76
Net cash provided by operating activities of $62.4 million, up $30.0 million or 92.7%
Free cash flow(1) of $53.3 million, up $30.2 million or 130.3%
Adjusted net income(1)(2) of $54.8 million, down $10.2 million or 15.7%
Adjusted EBITDA(1) of $70.2 million, down $17.4 million or 19.9%
Adjusted net income per Class A common stock(1)(2) of $0.58, down $0.03
Some other notable plusses - 50% of their business is repeat. And this is key, in my opinion. While still loss making, innovation has been key in its evolution. It now has a host of new and related products - products that work, and are on brand. Patio heaters and tabletop pizza ovens for instance. But the key piece is they work. They add value to the users in a practical way. And that’s really important. When all the marketing crap dissipates, the product must work. And must have a USP - in this case it’s ‘smokelessness’. You can build the marketing, once the product works and solves a big enough problem. I love the smell from an old fashioned campfire but suspect I may be in the minority!
This is where Solo itself has excelled. While it has bought the other 3 brands, they are much smaller and niche. The Solo business still accounts for the majority of the business.
I mentioned Snoop Dogg in the title. Solo did a paid collab with Snoopy at the end of last year, when he decried he was giving up smoking!
“After much consideration & conversation with my family, I've decided to give up smoke. Please respect my privacy at this time.”
Genius. And Solo gained a huge amount of PR from the campaign. However, they didn’t gain the direct sales increase that the market would have expected. Exit one CEO - John Merris, who has since joined Flooret, and enter Chris Metz of Vista Outdoor fame, who the board obviously decided may be more in tune with market expectations. More on that in a later chapter.
Conclusion:
Despite the headwinds, the stove range has the key element on its side - USP. And they’re doubling down on increasing lifetime value, hence reducing blended customer acquisition costs. This makes sense, along with expansion into other more traditional routes to market. Whether they have hit a growth natural ceiling, and aggregation is their route to the next growth phase remains to be seen. I suspect that it is and that Met’s appointment is key here. Vista ran 41 outdoors brands at the end of his time as CEO, so it’s not his first rodeo. Watch this space.
Next week’s deep-dive is into Emerald X, the Expo company behind Outdoor Retailer and lots of Outdoor Media brands.
Media Impact Value
Ever wonder how brands can value the media attention of various kinds they either earn or pay for? Well, there’s now a metric for that!
“Media Impact Value™ is a proprietary algorithm created by Launchmetrics to measure and benchmark the impact of all media placements and mentions across different Voices in the Fashion, Luxury, and Beauty industries.”
Its application in our industry pertains to the outdoor apparel ‘power brands’. And here are the findings:
The formula works as thus:
MIV takes into account four main criteria: reach, media rates, media quality, and content quality. A base value is calculated using the standard reach and media rate metrics. It is then adjusted based on the overall quality of the mention.
This looks fairly sound to use as a barometer. Or rather as sound as possible in today’s social media pit. A few surprises in the results though. Not at number 1, but Moncler wasn’t obvious to me.
Anyhow, worth considering how some of these brands go about their business online, and we’ll dive a little more into that next week.
The Token Crowd
This is another brand new newsletter. As you may know, CRUA has its foundations in the CROWD, with Equity CF and Rewards based CF being in our DNA. I’m also enthralled by tokenization, and how it can add real value. I think that a lot of the use cases are, no pun intended, token. But I see a place where the democratized and decentralized digital crowd use Tokens as a proper utility and investment. Not just for the ICO rug pulls we witnessed a few years ago. We shouldn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Anyway, you can sign up here to become part of the conversation - it’s free.
How was today's chapter? |
The Product Design Process step 1 - As I see it
I have made a bags of this many times. And have the scars to show. So, now, I have a simple initial checklist:
Is the proposed new product solving a big enough problem?
Can it be produced at a price that the market will accept - cost benefit comparison?
Is it on brand - i.e. will it complement existing SKU’s and vice versa. Can we leverage off existing community and customers for repeat sales? Mindful of CAC and LTV.
Is the current supply chain able to produce?
Does it fall within our current team competency?
Is it on trend?
This is the start point. For us, nowadays, a ‘no to any of the above means we move on and don’t even explore step 2, which I’ll go into next week in chapter 5. There is a big difference between what we’d like to develop, and what is right to develop. There is absolutely nothing more gut wrenching than being most of the way up a ladder and suddenly finding out that you’re actually on the wrong ladder. And the importance of trend? We launched the biggest hammock themed crowdfunding campaign ever on Kickstarter/Indiegogo, in 2020. A coincidence? See here:
Anyhow, hopefully you get some value from the newsletter. Thanks for reading and please pass it on to anyone you think will benefit.
Until next Tuesday, and chapter 5, Go n-éirí leat!
Derek.