Why VC funding is falling out of favor with top D2C brands

Ali Kriegsman
Contributor

Ali Kriegsman is co-founder and COO of Bulletin, a B2B wholesale marketplace. A Forbes 30 Under 30? recipient, her first book, “How to Build a Goddamn Empire,” comes out in April 2021.

In 2020, venture capitalists unceremoniously broke up with D2C brands and product-based businesses.

Many watched as the consumer brands in their portfolios rushed to make hefty layoffs and eke out more runway and grew more concerned with their business models.

Some simply monitored the “lackluster” Casper IPO or skimmed articles about Brandless and others “imploding” and started pulling a slow fade on D2C brands — not taking pitches, not following up.

Many product-based brands, as it turns out, are no longer interested in chasing venture capital.

Last year, investors adopted a wait-and-see approach to all new investments and prayed portfolio brands could cut their burn significantly enough, stay relevant and ride things out.

Product-based businesses fell out of favor and venture capitalists, if they did invest last year, mainly focused on AI startups, or companies focused on data collaboration, data privacy and healthcare (mostly founded by men, might I add).

From a distance, it sounds like direct-to-consumer founders were left destitute and desperate for financing, wounded by every slow fade or hard pass, beholden as ever to the whims of Silicon Valley.

But as Hal Koss so eloquently shared in his “DTC playbook” post-mortem, this wasn’t a one-way breakup; this parting of ways is actually mutual. Many product-based brands, as it turns out, are no longer interested in chasing venture capital, playing the “grow-at-all-costs” game and relinquishing partial control to investors, despite the pandemic and the uncertain circumstances many founders find themselves facing.

Through my work running and scaling Bulletin, I’ve followed thousands of product-based businesses ranging from indie beauty brands selling clean serums and cleansers to sex tech companies making couples’ vibrators and foreplay accessories. I’ve followed them on Instagram, in the press and across various platforms, and in many cases, I’ve spoken to their founders directly.

Over the past two years, I interviewed executives at more than 30 women-owned businesses for my upcoming book, “How to Build a Goddamn Empire,” and had long phone calls with dozens of independent brands and makers as Bulletin got a handle on how the pandemic was impacting customers. And I noticed something new and remarkable about what founders want now, in 2021, compared to what they wanted in years past.

Back then, I’d get dozens of cold emails and DMs asking how I successfully raised VC and what the unspoken rules might be. I’d hear from business owners who were considering a raise or gearing up for one. Product-based entrepreneurs approached me at panels or Bulletin events and say they wanted to be the “Glossier for X” or the “Away for Y.” Many younger founders didn’t even know what venture capital really was, but they saw it as symbolic validation for the business, or the only way to get “big.”

Now, brands would rather scrape by than pursue an injection of funding on someone else’s terms; just ask the Gorjana founders or Scott Sternberg. Many brands that saw astronomical growth in 2020, like Rosen, Golde, Entireworld and others that spurred similar growth for Etsy and Shopify are fully bootstrapped businesses, and proudly so.

Some founders I’ve spoken to have even outright rejected offers for investment. A lot of D2C brands are interested in learning about alternative forms of financing like bank loans, lines of credit and crowdfunding, and ask about iFundWomen or Kickstarter, observing the success of other fully crowdfunded brands like Dame and Pepper.

Venture capital, from my vantage point, has lost its sheen for a lot of product-based brands. They’re not destitute and desperate for financing. They’re actually scoffing at the prospect and trusting they can succeed, scale and maintain long-term profitability without swapping equity for cash. They’re tripped up by what they’ve been reading in the media, or they’ve survived or even thrived during COVID, as a fully bootstrapped company, and feel more conviction than ever that the “grow slow” approach is the right move.

They’re reading the same stories about layoffs and tenuous unit economics at massive D2C companies and agreeing with Sam Kaplan that the old playbook — pricey customer acquisition practices, rapid scale, endless rounds of funding — is out of date. It’s 2021 and we’re midpandemic. These brands want to turn a profit.

The NYSE will delist three Chinese telecoms after all

The New York Stock Exchange announced this morning that it will be delisting three major Chinese telecom companies, a move that it first announced last week before seeming to reverse course on Monday.

This is all happening in response to the Trump administration’s broader order barring U.S. investment in companies that support the Chinese military. (Trump has been trying to ban TikTok through a separate order.)

Why the double reversal? To be fair to the NYSE, in its first reversal, the exchange had only said it would allow the telecoms to continue trading while it evaluates whether the executive order applies to them.

Now it seems that the further evaluation is complete. In today’s announcement, the NYSE said it’s making the decision after receiving “new specific guidance” confirming that yes, the executive order does apply to China Telecom, China Mobile and China Unicom.

As a result, trading of all three stocks will be suspended on the exchange as of 4 a.m. Eastern time on Monday, January 11. The move is seen as largely symbolic, as the telecoms’ trading volume via the NYSE only represents a small percentage of their total tradable shares.

At $35 to $39 per share, Poshmark’s IPO could 5x its last private valuation

The new year is off to a busy IPO start. As The Exchange reported a few weeks ago, investors anticipate a busy Q1 IPO cycle, followed by a slower Q2 and a busy Q3 and Q4.

With Affirm releasing an initial IPO price range last night and Poshmark repeating the feat this morning, private-market investor expectations are holding up thus far.

Secondhand fashion marketplace Poshmark anticipates its IPO could price between $35 and $39 per share. Using its simple share count, the former startup could be worth nearly $3 billion. So, we’ve seen two multiunicorns set early pricing terms this week. That’s comfortably busy.


The Exchange explores startups, markets and money. Read it every morning on Extra Crunch, or get The Exchange newsletter every Saturday.


As we did with Affirm, we’ll dig into Poshmark’s new pricing interval, calculate valuations for the company using both simple and fully diluted share counts, and figure out how they compare to its most-recent financial results and final private valuation. For the last bit, we’ll pull from PitchBook data and the S-1/A filing itself.

But for those of you in a hurry, the short gist is that for Mayfield, GGV, Menlo Ventures, Inventus Capital and Temasek, the company’s first pricing estimate looks like a win.

If you want to read our first dig into the company’s IPO filing that is more focused on performance than pricing, head here. Let’s go!

Poshmark’s hugely “up” IPO

Poshmark’s $35 to $39 per-share IPO price interval could change, but even if it fails to rise, the company’s implied valuation is a dramatic step up from prior rounds.

For example, the company’s S-1 filings note that during its 2017 venture round — the last that it raised per the IPO filing and PitchBook data — Poshmark sold shares at $8.37 per share. That’s a fraction of the price that the company now expects public-market investors to pay.

As with Affirm, let’s calculate Poshmark’s valuation using both simple and fully diluted share counts. The latter takes into account shares that have been earned, but not yet exercised or converted.

Here’s the company’s valuation range using a simple share count, inclusive of its underwriters’ option to purchase 990,000 shares at its IPO price:

  • Poshmark valuation, low-end of range: $2.6 billion.
  • Poshmark valuation, high-end of range: $2.9 billion.

If we expand the company’s share count to include vested options and RSUs, the numbers go up. Again, the following math is inclusive of the underwriters’ option:1

  • Poshmark valuation, low-end of range: $2.95 billion billion.
  • Poshmark valuation, high-end of range: $3.29 billion.

So, are those good numbers? Yes.