I have written about Poppi in this newsletter more times than almost any other brand.

The 88x return for CAVU. The $1.95 billion exit. The 7 signals that separated it from the dozens of functional beverage brands that plateau at $5 million. I used it as the proof point for an entire thesis about category timing, DSD distribution and exiting at peak velocity.

The filing published this month complicates part of what I wrote. On 5 September 2026, PepsiCo marked the fair value of Poppi’s earnout at $12 million.

In June it was $117 million. In December it was $278 million. The original agreement was for up to $300 million, payable only if Poppi hit undisclosed performance milestones by the third quarter of 2027.

Bloomberg Intelligence beverages analyst Kenneth Shea put it plainly: “At this rate, it seems plausible that they may not pay any of the $300 million unless Poppi’s performance rebounds markedly over the next year.”

This is the rarest thing in consumer M&A. A public, quantified, mark-to-market view of what happened after the exit everybody celebrated. We write endlessly about deals. We almost never see year two.

Here is year 2.

The Markdown, In Sequence

Read more

On Wednesday 7 October, the Weston family agreed to buy Boots for $8.9 billion.Most of the coverage has run it as a straightforward ownership story. Canadian billionaires buy British pharmacy chain. Private equity flips asset. Galen Weston returns to UK retail.

All true. All missing the single most important fact about these buyers and I will share why this is an important buy for them and the industry as a whole.

Read more

Scarlett Johansson’s skincare brand The Outset announced it is winding down this week, after four and a half years.

The website banner reads: “After an incredible journey, The Outset has made the decision to wind down operations.” E-commerce has closed. Existing orders will be processed.

Most of the coverage has reached for the obvious conclusion. Another celebrity beauty brand down. Fame does not build a business. The category is saturated. All of which is true and none of which is useful, because it does not explain the thing that actually needs explaining.

The Outset launched in March 2022. Rhode launched in June 2022.

3 months apart. Same category. Same celebrity-founder structure. Same four-year window. One is being quietly wound down with revenue somewhere between $10 million and $25 million.

The other sold to e.l.f. Beauty for up to $1 billion on roughly $212 million of net sales.

That is a 10x to 20x revenue difference between two brands that started in the same quarter.

Fame does not explain that gap. Scarlett Johansson has a thirty-year career, a Marvel franchise, and global recognition that comfortably exceeds Hailey Bieber’s.

Something structural separated these two outcomes, and it is identifiable. That is what this piece is about.

The Numbers On The Outset

Read more

Here is what landed in my inbox this week:

“David, we’re growing 60% year on year and I have never been more stressed. Every month we sell out, every month I’m scrambling to fund the next production run, and my accountant keeps telling me we’re ‘profitable’ while my bank balance says otherwise. Everyone congratulates us on the growth. It feels like we’re dying. What am I missing?”

You are not missing anything. You have correctly identified that you are in danger. I want to be direct. This is a serious issue and me giving you a reassuring answer would be irresponsible.

Growth is the most common cause of death in consumer brands. Not slow growth. Fast growth.

You are describing the exact condition that took Trapstar from £40 million in revenue to administration. Their own advisers put it in writing: the revenue decline was driven by “working capital constraints impacting inventory availability, rather than any underlying demand or brand performance.”

The demand was there. The brand was intact. Rihanna, Jay-Z and Stormzy still wore it. They just ran out of money to make the thing people wanted to buy. By the time administrators were appointed, 57 jobs were at risk and the business was being sold for parts.

So let me explain what is happening to your cash, why your accountant is technically right, and what you do about it starting this week

Why Profitable Companies Run Out Of Money

Profit and cash are measured on completely different clocks. Your P&L records a sale the moment you invoice. Your bank account records it the moment the money lands. In a fast-growing physical product business, those two events can be separated by four months, and in between you have already spent the cash on the next production run.

Say you are doing £3 million in revenue at 60% gross margin, growing 60% a year. Your accountant shows you a healthy P&L. Here is what is actually happening to your cash.

The cash conversion cycle, step by step:

Read more

Kylian Mbappé has left Nike. Twenty years. He has worn the swoosh since 2006, when he was eight years old. He is now 27, and this summer his contract expired.

Adidas wanted him. Puma wanted him. New Balance and Skechers, both building aggressive football rosters, wanted him. He signed with On. A Swiss running shoe company that has never made a football boot.

The financial terms were not disclosed. But The Athletic reported one detail that reframes the entire deal:

Mbappé has been given equity in the company.

It is the same structure On used seven years ago with Roger Federer, and the Federer numbers explain exactly why Mbappé walked away from the biggest sportswear company on earth.

Let me show you the maths.

The Federer Case, In Full

Read more

On 8 September, Kendall Jenner became a global ambassador and minority equity shareholder in TRIP, the London calming drinks brand.

Undisclosed stake. Undisclosed terms. The usual.

Most of the coverage treated it as a footnote. Another celebrity, another can, another campaign. But sit with the numbers for a second, because they raise the single most interesting question in celebrity business right now.

TRIP is forecasting roughly $200 million in revenue this year, up from about $100 million in 2025.

818 Tequila, the brand Kendall Jenner actually founded, spent three and a half years in development before it launched and has been on the market for five years.

Depending on which source you believe, it is doing somewhere between $25 million and $55 million. So here is the question this newsletter is about:

If you are famous, is it smarter to build your own brand from nothing, or to write a cheque into somebody else’s brand once it is already working?

Most people assume the answer is obvious. Build your own. Own more. Control everything.

I think that answer is wrong more often than the industry admits, and the Kendall Jenner comparison is the cleanest live case study we have ever had, because the same person is now running both strategies at once.

Let me do the actual maths.

Option One: Build It Yourself. What 818 Actually Cost.

Let me be clear before I start. 818 is a genuine success. Anyone dismissing it as a vanity project has not looked at the numbers.

The timeline, Jenner started developing 818 around 2017. She spent three and a half years on formulation before announcing the brand on Instagram in February 2021.

During that period she travelled to Jalisco, worked directly with distillers, and submitted the tequila to international competitions anonymously, winning awards before anyone knew whose brand it was.

That is not a celebrity slapping a name on a bottle. That is genuine product development.

The results: 818 sold 136,000 cases in its first seven months, making it the best-selling new tequila in the United States that year.

The revenue trajectory:

• 2021 (partial) ~$10M

• 2022 ~$25M

• 2023 ~$35-40M

• 2024 ~$45-50M

• 2025 (forecast) $55M+

In 2024 the brand grew volume 40% while the overall tequila category grew 2%.

One honest note on the numbers. Some recent reporting cites a Forbes figure of $25 million for 2026, which sits well below the 2025 forecast of $55 million. That is most likely a difference between gross and net revenue, or a stale figure being recycled. I cannot reconcile it, so I am giving you the range rather than pretending to certainty.

The ownership, Industry estimates put Jenner’s stake at 30% to 50%, reflecting her genuine founding role and her position as Chief Creative Officer.

Valuation estimates put the brand at $200 million to $400 million, which values her stake at $60 million to $200 million.

In April 2026, Sazerac, the Kentucky spirits giant behind Buffalo Trace, took a financial stake and exclusive US distribution rights. That deal is the reason her estimated net worth roughly doubled to around $150 million.

So the build-it-yourself route produced a stake worth somewhere between $60 million and $200 million.

Now here is what it cost.

Three and a half years of unpaid product development before a single bottle sold.

A cultural appropriation backlash in May 2021 over promotional imagery, serious enough that it dominated the launch news cycle.

A trademark lawsuit from Tequila 512 in February 2022, settled in November of that year.

A class action in January 2026 over 100% agave claims.

Five years of operating exposure in a category where she carries the reputational risk of every decision the company makes.

That is the real price of building. Not the capital. The time, the risk, and the fact that your name is permanently attached to every mistake.

Option Two: Buy In Late. What TRIP Actually Offers.

Now look at what she just walked into. TRIP was founded in London in 2019 by a married couple, Olivia Ferdi and Daniel Khoury. Seven years of building, none of it hers.

Where the business is now:

• Revenue roughly $100 million in 2025, forecasting $200 million in 2026

• Raised $40 million at a valuation above $300 million in November 2025

• The UK’s fastest-growing carbonated soft drinks brand among those over £20 million, per Circana data for the 52 weeks to 8 August 2026

• Fastest-growing sparkling drink in the US

• Over one billion impressions across Instagram and TikTok in the past year

• Repeatedly TikTok Shop’s number one food and drinks business

• Ferdi has said the intention is to double again in 2027

And the pivot nobody is writing about. TRIP launched in 2019 as a CBD brand. CBD is now under 3% of sales.

They rebuilt the entire product proposition around magnesium and botanicals like ashwagandha and L-theanine, kept the brand equity, and grew into the fastest-growing soft drink in Britain. That is one of the most successful category pivots in drinks in the last decade and it deserves its own piece.

What Kendall had to do to participate, Take a meeting. Agree terms. Shoot a campaign for the wild strawberry flavour. That is it.

No formulation. No distillery visits. No three and a half year development cycle. No category launch risk. No lawsuits inherited. She is buying into a business that has already proven product-market fit, already built retail distribution, already cracked social commerce, and is already doubling.

The Maths: Which Stake Is Actually Worth More?

This is where it gets interesting, and where the intuitive answer is right but for the wrong reasons.

818, at the midpoint: Say 40% ownership of a $300 million brand. Her stake: roughly $120 million.

TRIP, at a realistic estimate: Ambassador equity in a scaled, later-stage business does not come in founder-sized portions. For a brand at a $300 million-plus valuation already doing $200 million in revenue, an ambassador equity stake typically lands somewhere between 0.5% and 3%.

At $300 million valuation, that is $1.5 million to $9 million.

If TRIP doubles again in 2027 and gets acquired at, say, 4x revenue on $400 million of sales, that is a $1.6 billion outcome, and her stake becomes $8 million to $48 million.

So on absolute value, building won. Comfortably.

$120 million versus somewhere between $8 million and $48 million on a good day. But absolute value is the wrong metric, and here is why.

The Metric That Actually Matters: Return Per Unit Of Risk And Time

Run it as an investor would.

818:

• Time invested: 8.5 years (3.5 development, 5 operating)

• Personal capital at risk: material, plus opportunity cost

• Reputational exposure: total. Her name is the brand.

• Operating involvement: continuous. She is Chief Creative Officer.

• Number of lawsuits weathered: two, plus a major PR crisis

• Outcome: $120 million stake

TRIP:

• Time invested: weeks

• Capital at risk: unknown, likely modest or nil if the equity is compensation for services

• Reputational exposure: limited. She is an ambassador, not the founder. If TRIP fails, the headline is about TRIP.

• Operating involvement: campaign work

• Outcome: $8 million to $48 million potential

Divide the outcome by the years and the risk and the answer stops being obvious. 818 produced roughly $14 million of value per year of involvement, with her entire public reputation collateralised against it.

TRIP could produce a mid-eight figure outcome for a few weeks of work and almost no downside beyond an awkward news cycle. Building produces bigger absolute outcomes. Buying in produces better risk-adjusted ones.

And critically, you can only build one brand properly at a time. You can buy into ten.

The Scoreboard

One case study proves nothing. So let me widen it out, because the pattern is clearer than most people assume.

Celebrities who built from scratch and won big:

• Rihanna, Fenty Beauty. Genuinely category-defining. Forty foundation shades at launch was a real product insight, not a marketing angle.

• George Clooney, Casamigos. Built with two friends for personal use, sold to Diageo for up to $1 billion.

• Hailey Bieber, Rhode. Founded 2022, sold to e.l.f. for around $1 billion in 2025 on roughly $212 million of revenue.

• Kim Kardashian, SKIMS. Valued in the billions on genuine category creation around inclusive sizing.

• Kendall Jenner, 818. As above.

Celebrities who built from scratch and lost:

• Lionel Messi, Más+. The most marketable athlete alive. Launched June 2024 with Mark Anthony Group behind it. Discontinued January 2026. Official line: did not achieve all objectives. Eighteen months.

• Logan Paul and KSI, Prime. $1.2 billion in revenue in 2023, 41.2% sports drink market share. Collapsed to a projected $300 million by 2025, with British retailers clearing cans at 31 pence.

• Gwen Stefani, GXVE. Sephora distribution, VC backing, quietly shut down after four years.

• Drew Barrymore, Flower Beauty. Walmart distribution, her own TV show as a promotional platform, closed after thirteen years.

• Kate Moss, Cosmoss. Liquidated.

Now here is the part that should make you rethink the whole thing.

Ryan Reynolds is the most commercially successful celebrity operator of the modern era. And as far as I can tell, he has never founded a consumer company from scratch.

Aviation Gin was founded in 2006 by Christian Krogstad. Reynolds bought a stake in 2018. It sold to Diageo for up to $610 million.

Mint Mobile was founded by David Glickman and Rizwan Kassim. Reynolds acquired roughly a quarter of it in 2019. T-Mobile bought it for up to $1.35 billion.

He did not build either one. He identified existing businesses with real products and weak marketing, bought meaningful stakes, applied his specific skill, and exited both.

That is a private equity strategy executed by someone whose value-add happens to be attention.

So When Should You Build, And When Should You Buy?

Here is the framework I would actually use. It works whether you are the famous person deciding, or the founder deciding who to let onto your cap table.

Build from scratch when all four of these are true.

1. You have a genuine product insight the market is missing.

Rihanna had forty shades. Hailey Bieber had a skin condition she could not solve with existing products. Kendall Jenner spent three and a half years on formulation and won blind tastings before revealing her name.

Messi had fame and a hydration drink in a category that already had Gatorade, Prime, Liquid I.V. and Electrolit. No insight. No product edge. Eighteen months.

2. You are prepared to give it five to ten years.

818 took 8.5 years to reach a $120 million stake. Rhode took three, which is exceptional and rare. Fenty took years of development inside LVMH’s infrastructure.

If you are not prepared to still be doing this in 2034, do not start.

3. The category has genuine repeat purchase built in.

Look at that failure list again. Prime and Más+ are both beverages that people tried once because of who was attached and then did not buy again. Prime’s repeat purchase rate was around 12% at close to 100% brand awareness.

Awareness was never the problem. Habit was.

4. You can absorb the reputational risk.

818 weathered cultural appropriation accusations, a trademark suit and a class action. Jenner’s name is on all of it permanently.

Ask yourself honestly whether your brand can afford your worst year, and whether you can afford your brand’s worst year.

Buy into an existing brand when any of these are true.

1. The category already has entrenched winners with real product moats. You are not out-formulating an established leader. Buy into a challenger that already works instead.

2. You want portfolio exposure rather than a single concentrated bet. You can only found one brand at a time properly. You can hold stakes in a dozen.

3. Your genuine skill is distribution, not product. If what you actually bring is attention and cultural credibility, apply it to a product somebody else has already perfected. That is the Reynolds model and it has produced close to $2 billion in exits.

4. The brand is already growing and does not need you for awareness. This is the detail from the TRIP deal that almost everyone missed, and it is the most important line in the whole story.

Olivia Ferdi said TRIP wanted an ambassador who could extend the brand’s existing momentum rather than generate initial awareness. They did not need Kendall Jenner to make people aware TRIP exists. A billion impressions and the number one spot on TikTok Shop’s food and drinks ranking had already handled that. They wanted someone to extend momentum that already existed.

A brand that needs a celebrity to create awareness is a brand with a product problem. A brand that wants a celebrity to extend momentum is a brand with a scale opportunity. Those two situations look identical in a press release and are completely different businesses.

The Detail That Should Change How Founders Recruit Celebrities

One more thing from the TRIP story, because it is the most transferable lesson in this whole piece. On how the ambassador roster came together, Ferdi said: “Having these celebrity ambassadors, it was just something that happened around essentially them being customers and really big brand fans.”

Joe Jonas, Ashley Graham, Paul Wesley, Alessandra Ambrosio and now Kendall Jenner all came to TRIP as customers first.

Jenner’s own line: “I’ve been obsessed with TRIP for a while.”

Compare that to the standard model, where a brand’s agency builds a target list, approaches management, negotiates a fee and an equity grant, and manufactures a story about authentic connection afterwards.

One of those produces GXVE. The other produces this. If you are a founder, the practical instruction is simple. Stop casting celebrities. Start tracking which ones are already buying your product.

Your customer data almost certainly contains the answer. Somebody notable has probably already ordered from you. That person is worth ten cold approaches through a management company, because the authenticity does not need to be constructed. It already exists.

The Answer: She Is Not Choosing, And Neither Should You

Here is why I think the Kendall Jenner comparison is genuinely instructive rather than just a nice contrast. She did not pick one strategy. She is running both simultaneously.

818 is the concentrated bet. Her name, her category, her risk, her upside. Eight and a half years for a stake worth potentially $200 million.

TRIP is the portfolio bet. Somebody else’s product, somebody else’s operating risk, a fraction of the upside, and almost none of the exposure.

And note that they are not competing. They are complementary.

818 is the drink that starts the evening. TRIP is the drink that says you did not need one.

The customer is identical. Young, image-conscious, willing to pay for a can that says something about who they are. She now captures that customer on Friday and on Tuesday. That is a spread bet on a single consumer behaviour, executed from two different positions on the risk curve.

The lesson for anyone with a platform build one thing you genuinely care about and can defend for a decade. Buy into several things other people have already made work.

The mistake is not choosing wrong between building and buying. The mistake is doing only one of them.

The people who only build put their entire net worth and reputation into a single category bet. Ask Gwen Stefani, or Kate Moss, or the Mark Anthony Group.

The people who only buy in never own anything meaningful and end up as expensive decoration on other people’s cap tables.

The ones who compound do both.

Are you building your one thing, or spreading thin across ten? And be honest about which one you are actually doing.

P.S. The single most underrated fact in this entire piece has nothing to do with Kendall Jenner. TRIP launched in 2019 as a CBD brand. CBD is now under 3% of sales, and the business is doing $200 million. They kept the brand, kept the customer, kept the aesthetic, and completely rebuilt what was in the can around magnesium and botanicals. Most founders treat a failing core proposition as a death sentence. Ferdi and Khoury treated it as a formulation problem and pivoted the product while protecting the equity they had built in the name. If you are sitting on a brand people love and a product that is not working, that distinction is worth a very long think.

P.P.S. For founders wondering what a fair ambassador equity grant actually looks like: the rough market convention for a scaled brand is 0.5% to 3% for an ambassador role, and 10% to 30% for a genuine co-founder who is involved in product and strategy from the start. The number itself matters far less than what it is tied to. If somebody is taking 2% of your company, that equity should vest against defined deliverables, with clawback provisions if they go quiet. Time-based vesting with no performance trigger is the single most common mistake I see in these deals, and it is almost always the celebrity’s team pushing for it, because it guarantees the equity whether or not they ever show up again.

There is an old line about the California gold rush that gets repeated so often it has almost lost its meaning. The people who got rich were not the ones panning for gold. They were the ones selling shovels.

I have been thinking about that line all week, because on Tuesday a company called Archive announced a funding round, and the names on it tell you something important about where experienced consumer money is quietly moving.

The round was led by Anti Fund, the investment firm founded by Jake Paul, Logan Paul and Geoffrey Woo, alongside Florida Funders.

Battery Ventures, Stripe, Tiger Global, Lux Capital and Human Capital all participated. So did more than 50 founders and executives from tech and consumer. They did not disclose the amount raised. They did not disclose the valuation. But here is what makes this interesting.

Logan Paul co-built Prime Hydration, a creator brand that hit $1.2 billion in revenue and then collapsed. Geoffrey Woo co-founded Ketone-IQ and scaled it past a $40 million revenue run rate.

Both of them built creator led consumer brands. Both of them hit the same wall. And both of them have now put money into the layer underneath instead. That is not a coincidence. That is a pattern, and it is worth understanding properly.

What Archive Actually Sells

Archive was founded in 2021 by Paul Benigeri and Geoffrey Woo. It does two things:

• Social listening that shows brands what is working for them and for their competitors, running on AI that watches short form video and captures tagged, untagged and disappearing content that manual tools miss.

• Creator programme management that runs campaigns end to end, from sourcing the right creators through to turning their best organic posts into paid partnership ads.

More than 1,000 brands use it. L’Oreal, DoorDash and Pinterest are customers. The company recently signed two seven figure enterprise contracts with global consumer brands.

Two days before the funding announcement, they launched Archie, an AI agent that finds and vets creators, checking for competitor conflicts, inactive accounts and audience authenticity. Work that previously took a human several hours per campaign. None of this is glamorous. That is exactly the point.

Nobody writes profiles about the company that automates creator vetting. They write profiles about the creator brand doing $150 million in revenue. But one of those two businesses has better economics, and it is not the one you think.

The Economics That Made The Smart Money Move

Let me put the two business models side by side, because the contrast is stark. Building a creator brand: You carry inventory. You carry returns. You carry customer acquisition cost that rises every year. Your gross margin is capped by physical goods. Your revenue is concentrated in one brand, in one category, exposed to one set of consumer tastes. And if the cultural moment passes, as it did for Prime, your revenue can fall 76% in two years.

Selling infrastructure to creator brands: Recurring revenue. Near zero marginal cost per additional customer. Gross margins in software territory rather than consumer goods territory. Revenue diversified across 1,000 customers instead of concentrated in one product. And critically, your revenue grows when the category grows, regardless of which individual brands win or lose.

The second business does not need to pick winners. It just needs the category to grow. And the category is growing extremely fast.

Creator advertising in the US is now a $37 billion channel, expanding roughly four times faster than the broader media market. The wider influencer marketing category is projected to reach $52.05 billion by 2028. Four times faster than media overall.

That is capital being actively reallocated out of traditional channels into creators. Every brand that shifts budget makes the shovel seller’s market bigger, whether that brand succeeds or fails.

Why Logan Paul’s Involvement Is The Most Interesting Detail

I wrote the full Prime autopsy a few weeks ago, so I will keep this short. Prime did $1.2 billion in revenue in 2023. It took 41.2% of the US sports drink market. It outsold Gatorade at Walmart. By 2025 it was projected at $300 million, and British retailers were clearing cans at 31 pence.

The core failure was measurable and it was visible in the data before the revenue fell. By 2024, Prime had close to 100% brand awareness and a repeat purchase rate of around 12%. Enormous top of funnel. Nothing holding the bottom.

Now look at what Archive sells. Social listening that shows what is genuinely working rather than what is generating noise. Attribution on creator content. The ability to identify which specific creators drive outcomes rather than reach, then put paid budget behind those exact posts.

That is the diagnostic that separates “this content is getting views” from “this content is producing customers who come back.”

Geoffrey Woo described the same problem from the other side. At Ketone-IQ, creator marketing was one of the biggest growth drivers and the most painful thing they ran. Two operators who built creator brands at real scale, both describing the same broken process, both now funding the fix. When people who have run the thing tell you the tooling is the bottleneck, that is more credible than any market sizing slide.

The Detail Almost Nobody Covered

Buried in the announcement was a line that I think is the most consequential thing in the whole story. Two of the largest AI labs now run their creator marketing programmes on the platform.

Jake Paul was direct about it: “The fastest-growing AI companies in our portfolio have made creators their number one channel, and Archive is the machine behind it.” Anti Fund’s portfolio includes OpenAI and Cognition.

Sit with that for a moment. Companies competing in the most capital intensive category in modern technology have concluded that the most efficient way to acquire consumers is through creators. For AI companies fighting for attention in crowded categories, creators offer product demonstration, practical education and cultural relevance in a single package. Three things a banner ad cannot buy.

And that means there is now a new class of buyer in your auction. An AI company optimising for share of voice against three well funded competitors is not price sensitive the way a supplement brand with 30% gross margins is price sensitive. They will pay more than you for the same creator, because the creator is worth more to them.

This is the same mechanism that repriced Meta advertising. Not because the platform got worse, but because better funded buyers arrived, tooling made spending at scale easy, and the auction did what auctions do. The median direct to consumer brand now spends between $130 and $156 to acquire a customer, roughly 60% higher than five years ago. CPMs on Meta are up 89% since 2020. Creator advertising is currently around where Facebook advertising was in 2015.

Measurement is arriving. Tooling is being built right now. Budgets are moving in. And the deep pocketed buyers have just shown up.

They did not disclose the amount or the valuation. That absence matters. This is not a headline number resetting the creator technology market. It is a strategic round with a strong investor list and no published size, which usually means commercially meaningful rather than financially enormous.

So do not read this as a billion dollar validation of creator infrastructure. Read it as: experienced operators and serious institutional money concentrated around the measurement layer, and told you exactly why in the press release.

Stripe and Tiger Global do not join strategic rounds in categories they expect to stay flat.

What To Actually Do With This

Five things, in order of urgency.

1. Lock in creator rates now, on longer terms.

If you have creators who genuinely convert, converting those one off deals into twelve month agreements at today’s rates is probably the highest return action available to you this quarter. The brands that locked in agency and media rates in 2016 looked paranoid then and looked brilliant by 2019.

2. Build attribution before you build scale.

The channel is becoming measurable, which cuts both ways. If the market can measure creator performance and you cannot, you are bidding blind against buyers who can see. Before you add a pound to creator spend, know your cost per acquisition by individual creator, not blended. In most programmes I look at, five creators drive around 80% of conversions. If that holds for you, your strategy is concentration, not breadth.

3. Go where the AI labs cannot follow.

An AI company can outbid you for a general lifestyle creator with two million followers. It has no use whatsoever for the creator whose entire audience is people managing a specific skin condition, or training for a specific distance, or cooking a specific cuisine. Narrow, category specific creators are the part of the market that stays affordable. The prestige beauty houses already worked this out. NARS paid a 2,000 follower creator last month. One medical grade skincare brand briefed an account with under 600 followers. Charlotte Tilbury ran a launch on accounts between 11,000 and 30,000.

Engagement is beating reach at the top of the market. That is not sentiment, it is where the budget is going.

4. Own the relationships, do not rent them through agencies.

When rates inflate, agencies pass the increase straight through. Brands with direct creator relationships absorb less of it and get first call when a creator is choosing between competing offers. Direct relationships take longer to build and cost meaningfully less to maintain. Build them now, while creators still have room in the calendar.

5. Model your creator CAC at three times current cost.

Take your current programme. Triple the cost per partnership. See whether the unit economics still work. If they do not, you have a business that depends on a temporarily underpriced channel. That is exactly where most direct to consumer brands sat with Meta in 2019, and most of them did not survive the repricing. Far better to discover that on a spreadsheet this month than on a P&L in 2028.

The Bigger Point

There is a reading of this that sounds pessimistic, and I do not think it is.

Creator marketing becoming measurable is genuinely good for anyone building a real business. For years the channel rewarded whoever could generate the most noise, because nobody could prove what the noise was worth. That environment produced Prime. Vast awareness, no retention, and a brand that looked like a rocket right up until it was not.

A measurable channel rewards brands whose products actually convert and retain. It favours operators over promoters. But measurable also means priced. And priced means expensive. The window where creator marketing is both effective and cheap is closing. Not because anything broke, but because the market is maturing the way every effective channel eventually matures.

You have somewhere between twelve and twenty four months to build at today’s prices. And the deeper lesson sits in the shape of the investment itself.

Jake Paul put it better than most VC commentary manages: “We hear it from every founder we back: growing is harder than building.”

That is the entire thesis in one line. The barrier to building a consumer product in 2026 is close to zero. Contract manufacturers, Shopify, AI generated creative, agencies on demand. Everybody can build.

Almost nobody can distribute profitably.

Which is why the most valuable position in consumer right now is not owning a brand. It is owning the layer that brands have to pay to reach customers. Authentic Brands worked that out with licensing. Meta worked it out with the ad auction. And a growing number of very smart people who have already built creator brands are now betting the same idea applies to creator marketing.

Are you panning for gold, or should you be looking at the shovels?

P.S. The most useful thing in Archive’s product announcement had nothing to do with the funding. Their system captures tagged, untagged and disappearing content that manual tools miss. Think about what untagged means. Creators mentioning your brand with no partnership, no hashtag, and no payment from you. That is your organic advocacy layer, and almost no brand measures it properly because until very recently you could not. If you do one thing on Monday morning, find out how many people talked about your product last month without being paid to. That number is the truest signal of whether you have a brand or a marketing campaign, and most founders have never seen it.

P.P.S. For anyone thinking the picks and shovels framing means “go build software instead,” that is not quite the lesson. The lesson is about position. Ask yourself where you sit relative to the flow of money in your category. If your revenue only grows when your specific brand wins, you carry all of the risk. If your revenue grows when the category grows, you carry considerably less. Most founders never seriously consider whether there is a version of their business that sits one layer up. Sometimes there is not. But the question is worth asking properly at least once, because the people who ask it early are the ones who end up owning the toll booth rather than paying at it.

15 years ago, OVO was a blog. October’s Very Own. A Toronto kid, a website, some free mixtapes, an owl logo. Drake, Oliver El-Khatib and Noah “40” Shebib building something for their friends before anybody was calling it a brand.

This week it sold. Authentic Brands Group acquired a 51% stake in OVO’s intellectual property. Vince Holding Corp acquired the…

Read more

So IM8 just absolutely dumped data on us in Tuesday’s earnings call.

20 months of cohort economics. A full cap table. Monthly CAC. Geographic splits. Third-party card data. Danny Yeung’s exact words: “With 20 months of data behind us, we are opening the books.”

He wasn’t kidding.

So let’s break this into the two things that actually matter:

1. What data did…

Read more

This is a slightly different post than usual. Every founder I talk to right now is getting the same pitch from every growth agency, every consultant, every LinkedIn post: TikTok Shop is the channel. Get on it before it’s saturated. Look at the growth numbers.

And the growth numbers are genuinely staggering. But before you redirect your Q4 budget, there’s a question nobody in the “rush to TikTok Shop” conversation is asking with any rigour:

After the fees, the ads, the creator commissions, and the returns, is anyone actually keeping the money?

The gap between “TikTok Shop did $50 billion” and “your brand made money on TikTok Shop” is one of the widest, least-discussed gaps in consumer commerce right now.

The Headline Numbers

TikTok Shop moved $50.3 billion in goods worldwide during the first half of 2026, a 92% increase over the same period last year. The US led every market with $11.8 billion, roughly double its year-ago pace. Momentum Works projects the platform will close 2026 near $123.5 billion, up from under $1 billion five years ago.

70% of US social buyers say they made a purchase on TikTok Shop in the past 12 months more than on any other platform. These are the numbers driving every founder’s FOMO right now.

But GMV (gross merchandise value) is the least useful number in this entire conversation if you’re trying to figure out whether you should sell there. GMV tells you how much stuff moved through the platform. It tells you nothing about what sellers kept.

TikTok Shop Itself Was Built on a Half-Billion-Dollar Subsidy

Before we get into your P&L, you need to understand the platform’s P&L.

TikTok Shop was expected to lose over $500 million in the US in a single year a loss reflecting parent company ByteDance’s significant investments to hire staff, build a fulfillment network, and incentivize sellers by offering free listings, free shipping, zero commissions, and warehousing space.

The “cheap channel” reputation that’s driving founders to TikTok Shop right now was manufactured. ByteDance deliberately subsidised the seller experience to build volume, exactly the way Uber subsidised rides and DoorDash subsidised delivery for a decade before either business had to show real unit economics. And the subsidies are now visibly ending.

The days of TikTok subsidising every aspect of the sale to get merchants on board are fading. As the platform matures, it is moving closer to the Amazon model monetising every touchpoint. As of late 2025, TikTok is phasing out Co-Funded Free Shipping subsidies, meaning sellers now absorb $3 to $5 more per order to keep the Free Shipping badge. TikTok

TikTok even tried, in February 2026, to force every US seller off self-managed shipping and onto TikTok-controlled logistics. Brands objected on cost and reliability grounds, Grande Cosmetics’ CMO warned that carving out inventory for a TikTok warehouse risked fast stockouts, and August founder Nadya Okamoto flagged low trust and framed the choice around margin impact. TikTok pulled the mandate on February 18, 2026, emailing sellers that “Seller Shipping remains unchanged.” Sellers won that fight. But the direction of travel is unmistakable.

The channel you’re being pitched as “the cheap alternative to Meta CPMs” is a channel that was artificially cheap by design, and is now actively repricing toward extraction. Every fee guide published in the last six months says some version of the same thing: what TikTok publishes and what you actually pay are two very different numbers.

The Real Fee Stack: What TikTok Doesn’t Put on the Landing Page

Here’s every layer of cost between a sale on TikTok Shop and money in your bank account.

Layer 1: The Referral Fee (5-8%, category-dependent)

Fashion has the highest commission at 8%, while Food & Beverage enjoys the lowest at 4%. Electronics and Home & Living sit in the middle at 5%. Most categories land between 5-6%. This is the number in every ad for TikTok Shop.

Layer 2: Payment Processing (1-3.78%)

In many US transactions, a payment processing service fee of 1.02% to 3.78% is charged on top of the referral fee. For standard transactions, this means your true marketplace take-rate is closer to 7.02% before fulfillment, affiliate commissions, or ad spend. Already, the “6% platform” is a 7%+ platform. And we haven’t touched anything else yet.

Layer 3: Fulfilment (FBT)

FBT fulfilment starts at $3.58 per unit, dropping to roughly $2.86 for orders of 4+ units. If you self-fulfil instead, you’re now charged a “Shipped by Seller” fee per order on a low-ticket item, that fee plus commission can wipe out 10-15% of gross margin before you’ve even packed the box.

Layer 4: Affiliate/Creator Commissions (5-30%, seller-set)

TikTok lets sellers set commission anywhere from 1% to 80%. Open collaboration, where any creator can promote your product at a publicly posted rate clusters around 10-13% across most categories.

There’s a structural trap here most sellers don’t know exists: sellers can set a separate, lower commission rate for orders generated through paid ads using a creator’s content. A creator’s video starts selling organically, the brand requests their Spark code, turns it into an ad, and the creator notices their effective commission drops. It’s not fraud, it’s a structural mechanic that most creators don’t understand at signup.

Layer 5: Shop Ads / GMV Max (15-25% of revenue)

The most variable cost and often the largest.

Layer 6: The Refund Admin Fee

On a $40 product with a $2.40 referral fee, the refund admin fee is 20% of that $0.48 plus roughly $3 in FBT return handling, giving $3.48 lost per returned unit before you even count the product cost.

Layer 7: Returns

This is the one that destroys models that looked fine on a spreadsheet. TikTok Shop’s platform-wide return rate averages 10-15%higher than Amazon. Every 10 points of return rate eats 4-6% points of net margin.

The category spread is brutal: Fashion 18-25%, home & garden 12-16%, electronics 8-12%, pet products 9-14%, food and consumables 3-6%. Seasonal spikes in November December reach 25-35%.

Size/fit issues drive 42% of fashion returns, defective/spec-mismatch drives 38% of electronics returns, and shade mismatch drives 55% of beauty returns.

And on every one of those refunds, the seller not TikTok eats the loss: the seller typically bears the product cost and shipping on refunded orders, even though platform fees are usually reversed.

Fraud compounds this further: roughly 9% of all returns industry-wide are confirmed fraudulent, and around 45% of consumers admit to some form of return fraud or policy abuse.

The Real Math: What’s Actually Left

Now let’s put every layer together, using the two most rigorous published models available.

Model 1: The $40 Product, Base Case

The all-in take on a first-year $40 product lands between 38% and 52% of GMV before a dollar of product cost. In the base case (6% referral fee, $3.58 fulfilment, 13% affiliate commission, 15% ad spend, 3.7% blended returns), only about 53 cents of every dollar survives to cover COGS and profit.

At $12 COGS on that $40 product: 23% contribution margin. At $16 COGS: it compresses to about 13%.

The average active US TikTok Shop seller nets about 18.4% but the spread runs 5% to 49%, depending almost entirely on creator strategy and return rate. And here’s the number that should reframe your entire creator strategy: Five to ten creators typically drive 80%+ of monthly GMV. The “recruit 1,000 affiliates” strategy is a distraction. Concentration wins on efficiency, and it’s the single biggest lever on your take rate.

Model 2: The Fully Worked $50,000/Month Example

Referral fee (8%): $4,000. Transaction fees: $375. Payment processing (2.0%): $1,000. Shipping and fulfilment (~10%): $5,000. Affiliate commissions (~10% blended): $5,000. TikTok Shop Ads (~20%): $10,000. Content production: $4,000. Returns and chargebacks (~5%): $2,500. Operational overhead: $2,000. Total monthly cost: $33,875, 67.75% of revenue.

That leaves $16,125 to cover COGS. If product cost is 30% of retail ($15,000), you’re left with $1,125 in profit on $50,000 in revenue. That’s a 2.25% net margin. On $50,000 in monthly sales the kind of number that would make any founder feel like they’ve “made it” on TikTok Shop the actual take-home is $1,125.

The good news: the math genuinely improves at scale. A $200K/month seller in the same category benefits from lower per-unit content costs, better ad efficiency, and stronger creator relationships. Their cost percentage might compress to 45-50% of revenue, yielding 15-20% net margins.

This is the entire strategic reality of TikTok Shop in one sentence: the channel is structurally unprofitable at small scale and genuinely attractive at real scale and most brands never survive the gap between the two.

The Average Seller Reality Check

Here’s the number that should temper every “TikTok Shop changed our business” testimonial you read:

The average TikTok Shop store generated approximately $6,062 in monthly revenue in 2025. At a 12% net margin, that equals about $727 per month. $727 a month. That’s not a business. That’s barely a hobby with inventory risk.

Some brands are building 7-figure revenue streams on the platform. Most are barely breaking even.

The Winners

Now let’s look at the brands who cracked it with real numbers, not vibes.

Divi: $4.7M GMV in 9 Months

Divi executed a hero SKU strategy focusing exclusively on their scalp serum as the primary product. They built a massive creator army, used compelling before-and-after content, and ran consistent LIVE selling.

Don’t launch your full catalogue. Pick the one product with the most visually obvious transformation and build the entire creator program around it.

Loop Earplugs: $60K to $450K per Month

Consumer electronics is a harder category on TikTok Shop the content isn’t as inherently visual as beauty, and the purchase consideration cycle is longer. Loop cracked the code by reframing their product from “consumer electronics” to “lifestyle essential.” Nobody on TikTok cares about decibel reduction ratings. They care about sleeping better, focusing at work, surviving concerts without ringing ears. Loop’s creator content focused entirely on scenarios: “I wore these to a concert and here’s what happened,” “These saved my sleep when my partner snores.”

Their paid results were exceptional too: nearly double the average ROAS in the first month, sustained ROAS over 30% above Loop’s average benchmarks for seven months, with sales from the campaign accounting for 13% of total UK sales 10 times higher than what other campaigns typically generate and a CPA 26% lower than Loop’s UK average.

If your product isn’t inherently visual, make the use case visual. Show the problem, show the solution, show the reaction.

Made by Mitchell: £1 Million in 12 Hours

The British brand Made by Mitchell perfectly illustrates the DNA of success on TikTok Shop combining the extreme recurrence of live shows (up to 7 per week and megalives of 12 hours), a strong visual identity, proximity embodied by the founder and his ambassadors, and a catalogue designed specifically for the channel: exclusive bundles, limited quantity drops. The brand exceeded 1 million euros in only 12 hours of live, and multiplied its subscriber base by 4 in three months.

LIVE selling cadence, not one-off events, is the mechanic. Founder-led authenticity compounds. Build SKUs specifically for the drop format, not your general catalogue.

Blissim: €280,000 From One Sampling Campaign

With over 700 sample shipments during their highlight campaign, the French beauty brand generated 1,000 videos, 7,000 sales, and more than €280,000 in turnover. Result: a micro-creator with 15,000 subscribers can generate more than 300 sales and 2 million views proof that TikTok connects on the relevance of the content more than on the size of the community.

Gifting to micro-creators (not paying for reach) can outperform paying macro-influencers, if the content is genuinely relevant.

The Amazon Halo Case

Here’s one that most “TikTok Shop vs. Amazon” thinking completely misses. One CPG brand’s TikTok Shop content drove branded search on Amazon up 3x from 5,600 to 17,134 searches per week through 7,800+ videos in 90 days, ultimately lifting Amazon profit by 53%. GMV came 89.8% from creator-driven content, with videos alone contributing 86.9% of total GMV.

TikTok Shop’s value isn’t only the direct sale. For some brands, the platform’s real ROI shows up as a halo effect on Amazon meaning “is TikTok Shop profitable” sometimes has to be measured across your whole ecosystem, not in isolation.

The Losers: What The Category Data Warns You Away From

TikTok Shop is worth it in 2026 for sellers with ≥30% gross margins, viral-friendly SKUs under $40, and capacity for 10x demand spikes. Thin-margin or heavy/bulky products often lose money after FBT fees and creator commissions.

Winning categories: beauty, home-gadgets, snacks, pet high impulse, low AOV. Losing categories: apparel with heavy returns, bulky items (FBT cost eats margin), commodity electronics.

Apparel is the cautionary tale. With 18-25% return rates and size/fit issues driving 42% of those returns, a brand with a healthy-looking 20% gross margin can watch that compress to 11% real margin once returns are fully costed.

Sweet spot AOV: $30-80. Products priced under $25 rarely survive the math.

The Framework: How to Actually Build TikTok Shop Profitability

If you’re serious about this channel and for the right category, it can genuinely work here’s the operating framework the data actually supports:

• Pick one hero SKU, not your catalogue. Divi didn’t launch 12 products. They launched one scalp serum and built the entire creator machine around it.

• Model your true cost of sale before you launch, not after. Your profit on TikTok Shop is not determined by how viral your content gets. It is determined by how accurately you modelled your costs before you launched.

• Concentrate your creator spend, don’t spread it. Five to ten creators drive 80%+ of GMV in most successful shops. Stop chasing affiliate headcount.

• Reframe the product, don’t just describe it. Loop didn’t sell decibel reduction. They sold “sleep better,” “survive concerts,” “manage sensory overload.” Sell the scenario.

• Choose categories with structurally low return rates. Food, beauty, and pet products sit at 3-8% returns. Apparel sits at 18-25%. That gap alone can be the difference between profit and loss.

• Build a LIVE cadence if your category supports it. Made by Mitchell’s 7-times-a-week, 12-hour megalive model isn’t a stunt, it’s a discipline that compounds subscriber growth and gives creators consistent inventory of content to work with.

• Track net margin per SKU weekly, not GMV monthly. Tracking real net profit per SKU is critical to avoid scaling unprofitable products. A brand that scales an unprofitable hero SKU just loses money faster.

• Don’t confuse the platform’s subsidy era with the current fee environment. The version of TikTok Shop your friend’s brand won on in 2023 free shipping, zero commission, warehousing thrown in is not the version you’re launching into in late 2026.

The Verdict

Is TikTok Shop profitable? For the platform itself, historically: no it was built on a $500M+ annual subsidy specifically designed to make sellers believe it was cheap.

For the average seller today: barely $6,062 in monthly revenue and $727 in monthly profit is the median reality, not the case study reality.

For a disciplined operator with the right category, the right hero SKU, concentrated creator spend, and a return-rate-aware product: genuinely yes 15-20% net margins at real scale, with case studies like Divi, Loop, and Made by Mitchell proving it’s achievable and repeatable.

The gap between those two outcomes is not luck. It’s whether you modelled the real fee stack before you launched, or whether you launched because a growth agency showed you a $50 billion headline number and let you assume the rest.

Are you modelling your TikTok Shop unit economics against the real fee stack — or against the number in the press release?

P.S. The number that should be in every founder’s TikTok Shop deck, and almost never is: brands keep roughly 67% of gross GMV after platform commission, sample seeding, returns management, and payment processing before a dollar of ad spend or COGS is even counted. When reading any case study, multiply the headline GMV by 0.67 before you get remotely excited. Apply that single discount factor to every “we did $X on TikTok Shop” post you see this quarter, and most of them stop looking quite as extraordinary.

P.P.S. The audience-ageing data buried in the article you sent deserves its own line, because it changes how every consumer brand should be staffing creator rosters. 36.5 million Americans aged 25-34 visited TikTok in May, versus 24.5 million aged 18-24 and 47% of the 25-44 group went on to buy something they first discovered on the platform, the highest conversion rate of any age group. Meanwhile 63% of Gen Z say they’ve stopped buying through TikTok Shop specifically, even though 62% still use it to browse. Translation: if your entire creator roster is 22-year-olds because “that’s who’s on TikTok,” you’re optimising for the demographic that discovers and leaves, while under-investing in the demographic that’s actually converting. Split the creator budget by funnel stage, not by who’s easiest to book.

This question landed in my inbox this week

“I’m building a supplement brand, pre-Series A, about $2M revenue. A mid-tier celebrity’s management team approached us offering equity in exchange for becoming a ‘co-founder’ reduced cash fee, meaningful stock. Everyone around me my advisors, other founders says take it, equity deals are how it’s done now. But after reading your breakdowns of Prime, GXVE, and Rhode, I’m genuinely nervous about getting this wrong. How do I actually evaluate whether THIS specific deal helps or kills my brand? I need a framework, not vibes.”

You’re right to be nervous. And you’re asking exactly the right question.

The global celebrity endorsement market reached $3.4 billion in 2025 and is projected to grow to $5.5 billion by 2032. Every talent agency, every advisor, every LinkedIn post is pushing the same message: equity beats endorsement fees.

Sometimes that’s true. Sometimes it’s the worst decision you’ll ever make as a founder. The difference isn’t the structure. It’s the specific mechanics of the deal in front of you, right now, this week.

Let me give you the actual due diligence framework before you sign anything.

The Four Levels of Celebrity Deals (And Why Level Matters More Than “Equity vs Cash”)

Before evaluating your specific offer, you need to know what level of deal you’re actually being offered.

• Level 4: Equity Hybrid (The Beyoncé Model): A meaningful base guarantee combined with actual equity or equity-equivalent instruments in a product line, sub-brand, or revenue stream. The celebrity has long-term financial exposure to the brand’s success.

• Level 5: Full Ownership: The celebrity bypasses endorsement entirely and builds or acquires their own brand.

Here’s the level breakdown, expanded:

• Level 1: Flat Fee: Traditional endorsement. Celebrity gets paid, no equity, no long-term exposure. Low risk, low upside for both parties.

• Level 2: Fee + Royalty: Celebrity gets a base fee plus a percentage of sales. Some skin in the game, but capped downside for the celebrity.

• Level 3: Small Equity Stake: Celebrity receives a minority equity position (typically 1-5%) alongside a reduced fee. This is what most “equity deals” actually are.

• Level 4: Equity Hybrid: A meaningful base guarantee combined with actual equity or equity-equivalent instruments, where the celebrity has genuine long-term financial exposure. This is reportedly where the 2026 Beyoncé-PepsiCo deal sits.

• Level 5: Full Ownership/Co-Founder: The celebrity is a genuine operating co-founder Rhode (Hailey Bieber), Fenty (Rihanna), Cécred (Beyoncé’s own haircare line).

The critical insight from the Beyoncé-PepsiCo situation: What’s fascinating is that Beyoncé someone who could easily launch her own beverage brand tomorrow, chose to re-partner with an existing mega brand rather than compete with it. That’s a statement about the value of distribution, supply chain, and existing retail relationships that even the most powerful personal brand in the world can’t easily replicate alone.

Even Beyoncé, who has the cultural capital to launch anything, chose Level 4 over Level 5 with PepsiCo because the distribution infrastructure was worth more than full ownership.

Your first question: What level is your offer actually at? A “co-founder title with reduced fee and some equity” is very likely Level 3, not Level 5 regardless of what the term sheet calls it.

The Five-Question Framework: What to Actually Ask Before You Sign

Here’s the structured due diligence process. Work through each of these in order.

Question 1: “Does This Celebrity Have Authentic Category Credibility Or Just General Fame?”

Consumers increasingly favor brands that feel like a real extension of someone’s identity rather than a paid placement. This is the single biggest predictor of whether the deal helps or hurts you. Run this test: Could this celebrity explain, in one genuine sentence, why they personally needed this exact product before your company existed?

Passes the test:

• Hailey Bieber + Rhode: had perioral dermatitis, couldn’t find products that worked

• Maria Shriver + MOSH: 20 years of Alzheimer’s advocacy, couldn’t find a brain-health protein bar

• Iskra Lawrence + Saltair: her entire platform was body positivity and self-acceptance

Fails the test:

• Gwen Stefani + GXVE: “Everything I’ve done has led up to GXVE” — a statement about her career, not a specific unmet need

For your specific deal: Ask the celebrity’s team directly “What’s the personal story behind why they want to be involved in this specific product?” If the answer is vague (”they love wellness” or “they’ve always been interested in supplements”), that’s your first red flag. Celebrity equity, once seen as a shield, can instead amplify criticism. Consumers expect founders to be visibly involved, to articulate why they belong in a category, and to demonstrate that the brand would make sense even without their name attached.

Question 2: “What Is the Celebrity Actually Committing to Do And Is It in Writing?”

This is where the “smoke and mirrors” problem lives.

These deals aren’t always quite what they seem. While celebrities are sometimes heavily involved, there can be a little “smoke and mirrors” around terms like ‘investor.’ Equity might be handed over by a smaller brand that couldn’t otherwise afford the services of a top-tier celebrity. CNBC

Specific things to get in writing:

1. Minimum number of promotional posts/appearances per quarter not “regular engagement,” an actual number

2. Product development involvement will they attend formulation meetings? Taste-test products? Approve packaging? Or is this decorative?

3. Exclusivity terms can they simultaneously endorse a competitor?

4. Response time requirements for approvals celebrity schedules can delay product launches by months if not contractually bound

5. What happens if they go quiet many deals have no minimum activity clause, meaning the celebrity can technically fulfil the contract by doing nothing beyond the initial announcement

The lesson from GXVE and Flower Beauty: both had famous, genuinely talented founders attached. Both failed. The difference between “attached” and “operationally involved” is the entire ballgame and it needs to be contractually enforceable, not just verbally promised.

Question 3: “What’s the Vesting Schedule And What Happens If They Underperform or Walk Away?”

This is the question most founders forget entirely because they’re excited about the “yes.”

Just as a common early equity mistake is issuing founder shares at incorporation with no vesting schedule, which can mean a departing co-founder keeps their full stake regardless of contribution the exact same risk applies to celebrity equity.

What you need contractually:

• Vesting tied to actual deliverables, not just time (e.g., “vests upon completion of 4 promotional campaigns per year,” not just “vests over 4 years regardless of activity”)

• Clawback provisions if the celebrity is inactive, unresponsive, or breaches morality clauses

• Clear definition of what counts as a trigger event for reduced involvement (e.g., relocation, other major deals, personal scandal)

If the celebrity’s team pushes back hard on performance-based vesting and wants pure time-based vesting regardless of activity — that’s a signal they expect to do less than you think, not more.

Question 4: “Is This Category One Where Celebrity Involvement Actually Moves the Needle Or One Where It Historically Destroys Value?”

New research just quantified something founders have intuited for years but never had data for. The Celebrity-Brand Fit Index a joint research report ranking eight consumer sectors by proprietary scoring — found that beauty, spirits, and fashion reward founder-led celebrity brands with category-leading valuations. Financial services has punished them.

Celebrity endorsers of the collapsed FTX exchange reportedly received $30 million and $18 million in now worthless equity respectively, and still face remaining securities claims after a May 2025 federal ruling.

The category-level insight matters enormously for your situation:

Supplements/wellness (your category) sits in a middle zone:

It rewards celebrity involvement when the credibility is genuine and clinical (MOSH, IM8) and punishes it hard when the celebrity is purely a marketing wrapper on a commodity product (Prime, which we’ve written about extensively).

Before you sign, ask: in MY specific category, does the data show celebrity equity correlating with better outcomes, or is this a category where celebrity involvement has a track record of destroying trust (financial products, anything regulatory-heavy, anything requiring genuine expertise the celebrity doesn’t have)?

Supplements sit close to beauty and spirits in the reward zone but only when the celebrity brings genuine credibility, not just reach.

Question 5: “What’s Your Walk-Away Plan If This Relationship Sours?”

Every framework needs to plan for the worst case, not just the best case.

The Diddy-Diageo relationship generated an estimated $50M/year for over a decade and still ended in a lawsuit, a settlement, and complete severance.

Before you sign, model these scenarios:

• Scenario A: The celebrity becomes inactive. What percentage of their equity have you already given up, and what do you get back?

• Scenario B: The celebrity has a personal scandal. Does your morality clause allow immediate suspension of promotional obligations and equity vesting? Is the brand name/packaging separable from their identity, or are you permanently tied to them (like Prime is permanently tied to KSI/Logan Paul)?

• Scenario C: The relationship simply sours over strategic disagreements. What’s your buyout mechanism? Is there a pre-agreed formula for repurchasing their equity, or will you be negotiating from scratch during a crisis the worst possible time to negotiate?

• Scenario D: They want out and you don’t. Can they sell their stake to a third party without your consent? Could a competitor end up as your celebrity’s equity buyer?

If your lawyers haven’t modelled all four of these scenarios before you sign, you’re not doing due diligence. You’re doing hope.

The Honest Answer: Should You Take the Deal?

Here’s my genuinely honest take, not a hedge:

Take it if:

• The celebrity has a documented, specific, personal reason to be in your category (not general fame)

• You can get performance based vesting with real teeth

• The deliverables are specific and contractually enforceable

• Your lawyer has walked through all four exit scenarios and you’re comfortable with each one

• You would still be excited about this brand’s fundamentals even if the celebrity disappeared tomorrow

Walk away if:

• The “co-founder” pitch has no specific personal story behind it just fame and reach

• Their team resists performance based vesting or specific deliverable language

• You’re being asked to give up more than 15 - 20% equity for a Level 3 involvement dressed up as Level 5 language

• Your product/brand doesn’t have standalone merit without the celebrity attached

• You feel pressure to decide quickly because “other brands want them too” genuine long-term partners don’t create artificial urgency

The most resilient celebrity brands feel less like merchandising exercises and more like extensions of a coherent personal narrative.

If you can’t articulate that coherent personal narrative in one sentence right now before the ink is dry that’s the answer to your question.

The Reality

Everyone telling you “always take equity over cash” is giving you half of the correct advice.

Equity aligns incentives when the celebrity is genuinely operationally involved and the deal structure protects you if they’re not.

Equity also creates permanent entanglement with someone whose reputation, availability, and personal choices you cannot control, in a relationship that (as Diddy and Diageo proved) can turn from $50M/year success story to bitter lawsuit even after 15 years of genuine value creation.

The question was never “equity or cash.”

The question is: does this specific celebrity, in this specific category, with this specific contract structure, create genuine long-term value alignment — or are you trading a known cost (cash fee) for an unknown, harder-to-exit liability (permanent equity entanglement with someone else’s fame)?

Run the five questions. Get the vesting terms right. Model the exit scenarios.

Then decide.

What did you decide? I’d genuinely love to know how this plays out reply and let me know once you’ve made the call.

P.P.S. If you take one thing from this entire framework: get the vesting schedule right before anything else. Institutional investors often flag a lack of proper vesting as a dealbreaker in normal founder equity splits and celebrity equity deserves exactly the same scrutiny, if not more, because you have far less influence over a celebrity’s day to day behaviour than you do over a co-founder sitting in your office. Time-based vesting with no performance triggers is the single most common mistake I see in these deals, and it’s almost always the celebrity’s team pushing for it because it guarantees them the equity regardless of whether they actually show up.

Before we begin, a quick ask

I’m running the London Marathon for Able Child Africa, supporting children with disabilities across Africa to access education, healthcare, and the opportunities they deserve. Every child, regardless of disability, deserves the chance to reach their full potential.

My goal is to raise £2,200.

If you can support with a donation of any size, or share this with someone who might, I’d be deeply grateful.

Donate here: https://ablechildafrica.enthuse.com/pf/dolusegun

Thank you for helping me make every mile count.

Three exits. Six years. Nine figures each.

One man. Almost nobody outside beauty knows his name.

Last week TSG Consumer a $14 billion private equity firm announced it had signed a definitive agreement to acquire a majority stake in Saltair, the body care brand founded by Iskra Lawrence.

Saltair’s sales are expected to be in the region of $150 million for 2026 as a whole. The same TSG Consumer that acquired Phlur the fragrance brand exactly one year ago, in July 2025.

Phlur, co-owned by Chriselle Lim and Ben Bennett, was acquired by TSG Consumer Partners, with the brand on track to top $150 million in retail sales in 2025.

And the same company behind Naturium the ingredient-led skincare brand that sold to e.l.f. Beauty in 2023 for $355 million. In 2023, with Naturium nearing $100 million in annual revenue, e.l.f. Beauty acquired it for $355 million.

Three brands. Three exits at or approaching nine figures. All built using an identical playbook. All connected to one person.

His name is Ben Bennett.

And he is one of the most successful beauty executives you’ve never heard of. “He’s very private. He likes to keep himself out of the narrative,” said a person familiar with his business. And yet, everyone in the industry knows his work.

This is the story of the man behind the brands everyone’s been talking about and the most disciplined brand-building system operating in beauty right now.

The Origin: From Bath & Body Works to Building the Playbook

Read more

Let me give you a number that will ruin your day. 31p.

That’s the clearance price British retailers were selling Prime Hydration cans for in mid-2025.

The same cans that were selling on eBay for £100 in 2022. The same brand that generated $1.2 billion in revenue in 2023. The same product that surpassed Gatorade as the number one selling hydration drink at Walmart.

Locked in anti-theft cabinets at Aldi. Bottles reselling for over £1,000 on secondary markets. Stampedes at store openings. Schools banning it. A US Senator calling it a “cauldron of caffeine.”

Then: clearance bins. Grocery store sale shelves. 31 pence.

From 2023’s $1.2 billion peak, Prime Hydration crashed to a projected $300 million in 2025, a 76% decline in two years.

This is the most spectacular, instructive, preventable collapse in consumer brand history. And almost every single lesson was ignored.

Let me take you through the full autopsy.

The Origin: Two Rivals, One Deal, and 60 Million Reasons It Worked

Read more

Let me give you a number. £867 million.

That’s roughly how much enterprise value has been destroyed at Gymshark since General Atlantic invested in 2020 not because the business collapsed, but because the multiple the market puts on apparel earnings went from 33x to 10.8x whilst Gymshark’s margins were simultaneously getting cut in half.

Revenue up 150% in…

Read more

Let me set the scene

Golden State Warriors star Stephen Curry has signed a 10-year, $400 million endorsement contract with Chinese sports apparel company Li-Ning. The same Li-Ning whose merchandise was banned from import into the United States in 2022.

Li-Ning and several other Chinese companies have been identified by the U.S. government and human rights groups as using forced labor to produce their goods. Li-Ning merchandise was banned in the United States in 2022. And the deal includes plans to open Curry Brand retail stores in America.

Let that contradiction sit for a moment. The brand manufacturing Curry’s products is legally prohibited from selling those products into the United States. The deal plans to open retail stores selling those products in the United States.

Either Curry Brand operates as a legally separate entity with a different supply chain one that can clear US customs. Or the deal includes a quiet bet that the regulatory environment shifts. Or the US retail component is aspirational PR that will quietly disappear when the lawyers get involved.

Nobody in the mainstream sports media is asking which one it is. This is the most interesting story in global sports business right now and it has almost nothing to do with basketball.

What You Actually Need to Know About Li-Ning

Started in 1990 by Chinese gymnast and Olympic gold medalist Li Ning, the namesake brand has grown into one of the most recognizable homegrown sports companies. But over 98% of the company’s $4.3 billion revenue last year came from the domestic market.

Li-Ning reported about $4.3 billion (29.6 billion RMB) in revenue in 2025, with more than 98% of it coming from inside China. $4.3 billion revenue. 98% from China.

For context:

• Nike revenue (FY2025): $46.3 billion.

• Li-Ning revenue (2025): $4.3 billion

• Nike China revenue (declining): Down 20% over four years, with additional losses reported in 2026. Many on Wall Street now refer to this simply as “Nike’s China Problem.”

The market opportunity Li-Ning is chasing isn’t America. It never was. It’s the 1.4 billion Chinese consumers who are increasingly choosing domestic brands over the Swoosh. This is the central strategic logic of the entire deal and once you see it, everything else makes sense.

The US Ban: What It Actually Means

Before we get to the strategy, the legal reality matters.

The Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) was signed into law by President Biden on December 23, 2021. Enforcement began on June 21, 2022. The UFLPA establishes a rebuttable presumption that goods mined, produced, or manufactured wholly or in part in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of China are prohibited from US importation unless the importer can provide “clear and convincing evidence” that the goods were not produced with forced labor.

Xinjiang matters for Li-Ning specifically because: Xinjiang accounted for nearly 90% of China’s cotton production, causing significant forced labor risks associated with importing cotton apparel from China.

Rep. Chris Smith, a New Jersey Republican who co-chairs the Congressional-Executive Commission on China, said Tuesday that he plans to ask the Department of Homeland Security to examine Li-Ning imports. “Steph Curry is one of the most talented and watched basketball players in the world, which is exactly why this matters,” Smith said. “The NBA, its players, and sites like Amazon cannot suggest that they stand for social justice at home while cashing checks from companies tied to the Chinese Communist Party’s forced-labor economy.”

Congressional attention on day two of the announcement. This is not a peripheral controversy that will fade. A sitting Republican congressman is actively requesting DHS examination of Li-Ning imports specifically because of the Curry deal.

The legal question for Curry Brand: The deal apparently includes plans to open Curry Brand retail stores in the United States. For these stores to legally sell Li-Ning manufactured products, one of three things must happen:

• Option 1: Curry Brand establishes an entirely separate US supply chain manufacturing in a country with clean labour certification, using cotton that can be traced to non-Xinjiang sources, with documentation sufficient to satisfy “clear and convincing evidence” standard under the UFLPA.

• Option 2: Li-Ning successfully demonstrates its existing supply chain has no Xinjiang nexus clearing the “rebuttable presumption” that makes its goods presumptively banned.

• Option 3: The US retail component never actually materialises — it’s PR language in the announcement that quietly disappears when compliance teams get involved.

Nobody has publicly explained which scenario applies. Curry opted for Li-Ning over other pitches from American and foreign companies despite similar financial commitments, including at least one brand that offered more.

He left more money on the table from another brand to sign with Li-Ning. Which means the US retail component isn’t just about American revenue. It’s about American perception being seen as a global brand with domestic presence.

Why Li-Ning Paid $400M: The Real Strategic Math

Let’s do the actual numbers on why this deal makes sense for Li-Ning even if the US stores never open.

Li-Ning’s revenue: $4.3B (2025)

Steph Curry’s China market value: Curry has traveled to China seven times with the most recent tour to Chongqing last August, and each visit has drawn massive, frenzied crowds. China has approximately 300 million active basketball players. The NBA has been broadcasting in China for decades. Steph Curry two-time MVP, four-time champion, the man who fundamentally changed how basketball is played is one of the most recognisable American athletes among Chinese consumers.

China was once Nike’s secret commercial engine and an area where investors expected the Swoosh to keep outpacing its rivals. Then things flipped upside down. Nike’s revenue in its Greater China region has fallen 20% over the last four full fiscal years, with additional losses reported in 2026.

Nike is losing China. Li-Ning is gaining it.

And now Li-Ning has Steph Curry the face of the most distinctive offensive style in basketball history, playing a game that requires exactly the footwear innovations Li-Ning has been investing in — basketball shoes for guards, three-point shooters, movement specialists.

The investment thesis: If the Curry partnership drives even 5 - 10% revenue growth for Li-Ning in China, that’s $215 - 430M in incremental annual revenue against a $40M/year endorsement cost.

The return on that $400M investment paid over 10 years at $40M/year could be positive within 24 months.

And the basketball shoes market in China specifically: Golf products are involved here too, and China is a huge golf market.

The deal includes a full golf line. Curry is a plus-handicap golfer and winner of the 2023 American Century Championship. Golf is one of China’s fastest-growing sports and Li-Ning has zero presence in the category. The deal covers basketball products, athleisure lifestyle wear, the ability for Curry to sign male and female athletes under his brand, and a full golf line.

Basketball + golf + lifestyle in a 1.4 billion consumer market where both sports are growing rapidly.

The Way of Wade Blueprint: Why Li-Ning Knows This Works

This is not a new playbook for Li-Ning. They’ve been running it for 14 years.

2012: Dwyane Wade leaves Jordan Brand for Li-Ning.

At the time, this was considered career suicide. Wade was at his peak a Finals MVP, three-time champion, one of the most marketable guards in the game. Li-Ning offered a 10-year pact worth more than $8 million per year with additional incentives and royalties in tow.

Never before had a superstar guard who still had a robust domestic sneaker market available to him made the move to a Chinese shoe at the height of his career.

What happened: After selling products in 5,704 Li-Ning storefronts and 11 standalone WADE stores throughout China, Li-Ning and Wade are teaming up to launch WayOfWade.com and bring more consistent launches to his US fanbase.

5,704 Li-Ning storefronts. 11 standalone Wade stores. A lifetime deal. Wade and the Chinese apparel company Li-Ning announced that the three-time NBA champion has signed a lifetime contract with the brand.

Wade’s $8M/year deal produced:

• 11 standalone WADE stores in China

• Distribution across 5,704 Li-Ning locations

• A cult sneaker following that reshaped Li-Ning’s cultural positioning

• A lifetime deal extension for an athlete who’d already retired

Now apply that math to Steph Curry:

Curry is:

• More famous globally than Wade was in 2012

• More recognised in China (seven visits, each drawing “massive, frenzied crowds”)

• More culturally resonant with the modern Chinese consumer (skill-based, precision game vs athletic dominance)

• The face of a playing style three-point shooting that China’s basketball generation is obsessed with

In China specifically, where basketball fandom runs deep and brand loyalty around athlete partnerships is fierce, attaching Curry to Li-Ning is a calculated bet with enormous upside. If Wade at $8M/year built 11 standalone stores and transformed Li-Ning’s basketball positioning, what does Curry at $40M/year build? That’s Li-Ning’s bet.

And it’s a bet backed by 14 years of data proving the model works.

Why Curry Chose Li-Ning Over More Money

Curry opted for Li-Ning over other pitches from American and foreign companies despite similar financial commitments, including at least one brand that offered more. He turned down more money.

Why?

Draymond Green pointed to three driving forces: the brand’s rapid ascent on the global stage, the sheer size of the Chinese consumer market, and the rare opportunity Curry now has to build a business empire that outlasts his playing career.

While high-value athlete brand partnerships are common like LeBron James’s reported lifetime Nike contract and Michael Jordan’s creation of the Jordan Brand Curry’s deal stands out for its scale, operational control, and international reach. Industry sources say Curry declined at least one other lucrative offer to prioritise long-term control and expansion, especially in global retail markets.

The key phrase: “operational control.”

The agreement will include basketball products, athleisure lifestyle wear, the ability for Curry to sign athletes under his brand, and a full golf line. The ability to sign other athletes under his brand.

This transforms Curry Brand from an endorsement arrangement into something closer to what Jordan Brand is within Nike an athlete-led sub-brand with its own identity, its own athlete roster, its own product categories.

The ability to recruit and sign other athletes under Curry Brand creates a structure with long-term commercial independence a model that goes well beyond the typical endorsement arrangement.

At 38 years old, Curry is building for what comes after basketball.

The Jordan Brand comparison is explicit. From a market perspective, the 10-year agreement challenges the multibillion-dollar model established by Michael Jordan’s Jordan Brand at Nike. At 38, Curry’s contract extends beyond his NBA career. By securing full ownership of his intellectual property and a leadership role in brand expansion, Curry is partnering with an international company ready to launch.

The structural difference from Jordan Brand: Jordan Brand lives inside Nike. Jordan gets royalties on products manufactured and distributed by Nike. Nike controls the supply chain, the retail relationships, the international expansion.

Curry Brand with Li-Ning is different: Li-Ning gives Curry the manufacturing and distribution infrastructure. Curry maintains operational control, IP ownership, athlete signing authority, and creative direction. It’s a genuine platform, not a sub-brand within someone else’s infrastructure.

If this works and the Wade precedent suggests it can Curry won’t just be the face of a Chinese brand. He’ll be running a global sports brand that happens to be manufactured and distributed by Li-Ning.

That’s the play. That’s why he took less money from other brands.

The Geopolitical Dimension Nobody Wants To Discuss

Let’s be direct about something the sports press is dancing around. This deal exists in a specific geopolitical context: The US-China trade relationship is the most contested economic relationship in the world right now. Tariffs, technology restrictions, UFLPA enforcement, congressional scrutiny of NBA-China ties these aren’t background noise. They’re the operating environment for this deal.

Rep. Chris Smith said: “The NBA, its players, and sites like Amazon cannot suggest that they stand for social justice at home while cashing checks from companies tied to the Chinese Communist Party’s forced-labor economy.”

This critique lands because it’s structurally coherent. The NBA has built significant brand equity on social justice positioning players using their platforms for causes, the league’s outspoken stances on various issues. Partnering with a company identified by the US government as linked to forced labour creates an obvious tension.

But the business reality is equally coherent: China was once Nike’s secret commercial engine. Nike’s revenue in Greater China has fallen 20% over four years.

Nike is losing China. The void is being filled by Li-Ning, Anta, and other domestic Chinese brands. American athletes are choosing sides in a commercial war that has nothing to do with basketball and everything to do with which sports brand wins the largest consumer market on earth.

Steph Curry just chose a side. And the US retail ban? Over 98% of Li-Ning’s $4.3 billion revenue comes from inside China. The US market isn’t the prize for Li-Ning. It’s the optics.

Having Curry Brand stores in America signals global ambition. It generates American press coverage. It creates FOMO in Chinese consumers who know their favourite brand has international reach. The stores might exist primarily as brand-building exercises rather than revenue centres even if the legal and supply chain issues can be resolved.

When the market size of a basketball-obsessed nation of 1.4 billion people is on the line, compliance headaches in Washington become a manageable obstacle rather than a dealbreaker.

The Chinese Brand Moment

Steph Curry’s deal is the institutional scale-up of a thesis that’s been building for 14 years.

The timeline:

• 2006: Shaq signs with Li-Ning. First major American athlete with a Chinese brand. Mostly symbolic.

• 2010: Kevin Garnett signs with Anta. Signals Chinese brands are serious about acquiring American talent.

• 2012: Dwyane Wade leaves Jordan Brand for Li-Ning. Seismic. First superstar guard at career peak choosing China over America.

• 2015-2020: Klay Thompson signs with Anta ($80M deal). Jimmy Butler, Fred VanVleet, D’Angelo Russell, CJ McCollum all sign Li-Ning deals. Chinese brands build NBA rosters.

• 2026: Steph Curry signs $400M with Li-Ning. The category scales from “interesting experiment” to “institutional business.”

Those deals showed other NBA players that Chinese sports brands are serious about them, said Shawn Liu, Anta’s director of basketball sports marketing. The Wade deal proved the model. The Klay deal proved it scales. The Curry deal proves it can be built into a generational brand.

For Li-Ning, the partnership is equally transformative. The brand has been building momentum internationally, and landing one of the most recognizable faces in basketball accelerates that timeline considerably.

The Jordan Brand comparison: Jordan Brand was built on one player’s cultural dominance, his specific playing style (explosive, dominant, winning), and two decades of patient brand-building that turned a signature shoe into a multi-billion dollar sub-brand within Nike.

Li-Ning is explicitly trying to build the Chinese equivalent a brand anchored to an athlete whose playing style (skill-based, precision, democratic anyone can shoot threes) resonates with the values Chinese basketball culture is converging toward.

Jordan Brand generated approximately $5B in revenue in 2024. If Curry Brand at Li-Ning reaches even 20% of Jordan Brand’s scale, that’s $1B annually from a market that’s 14 years into building this infrastructure. That’s the ambition. That’s why $400M is not overpaying.

My Take

Here’s where I actually land on this: Steph Curry made a rational, well-structured business decision. The China market opportunity is real. Li-Ning’s operational infrastructure is real. The Way of Wade proof of concept is real. The ability to build a brand that outlasts his playing career is real.

The US retail complication is real too but it may be secondary to the core strategy.

Over 98% of Li-Ning’s $4.3 billion revenue comes from inside China. The US stores if they ever open are brand signalling for Chinese consumers, not a primary revenue strategy.

The geopolitical criticism is also real. When the US government has legally identified forced labour concerns serious enough to ban imports, and a Congressman is publicly asking DHS to investigate the deal within 48 hours of announcement, the human rights dimension isn’t abstract.

But the business logic is clear: Nike is losing China. Li-Ning is gaining. Steph Curry is one of the most beloved American athletes among Chinese consumers. The Wade deal built 11 standalone stores and 5,704 distribution points. Curry is structurally better positioned than Wade in China at the time of signing.

$400M for 10 years in exchange for the potential to build the Chinese equivalent of Jordan Brand in the world’s largest sports market? For Li-Ning, that’s not a bet. That’s due diligence. For Curry, turning down more money to get IP ownership and athlete-signing authority? That’s thinking like a founder, not an endorser.

The US regulatory question is the unresolved thread. And it’s the one that will determine whether this becomes a genuine global brand or an extraordinarily lucrative Chinese one. Watch the supply chain disclosures. Watch whether those US stores ever actually open. Watch whether Congress presses DHS to act.

Because the business story is fascinating. The human rights story hasn’t finished being written.

P.S. The detail that most reveals what this deal is really about: Charania noted that it wasn’t even the most lucrative offer Curry received from all of the brands who weighed in. Curry turned down more money. A player who already has a $215M NBA contract, existing endorsements, and generational wealth chose a deal structured around brand autonomy and China market access over a higher cheque. That’s not an athlete decision. That’s a founder decision. He’s not monetising his fame. He’s building infrastructure for what comes after basketball. The $40M/year is almost incidental to the real prize IP ownership, athlete-signing authority, and positioning as the institutional anchor of Li-Ning’s global basketball ambition. That’s the Wade-to-Curry evolution in one sentence: Wade proved Chinese brands could build cult sneaker culture around an NBA star. Curry is the test of whether that cult culture can scale into a globally recognised brand architecture. We’ll know in 5-7 years. And we’ll be watching.

P.P.S. Curry said in the statement that he was impressed with the company’s shoes made for Butler and Wade, which led him to conclude that the Chinese brand could be the right partner. The product testing detail is easy to overlook but it’s telling. Curry didn’t just take the meeting and take the money. He actually wore Jimmy Butler’s and Dwyane Wade’s Li-Ning shoes during games before signing. For a player as particular about his footwear as Curry whose Curry Brand with Under Armour was built around his specific movement patterns, his release point, his lateral cutting product approval came before commercial negotiation. That’s founder thinking applied to brand partnerships. The product has to be right first. Everything else follows.

This story broke this week and almost nobody is writing the real angle on it.

On July 2nd, Chanel announced it had acquired Charvet, France’s oldest shirtmaker, founded in 1838, whose striped linen shirts typically go for about €655 ($746).

The headlines said: “Luxury brand buys historic shirtmaker.”

The real story is completely different.

This deal tells you everything about how the most strategically disciplined luxury company in the world is thinking about the next decade and why their approach is almost the opposite of what every other luxury conglomerate is doing.

Let me show you what’s actually going on.

First, What Just Happened (And Why It Sold Out in Hours)

Chanel and Charvet have grown close since artistic director Matthieu Blazy rekindled their historic bond by tapping the cult shirtmaker to make three oversize cotton button-up shirts for his debut collection for Chanel last October. Weighed down with a signature Chanel chain at the hem, they were among the “It” pieces of the spring 2026 collection, and have been worn by celebrities including Nicole Kidman, Jessie Buckley and Jacob Elordi.

The resulting $7,130 co-branded tuxedo shirt sold out in boutiques within hours of hitting the shelves.

A $7,130 shirt. Sold out in hours.

The runway featured perfectly pressed, loose-fitting shirts in a range of colours, complete with a discreet Chanel inscription. These shirts were priced at $3,800.

$3,800 for the entry-level collab shirt. $7,130 for the tuxedo version.

Both gone before most people knew they existed.

That commercial validation, the proof that ultra-high-net-worth consumers would pay this price and queue for this product is what turned a creative collaboration into a permanent marriage.

Bruno Pavlovsky, president of fashion and president of Chanel SAS, said: “We decided to get married. Chanel is a house primarily aimed at women, though we have a growing male clientele, while Charvet is a house primarily aimed at men, though it’s drawing more and more women.”

“It’s part of our legend and storytelling. We thought it made sense for the future of Charvet to be secured by Chanel,” he added.

The Brand They Just Acquired: 188 Years of Dressing Legends

Before we get to the strategy, you need to understand what Charvet actually is. Because “luxury shirtmaker” undersells it in the same way “streetwear brand” undersells Trapstar.

Founded in Paris in 1838 as the world’s first specialist shirt store, the iconic Charvet brand holds a special place in the history of luxury fashion. At a time when tailors visited their clients at home, Charvet broke new ground by opening an opulent salon dedicated to menswear, changing the way luxury clothing shopping was perceived.

Founded in 1838, Charvet is France’s oldest shirtmaker and has dressed luminaries including Marcel Proust, Winston Churchill, John F. Kennedy, Yves Saint Laurent, Karl Lagerfeld and Sofia Coppola.

Marcel Proust. Winston Churchill. JFK. Karl Lagerfeld.

Few people know that the connection between Chanel and Charvet also has a romantic history. Arthur Boy Capel, the British aristocrat, was one of the most loyal clients of this prestigious Parisian house, as well as Gabrielle Chanel’s partner. His fondness for impeccably tailored Charvet shirts and pyjamas also left its mark on Coco herself, who often reached for pieces from his wardrobe during their relationship. The connection between these two houses predates both of them as modern businesses.

Coco Chanel wore her lover’s Charvet shirts. Now Chanel owns Charvet.

Walking into Charvet’s boutique on Place Vendôme is almost like stepping back into another era. Although it operates in the contemporary world of luxury, this French house still upholds customs that are nearly two centuries old. Clients’ measurements, order histories, tailoring notes and invoices are still carefully written by hand in large leather ledgers, just as they were in the 19th century.

“At Charvet, there’s not one blue, there are 500 blues. There’s not one white, there are dozens. What’s extraordinary is the level of precision and sophistication in the details,” said Pavlovsky. The third floor of the store is home to what is billed as the world’s largest collection of shirtings, with 6,000 types of poplins, batistes, zephyrs and voiles, and another room dedicated just to collars. Monograms are hand-embroidered and can be custom designed.

500 blues. 6,000 types of fabric. Hand-embroidered monograms.

This is the antithesis of everything the internet age has built. It’s irreproducible by algorithm, impossible to scale, and entirely dependent on human knowledge accumulated across 188 years.

Which is exactly why Chanel wanted it.

The Succession Problem: Why the Colbans Said Yes

The transaction also appears to solve a succession problem that had begun to shadow the brand’s future. The Colbans, who are in their 70s, were keen to secure the long-term continuity of the company to preserve its unique know-how and specialized staff.

With the next generation pursuing careers entirely outside the fashion industry, a corporate sale became the only path forward.

Pavlovsky said: “They don’t have any internal or family successors, and we had a super good feeling… so we have decided that the future of Charvet will be with Chanel.”

When a heritage brand has no succession plan, when the next generation doesn’t want the business —he founder’s choice becomes:

• Option A: Sell to a private equity firm that extracts margin, scales aggressively, and depletes the very qualities that made the brand worth owning.

• Option B: Sell to a strategic partner that has genuine cultural alignment, the financial strength to invest in the brand’s future, and a credible commitment to preserving what makes it irreplaceable.

When Chanel approached Charvet to develop shirts for Matthieu Blazy’s debut show in October 2025, owner operators Anne-Marie and Jean-Claude Colban didn’t want to “make life complicated,” bogging down the process with “complex contracts.”

Jean-Claude Colban said: “This relationship developed quite naturally, marked by open and collaborative dialogue, and rooted in shared values: the transmission of expertise, respect for craftsmanship, and a meticulous attention to quality down to the smallest details. My sister Anne-Marie and I are delighted with this new chapter in Charvet’s history.”

The Chanel Numbers: Why They Could Afford to Do This Right

Before we get to the real strategy, the financial picture matters.

Chanel returned to growth in 2025, with revenue up 2% to $19.3 billion, aided by Blazy’s refreshed classic designs that attracted first-time buyers and sparked demand that outpaced supply.

Operating profit rose 5.2% to $4.7 billion. Revenue growth was driven by Matthieu Blazy’s new designs, such as reinvented bags and jackets, attracting both loyal and first-time shoppers.

Chanel’s Americas region led growth at +7.2%.

$19.3B revenue. $4.7B operating profit. 24% operating margin.

And the momentum story is even stronger than the 2025 full-year numbers suggest:

Chanel’s CEO said they saw growing momentum across all divisions starting in the second half of 2025 and continuing into 2026, which translated into revenue growth in the high-single digits. “We are on track and confident for the year ahead and beyond,” said CEO Leena Nair.

The company invested approximately $700 million into manufacturing capabilities in 2025, including leather goods production, as it continued to address quality concerns and secure long-term control over specialized suppliers.

$700 million into manufacturing and supply chain in a single year. This is a company that treats its manufacturing infrastructure as a strategic asset.

Chanel’s 2024 revenue was $18.7 billion and operating profit reached $4.479 billion. The company ended the year with a positive net cash balance, giving it room to buy a heritage maker like Charvet for what it adds to menswear, tailoring and ultra-premium positioning over the long haul.

Net cash positive. $4.7B operating profit. $700M invested in manufacturing.

The Real Strategy: What Chanel Is Actually Building

Charvet is not primarily a shirt acquisition. It’s the latest instalment in Chanel’s decade-long strategy to build an empire of irreplaceable craft.

In recent years, Chanel has acquired or taken stakes in leading entities such as Confection de Sully, Domicia Production, Marque & Mod, Maroquinerie de Champagne, the JY BH Group, Les Ateliers de May, the Grey Mer shoe manufacturer, as well as stakes in Roveda, Nuova Impala, Mantero, Cariaggi, Leo France, and Vimar 1991.

Confection de Sully. Domicia Production. Marque & Mod. Maroquinerie de Champagne. JY BH Group. Les Ateliers de May. Grey Mer. Roveda. Nuova Impala. Mantero. Cariaggi. Leo France. Vimar 1991.

Thirteen artisan workshops acquired or invested in before Charvet.

Each one a different craft:

• Embroidery

• Leather goods

• Shoemaking

• Silk weaving

• Featherwork

• Buttonmaking

• Knitwear

By 2025, Chanel had invested $700 million in participations in SMEs that are their long-term partners, bringing the total number of suppliers it controls close to 75.

75 artisan suppliers. $700M invested. Now controlling the supply chain of human expertise itself.

This is not conventional M&A. This is vertical integration of knowledge.

Chanel vs LVMH: Two Completely Different Visions of Luxury’s Future

To understand why the Charvet acquisition matters, you have to understand the fundamental difference between how Chanel and LVMH are building for the future.

LVMH’s model: Brand portfolio + scale

Historically, LVMH’s growth strategy has hinged on aggressive acquisitions. The 1980s and 1990s brought Dior, Givenchy, Berluti, Guerlain, and Kenzo into its fold. The acquisition of Sephora in 1999 revolutionised beauty retail, while the $15.8 billion takeover of Tiffany & Co. in 2021 remains the largest luxury deal in history.

LVMH buys consumer-facing brands. Names. Logos. Heritage that customers already know.

The thesis: own the most famous names in luxury. Scale them globally. Use the group’s financial power to expand each brand’s reach.

75 Maisons. €84.7B revenue. The world’s largest luxury conglomerate.

Chanel’s model: Craft infrastructure + exclusivity

Unlike conglomerates, Chanel has eschewed acquisitions of consumer-facing brands, preferring organic growth. It invests deeply in vertical integration, owning artisan workshops.

Chanel doesn’t buy brands. It buys the knowledge and tools that make luxury possible.

Not the name on the label. The hands that make the product. The 188-year archive of fabric expertise. The workshop in Saint-Gaultier where 60 people produce shirts that nowhere else can replicate.

LVMH thesis: The scarce asset in luxury is famous names and brand heritage.

Chanel thesis: The scarce asset in luxury is irreplaceable human craft knowledge.

Who’s right?

Look at the comparative performance:

Chanel (2025): Revenue $19.3B (+2%), operating profit $4.7B (24% margin), returning to high-single digit growth in 2026, Blazy-fuelled demand outstripping supply.

LVMH Fashion & Leather Goods (2025): LVMH’s fashion and leather goods division declined 5% to €37.77 billion in 2025.

Chanel is growing while LVMH’s fashion crown jewels are declining. In a luxury slowdown, which strategy is proving more resilient?

The one based on accumulated craft knowledge that can’t be replicated at scale.

The Matthieu Blazy Effect: Why a Designer Made This Acquisition Possible

You cannot understand the Charvet deal without understanding what Matthieu Blazy has done to Chanel in eight months.

Creative director Matthieu Blazy’s reinvented classics like the slouchy “maxi flapbag” and frayed tweed jackets drove recruitment of new clients, causing demand to exceed supply.

“The recruitment of new clients who hadn’t previously bought Chanel has been phenomenal,” said Simon Longland, director of fashion buying at Harrods. “The demand has far outstripped supply, correctly so on some of the special pieces because, while there may be people disappointed they don’t have the jacket they wanted, if everyone who wanted the jacket had got it, they would all be arriving somewhere in the same jacket.”

They’re managing scarcity deliberately. Letting demand exceed supply. Creating the experience of missing out as a feature, not a bug.

Chanel topped the Lyst index in the first quarter of 2026, after the platform updated its methodology to offer a more comprehensive measure of brand heat.

#1 on the Lyst brand heat index. Beating Hermès, Bottega Veneta, The Row, Prada. All of them.

Blazy’s early collections have revitalised the brand, driving double-digit sales growth in early 2026. His $7,130 shirt has already proven the market appetite for zero-logo luxury.

Zero-logo luxury. This is the phrase that explains everything.

The consumer who buys a $7,130 Chanel x Charvet shirt does not buy it because it says “Chanel.” They buy it because they know with a knowledge that requires cultivation, education, and taste that this specific shirt is made from a specific Egyptian cotton poplin, cut by hands that have been doing this for generations, in a workshop where the craft has been passed down for 188 years.

The logo is irrelevant to the purchase. The craft is everything.

And that consumer the zero-logo luxury consumer is the most valuable consumer in the world right now.

Ultra-high-net-worth consumers are experiencing severe fatigue from loud, logo-heavy branding.

They’re exhausted by Gucci Gs, LV monograms, and Balenciaga’s deliberately ugly streetwear. They want the opposite: things that require knowledge to appreciate, that signal taste not wealth, that are irreplaceable not aspirational.

Charvet is the perfect product for this consumer.

And Blazy is the perfect designer to bridge between Chanel’s legacy and Charvet’s craft.

The Three Strategic Bets Hidden in This Acquisition

Beyond the headline, this deal is actually making three simultaneous bets:

Bet 1: Menswear Entry Through the Back Door

Chanel is making a stealth entry into ultra-premium menswear without diluting its namesake brand equity.

Pavlovsky said: “Now we have a name, Chanel, for women, and a name for men, Charvet. Even if Chanel is about women, we see more men coming in.”

Men’s luxury is growing. The global menswear luxury market is expanding faster than womenswear. Gen Z and Millennial men are buying luxury fashion at rates previous generations never approached.

But Chanel can’t launch a menswear line. The brand equity is too feminine, too coded, too associated with the interlocked CC and the quilted bag.

They can, however, own Charvet.

Which gives them the menswear customer, the menswear revenue, the menswear cultural credibility all without touching the Chanel brand positioning.

Rather than launching an exclusively menswear line, the focus is on creating unisex pieces that erase the boundaries between women’s and men’s style.

This is brand architecture genius.

Use Charvet to access the menswear market. Use the Chanel x Charvet collaboration as the bridge that makes it luxury. Keep both identities distinct but connected.

Bet 2: Place Vendôme Real Estate Is a Strategic Asset

Chanel is anchoring a prime piece of Place Vendôme real estate onto its balance sheet while also securing a turnkey operation in high-end menswear.

Charvet occupies 28 Place Vendôme — one of the most exclusive addresses in the world. The same square hosts Cartier, Van Cleef & Arpels, Boucheron, Chopard, Bulgari.

You don’t vacate Place Vendôme. You don’t find another Place Vendôme.

It’s a fixed, irreplaceable piece of Paris’s luxury geography. And Chanel just put it on their balance sheet.

In an era when luxury real estate at flagship locations is being acquired by conglomerates specifically for the address, not just the store — this is a strategic asset that appreciates independently of Charvet’s revenue.

Bet 3: Locking In Irreplaceable Human Knowledge

Charvet employs some 40 people at its store on Place Vendôme in Paris, and another 60 at its production workshop in Saint-Gaultier in central France.

100 people total.

These 100 people represent knowledge that cannot be recreated, hired in from elsewhere, or replaced by automation. The craftspeople in Saint-Gaultier have spent decades learning to work with 6,000 different fabrics. The fitters on Place Vendôme have been measuring clients and maintaining handwritten order histories for their entire careers.

When these people retire, this knowledge largely dies.

Unless it’s embedded in an institution with the financial resources to train successors, document techniques, and create the continuity of apprenticeship that keeps the craft alive.

Chanel, which already funds 19M, a centre dedicated to preserving artisan crafts in Paris is exactly that institution.

They’re not buying a shirt company. They’re buying a 188-year knowledge archive and ensuring it survives the next 188 years.

The Lesson for Every Brand Builder: What Chanel Is Teaching Us

This deal is a luxury industry story. But the strategic principles apply to every brand, at every scale.

1. Collaboration Before Acquisition Is Due Diligence

Blazy didn’t read a Charvet information memorandum. He made shirts with them.

The collaboration three shirts in the debut collection, worn by Nicole Kidman, sold out in hours was the most comprehensive due diligence possible. It tested product quality, operational compatibility, creative alignment, and market appetite simultaneously.

When the shirts sold out at $7,130, Chanel had all the financial justification they needed.

The creative relationship turned into the commercial proof that turned into the acquisition.

Whatever you’re thinking about acquiring or partnering with work with them first. The collaboration reveals what the data room can’t.

2. The Most Valuable Assets Can’t Be Replicated

Every acquisition eventually gets stress-tested by competition.

Competitor can match your product specs? They will.

Competitor can match your marketing budget? They will.

Competitor can match your distribution? They will.

Competitor can match 188 years of fabric expertise, handwritten client ledgers, and the institutional knowledge of 100 craftspeople in Saint-Gaultier?

They cannot.

The scarcest assets are the ones that compound over human lifetimes rather than financial quarters. Charvet’s competitive moat is measured in generations, not quarters.

What’s the Charvet equivalent in your industry? The thing that takes decades to build, can’t be replicated by capital alone, and becomes more valuable as AI makes everything else easier to copy?

That’s where you build. That’s what you protect.

3. Quiet, Consistent Infrastructure Investment Beats Flashy Brand Acquisitions

Nobody covered Chanel’s acquisition of Maroquinerie de Champagne. Nobody wrote about their stake in Mantero. Nobody tracked their investment in Les Ateliers de May.

But 13 acquisitions later, they’ve built an artisan infrastructure that gives them a manufacturing and supply chain advantage that LVMH’s brand portfolio can’t match in the craft-quality segment.

Chanel has maintained elevated investment levels across manufacturing, retail, and supply chain integration in a totally counter-cyclical way even as luxury spending contracted for the first time in 15 years.

Counter-cyclical investment is the phrase that defines Chanel’s strategy.

When everyone else pulled back, Chanel invested. When luxury was contracting, Chanel was buying workshops, training craftspeople, and deepening the craft moat.

Now, with “Blazymania” driving high-single digit growth while LVMH’s fashion division contracts, the counter-cyclical investment is paying off.

The Final Reality

Chanel just bought a company that makes shirts. The shirts cost $750. The tuxedo version costs $7,130. Both sell out within hours.

But the shirt is almost irrelevant.

The deal represents a backdoor strategy into high-end menswear and a permanent real estate play on the Place Vendôme.

More than that, it’s the latest chapter in a decade-long strategy to build something that no competitor can replicate by spending money: a network of irreplaceable human expertise, embedded in workshops across France, protected by Chanel’s financial resources, and animated by Matthieu Blazy’s creative vision.

The numbers:

• Chanel revenue: $19.3B (2025), growing high-single digits in 2026

• Operating profit: $4.7B (24% margin)

• Manufacturing investment: $700M in 2025 alone

• Artisan suppliers controlled: close to 75

• Charvet’s history: 188 years, dressed Churchill, JFK, Proust, Lagerfeld

• Co-branded shirt sell-out price: $7,130

• Time to sell out: hours

The strategy:

While LVMH acquires famous names, Chanel acquires irreplaceable knowledge.

While competitors chase brand desirability, Chanel builds craft permanence.

While the industry debates AI’s impact on luxury, Chanel invests in the one thing AI genuinely cannot replicate: 188 years of human expertise, embedded in workshops, passed from hand to hand, written in leather ledgers that haven’t changed since the 19th century.

As Chanel’s CFO put it: “Creativity only germinates and grows in soil irrigated by craftsmanship.”

Charvet is the soil. And Chanel just made sure nobody else can farm it.

Are you building something that compounds over decades or optimising for the next quarter?

David

P.S. The romantic history buried in this deal is genuinely extraordinary. Arthur “Boy” Capel the British aristocrat and Coco Chanel’s great love was one of Charvet’s most loyal clients. He wore their shirts. Coco Chanel wore them after him. When she founded what would become the most valuable fashion house in France, she carried the aesthetic sensibility of a Charvet shirt with her. Now, 100 years after Coco Chanel built her empire, the house she founded has come full circle to own the shirtmaker that her great love dressed himself in. That’s not just an acquisition footnote. That’s a 100-year love story expressed as a corporate transaction. And it tells you something important about how the best luxury brands think: not in quarters, not in trends, but in decades and legacies and the weight of beautiful things that outlast the people who made them.

This one came in after a few of the recent exit stories, Gruns, Salt & Stone, Huel and I think it cuts right to the most important question in consumer right now:

“David, every brand you’ve covered recently either bootstrapped for years or had insane unit economics before they raised a penny. Meanwhile I’m watching my own DTC numbers and CAC is up something like 50% from two years ago. Is DTC just... over? Or is this a temporary squeeze? Genuinely trying to figure out if I should keep pushing or pivot to retail entirely.”

Here’s my honest answer: DTC isn’t dead.

But the version of DTC that built brands from 2015-2021 the one most operators are still running is dead. And it’s been dead for a while. We’re just now watching the bodies hit the floor.

Let me show you the actual numbers, because they’re more brutal than most people are admitting publicly, and then let’s talk about what’s actually working right now.

The Numbers: Why Your CAC Feels Broken (Because It Is)

Let’s start with what’s actually happening to acquisition costs, because the data is stark.

The median DTC brand now spends $130 to $156 to acquire a single customer in 2026. That’s roughly a 60% increase over the past five years.

Why?

On April 29, 2026, Meta reported Q1 2026 ad revenue of $55.02 billion, up 33% year-over-year. Average price per ad rose another 12% YoY, on top of every increase that came before. Net income hit $26.77 billion, up 61%. Operating margin sat at 41%.

For ecommerce brands specifically, Meta now commands 68.31% of total advertising budgets more than Google, TikTok, and every other channel combined.

Meta sold more inventory, charged more for it, and posted a 61% profit jump while the average DTC operator paying those bills watched ROAS continue to fall.

Across every category, every benchmark agrees on the direction even if the exact number varies:

• Average DTC CAC up 40-60% from 2023 to 2025

• DTC fashion CAC specifically up over 60%

• CPMs (cost per 1,000 impressions) up 89% since 2020

• Google Shopping CPCs up 33.72% year-over-year

• Health and wellness CAC, once considered a bargain category up 38% in a single year

And here’s the part that should actually worry you: The average DTC brand now loses money on the first order. That’s not a crisis. That’s the baseline now.

Why This Isn’t “DTC Dying” It’s the Arbitrage Closing

DTC, as a go-to-market motion, was never the business model. It was an arbitrage.

From roughly 2012 to 2019, Facebook and Instagram had more ad inventory than advertisers who understood how to use it. CPMs were artificially cheap. Targeting was incredibly precise (pre-iOS 14.5). A founder with a decent product and a Shopify store could acquire customers for $15-25 and build a real business purely on paid social.

That was never going to last forever. It was a temporary mispricing of attention.

What’s happening now is the arbitrage closing:

1. Every brand on earth learned the Facebook ads playbook → competition for the same inventory exploded

2. Apple’s App Tracking Transparency (iOS 14.5, 2021) killed precision targeting → you’re now buying broad reach and hoping, not precise targeting

3. Meta and Google consolidated as the only two channels that scale → a duopoly with 41% operating margins doesn’t lower prices out of kindness

4. AI-driven bidding optimisation by the platforms themselves → Meta’s algorithm got better at extracting maximum value per auction, which is good for Meta’s shareholders and bad for your CAC

None of this is cyclical. This is structural. It is the new floor, not a temporary spike that reverts.

This inflation is not cyclical; it is the new normal, driven by platform saturation and signal loss.

So when you ask “is DTC dead” the more precise question is: is buying customers from Meta at ever-increasing prices, with no other strategy, a viable business model anymore?

The answer to that is unambiguously no. It hasn’t been for at least three years.

The Pattern You’re Actually Seeing (And Why It Connects to Everything I’ve Written About Recently)

Here’s why the brands I’ve covered recently Gruns, Huel, Salt & Stone, Poppi, MOSH all share a structural trait that protects them from exactly what you’re describing.

None of them were built as pure paid-acquisition machines.

Gruns managed to a specific 3.0x LTV:CAC ratio on a payback basis meaning even if CAC rose, the cohort economics were engineered with margin for exactly this kind of inflation.

Huel bootstrapped to £18M revenue before raising a penny, which meant the brand had to be capital efficient and develop organic demand (retail, word-of-mouth, vertical integration) rather than relying purely on paid acquisition.

Salt & Stone bootstrapped seven years before a single institutional round, building 1,700+ retail doors and 40% DTC meaning when CAC inflation hit, 60% of their revenue wasn’t exposed to it at all.

Poppi and Olipop built through DSD (Direct Store Delivery) retail distribution first, with DTC as a complement, not the foundation because both founders understood early that beverages specifically can’t survive on DTC-only economics (heavy products, low AOV, terrible shipping margins).

The brands succeeding right now structurally diversified their acquisition away from “100% dependent on Meta CPMs” years before this CAC crisis became undeniable.

The brands struggling right now are the ones who built their entire growth model on an arbitrage that has been closing since 2021 and who are only now, in 2026, being forced to confront it because the numbers have become impossible to ignore.

What’s Actually Working Right Now (The Real Answer to Your Question)

Here’s the practical playbook based on what’s actually keeping brands alive through this CAC environment:

1. Retention Is Now Your Primary Growth Lever, Not a Secondary Metric

60% of DTC brand revenue now comes from returning customers.

The math behind why this matters: loyal customers convert at rates of 60-70%, compared to just 5-20% for new prospects.

If CAC has gone up 50% and conversion on cold traffic has dropped, the only lever left that compounds in your favour is what happens after the first purchase.

This is exactly the Gruns cohort-stacking model I wrote about a few weeks back the brands winning right now are obsessing over months 2-12 of the customer relationship, not just the first conversion.

If you can’t tell me your repeat purchase rate at 90 days, that’s the first number to go find.

2. Price Increases Are Now a Legitimate Strategic Response, Not a Failure

87% of eCommerce merchants have raised US prices to counteract rising acquisition costs.

This used to be considered a defensive, almost embarrassing move. It isn’t anymore. It’s the rational response to a structural cost increase you can’t control.

If your AOV hasn’t moved in two years while your CAC has gone up 50%, you are voluntarily compressing your own margin to absorb a platform’s profit growth.

3. Own Channels (Email, SMS, Community) Are the Only True Hedge

If CAC is up 40% and ad costs are prohibitive, you cannot afford to “rent” your customers from Meta and Google anymore. You must own them.

The brands diversifying away from “100% paid acquisition” toward owned audiences email lists, SMS, community, organic content are the ones building a moat that doesn’t get more expensive every quarter Meta reports earnings.

This is the entire thesis behind why “brand” and “community” have become unavoidable buzzwords. It’s not vibes. It’s the only acquisition channel left that the platforms can’t tax.

4. Omnichannel Isn’t Optional Anymore, It’s the Survival Strategy

In my opinion, DTC is where you build brand awareness, but retail is where you scale.

This is precisely the lesson from Huel, Salt & Stone, Poppi, and Trapstar’s planned next chapter with Footasylum. DTC proves the concept and builds the cult following. Retail is where the volume and the margin protection from not paying Meta tax on every single sale actually comes from.

If 100% of your revenue still runs through a paid acquisition funnel into your own Shopify store, you have 100% of your business exposed to a platform duopoly with a 41% operating margin and no incentive to ever lower prices.

5. Know Your Actual LTV:CAC Not the Number You Want It To Be

A healthy Lifetime Value (LTV) to CAC ratio is now strictly benchmarked at 3:1.

The average DTC brand’s LTV:CAC ratio sits at roughly 3:1 which, as the data notes, is considered healthy but leaves little room for error.

With CAC up 50%+ and margin for error already thin, this is the moment to actually run the math honestly. Not the optimistic lifetime-value-if-everything-goes-perfectly math. The actual cohort retention curve, six months out, with real numbers.

If you haven’t recalculated this in the last quarter, your mental model of your own business is already out of date.

The Honest Answer to Your Actual Question

You asked whether to keep pushing or pivot to retail entirely.

Here’s my honest take: it’s not binary, and “pivot to retail entirely” is its own trap if you do it without fixing the underlying economics first.

The brands surviving and thriving through this CAC environment are doing three things simultaneously:

1. Treating DTC as a brand-building and retention engine, not a pure acquisition machine accepting that first-order economics may be break-even or negative, and building the cohort math to make that sustainable

2. Building retail distribution in parallel, not sequentially using DTC traction as proof points to negotiate retail placement, the way Poppi, Salt & Stone, and Huel all did

3. Investing in owned channels (email, SMS, community) as aggressively as they invest in paid because owned channels are the only acquisition cost that doesn’t inflate every time Meta reports record earnings

DTC isn’t dead.

The version of DTC where you spend $25 to acquire a customer, sell them one thing, and never see them again was always a temporary historical accident created by underpriced Facebook inventory between 2012 and 2019.

That version died. And honestly? It should have.

The version of DTC that survives owned community, retention-first economics, omnichannel distribution, disciplined unit economics was always the real business. We just didn’t have to build it properly while the arbitrage was still open.

Now everyone does.

What does your 90-day repeat purchase rate actually look like? That’s the number that tells you whether you’re building a brand or renting customers from Mark Zuckerberg.

Keep building, David

P.S. If anyone reading this is heading to Cannes for Cannes Lions this year, let me know would genuinely love to meet up with some of our readers in person. There’s something about consumer, culture, and brand-building conversations that just hits differently on the Croisette than over email. Drop a reply if you’ll be there.

P.P.S. The stat that should be circulating in every DTC founder’s Slack right now: Meta’s operating margin sat at 41% in Q1 2026, and capital expenditure guidance for 2026 was raised to $125-145 billion the bulk of which is going to AI infrastructure that advertisers are effectively financing through CPM inflation. Read that sentence again. You are not just paying for ad inventory anymore. You are functionally financing Meta’s AI buildout through your CAC. That’s not a complaint it’s just the honest mechanism of where your marketing budget is actually going. Plan accordingly.

I want to share something that’s been sitting with me for a few weeks.

Bank of America CFO Alastair Borthwick noted something striking: roughly 70% of the US economy is driven by consumer spending. Consumer spending hit $19,667 billion in Q4 2025 and accounts for approximately 68% of US GDP the highest share in decades.

And here’s what I couldn’t stop thinking about: While virtually every dollar of venture capital conversation centres on AI infrastructure, developer tooling, and enterprise software, the category that drives two-thirds of the entire US economy is consistently treated as a second-tier investment category.

Consumer is either underestimated or misunderstood by almost everyone with capital. And I think the AI revolution the very thing being used to justify ignoring consumer is actually the argument for why consumer is about to become the most valuable category in the world.

Let me explain why.

The $16.86 Trillion Category That Venture Treats Like a Hobby

Consumer spending is set to rise 2.1% in 2026 to reach $16.86 trillion, having grown at a CAGR of 2.7% over the five years through 2026.

For context: the entire global software market the category venture capital treats as its primary mandate is approximately $700 billion annually.

Consumer spending is 24 times larger than software.

And yet venture capital allocates roughly 3-6% of total deployment to consumer, versus 40%+ to enterprise software and AI infrastructure.

This isn’t a market inefficiency. It’s a category misunderstanding.

For years, venture capital has treated consumer as:

• Cyclical and trend-driven (not structural)

• Less defensible than software (no “moat”)

• Overly dependent on marketing (not a real business)

• Hard to scale (capital-intensive, low margins)

Every one of these assumptions is collapsing. And AI is the reason.

The Paradox: Why AI Makes Consumer MORE Valuable, Not Less

Here’s the argument most people are making: “AI will commoditise content creation. CPG brands spend enormous amounts on marketing, content, and creative. AI will cut those costs dramatically. Consumer becomes cheaper to operate.”

This is true but incomplete. And the incomplete part is where the real insight lives. As artificial content becomes infinite, authenticity becomes scarce. And scarcity creates value. Think about what AI is actually doing to the content environment:

AI-generated content surpassed human-written content online for the first time in 2025. Nearly a third of consumers say they’re less likely to choose a brand that leans on AI in its advertising.

According to Edelman’s 2025 Trust Barometer, nearly 70% of consumers worry that misinformation and false content are increasingly being used to intentionally mislead the public. Audiences no longer trust polished messaging alone.

71% of consumers feel frustrated by impersonal brand communications. Nearly 40% worry about being misled or misinformed by brands using AI. And 46% of people trust a brand less if they learn it’s using AI to provide services they assumed were coming from a human.

Here’s what’s happening: When AI can generate an infinite supply of technically competent content perfect copy, perfect creative, perfect product design the thing that becomes scarce isn’t the content.

It’s the trust, identity, and emotional resonance behind the content.

Sir Lucian Grainge, Chairman of Universal Music, put it well, AI can generate endless music. More songs, more sounds, more content than ever before. But eventually much of it converges into the same emotional frequency. The same familiarity. The same optimised middle.

What it cannot generate is the thing that “lights your skin on fire.”

Simon Cowell made a similar observation: AI may become an extraordinary tool, but human beings are still the ones who create magic.

This is the thesis in its simplest form: When creation becomes infinite, the scarce asset becomes taste. Identity. Trust. Emotion. Community. Human connection.

In other words: culture. And in CPG, culture has always been the asset. We just didn’t have language for it.

What This Means for CPG Specifically

CPG has spent the last decade being told it’s behind. Behind on data. Behind on personalisation. Behind on DTC. Behind on performance marketing.

But the brands that have driven the most extraordinary exits in the last 36 months Poppi ($1.95B), Rhode ($1B), Salt & Stone ($500M+), Gruns ($1.2B), Huel (€1B), Siete Foods ($1.2B), Dr. Squatch ($1.5B) weren’t won on data or technology.

They were won on culture.

Poppi didn’t win because their prebiotic formula was defensible. They won because they made soda feel like a cultural act.

Rhode didn’t win because their Peptide Lip Treatment was technically superior. They won because they turned a skincare routine into an identity.

Salt & Stone didn’t win because deodorant is defensible. They won because they made body care smell like a $300 niche fragrance and positioned it as a lifestyle signal.

Gruns didn’t win because greens powder was novel. They won because a former PE analyst understood exactly which metrics drove acquisition multiples, built the financial machine precisely to those metrics, and surrounded it with a brand that had “aura” selective disclosure, coordinated PR, the perception of inevitable success.

In every case: the product was the vehicle. The culture was the asset.

Consumers buy into purpose, values, and belonging not just products. Creators are central, shaping culture, bridging brands to communities, and translating moments into trusted storytelling.

And this is precisely what AI cannot replicate.

The Three New Principles of CPG in an AI World

Principle 1: The Authenticity Premium Is Now Real and Measurable

Research shows that AI authorship often creates what researchers call a “trust penalty” lower trust, weaker engagement, and more negative brand evaluation. A 2025 study from the Nuremberg Institute for Market Decisions found that simply labelling an ad as AI-generated makes people see it as less natural and less useful, which lowers ad attitudes and willingness to research or purchase.

The implications for CPG brands: This is not a call to avoid AI. AI as an operational tool for supply chain, for personalisation, for testing, for efficiency is table stakes and you’d be foolish not to deploy it.

But AI as a brand voice is different. And the data is unambiguous: consumers penalise perceived inauthenticity with reduced trust and reduced purchase intent.

For CPG brands to continue to win with celebrity partnerships, authenticity must go beyond an endorsement. True impact comes when talent is genuinely embedded in the product or brand story — whether that means contributing to product development or a brand tapping into their viral cultural moments.

The brands winning right now, MOSH (Maria Shriver’s 20-year personal connection to Alzheimer’s research, embedded in every ingredient decision), Crazy Mountain (three men who already built a $1B drinks brand using the same trust currency they’re depositing here), Salt & Stone (a former pro snowboarder who actually lives the brand’s outdoor identity) are winning because their authenticity isn’t performed. It’s documented.

The founder’s story isn’t a marketing decision. It’s a founding condition.

In an AI world, the only authenticity that survives is the kind that predated the brand.

Principle 2: Community Is the New Distribution Moat

Communities provide the belonging people crave while delivering measurable business results like 23% higher profitability and significantly improved customer retention.

Fandoms now play a role as primary identity structures, emotional support systems, and cultural co-creation engines. 66% of Gen Z and Gen Alpha spend more time with fan-created content than with official content. 83% of Gen Z fans say their engagement shapes how creators and brands develop content. These are not passive audiences. They are active participants who generate cultural value.

Here’s the thing about distribution moats in CPG: The old moat was shelf space. Whoever had 30,000 retail doors had an insurmountable advantage. The new moat is community. Whoever has 300,000 people who buy because they belong not because the product was visible has a fundamentally different kind of asset.

The distinction matters because: Shelf space is rented. The retailer can delist you, deprioritise you, replace you with private label.

Community is owned. The people who buy Rhode because it’s part of their identity as a “clean girl aesthetic” consumer don’t stop buying because Sephora moves the SKU.

AI-generated content surpassed human-written content online for the first time in 2025. The brands paying attention are pivoting fast. And the ones that aren’t risk being left behind.

92% of consumers trust peer recommendations over brand content. 84% trust brands more when they feature UGC in marketing. 60% of consumers identify UGC as the most authentic content type, surpassing expert reviews, influencer content, and brand messaging.

The brands building community right now through missions (MOSH and Alzheimer’s advocacy), through identity (Salt & Stone’s outdoor lifestyle signalling), through belonging (Rare Beauty’s mental health community) are building distribution moats that DSD networks and shelf placements can’t replicate.

This is the infrastructure shift. And most traditional CPG is not paying attention.

Principle 3: Celebrity Isn’t the Asset, Cultural Proximity Is

Celebrity-driven businesses have historically scaled approximately 20% faster to liquidity outcomes and achieved exits roughly 20% larger than non-celebrity peers.

But that statistic obscures the most important distinction in modern CPG: The celebrity brands that are winning aren’t winning because a famous person endorsed a product. They’re winning because a culturally credible person embedded their identity into a product and the community that follows that person came with them.

The difference: Brands that show up opportunistically are rejected. Brands that participate meaningfully are rewarded.

Gwen Stefani’s GXVE was launched with Sephora distribution and VC backing. It died quietly in February 2026. Hailey Bieber’s Rhode launched DTC with three products, sold out in hours, built a 60,000-person waitlist, and was acquired for $1 billion in three years.

Same industry. Same celebrity model. Opposite outcomes.

The variable wasn’t fame. It was the depth of cultural authenticity behind the product.

Hailey Bieber had perioral dermatitis. Rhode exists because she needed a product that didn’t exist. The community follows because they share the same skin experience, the same aesthetic values, the same aspiration not because they follow Hailey Bieber.

In an AI world, the celebrity is increasingly just the loudest signal of an authentic point of view that the market was waiting to receive. And the brands smart enough to build cultural proximity founders with documented, personal relationships to the problem they’re solving will have distribution advantages that no performance marketing budget can buy.

The Structural Shift: Consumer Is Becoming Infrastructure

Here’s where the framing changes most dramatically. For decades, the mental model for a CPG brand was:

Product → Distribution → Marketing → Revenue

A linear chain. You make the thing, you get it onto shelves, you run ads, you generate sales. The mental model for the winning CPG companies of the next decade is:

Community → Content → Commerce → Infrastructure

Community first. You build a group of people who share an identity, a belief, or an experience.

Content as the bridge. Creators authentic ones, not paid ambassadors translate the community’s values into discoverable moments.

Commerce as the expression. The product is how the community member expresses their belonging. Buying Rhode isn’t buying lip treatment. It’s saying “I’m a glazed skin person.”

Infrastructure as the outcome. The community becomes the distribution engine. The product becomes the ecosystem.

Culture is what people pay attention to what they watch, share, laugh about, and rally around. To tap into that energy, brands must align investments with real behaviours and passion points, not demographic checkboxes. This is why the lines between categories are collapsing: Media companies are becoming commerce companies (MrBeast Burger, Feastables).

Consumer brands are becoming platforms (AG1 isn’t just a supplement, it’s a health optimisation identity ecosystem). Creators are becoming infrastructure (the creator’s community is more powerful distribution than 30,000 retail doors).

In 2026, consumers start to experiment with personal AI agents to manage shopping lists, compare prices, switch between retailers, and automatically fulfil routine items. This creates both a threat and an opportunity: Personal AI may or may not care about your brand equity.

This is the critical challenge: If consumers delegate purchasing decisions to AI agents that optimise on price and availability, commodity consumer brands die. The private label wins every time.

But the brands with genuine cultural resonance where the purchase is an identity signal, not just a transaction survive the AI agent era, because the consumer overrides the optimisation.

People will override their AI shopping agent to buy Rhode specifically. They won’t override it to buy a particular brand of tomato puree. Cultural resonance is the wall between your brand and commoditisation.

The Four CPG Archetypes That Win In This Era

Not every consumer brand can play this game. The question is which archetype you’re building toward.

Archetype 1: The Mission-Embedded Brand

Definition: The reason the brand exists predates the business decision to start it.

Examples:

• MOSH (Maria Shriver’s 20-year Alzheimer’s advocacy)

• Uncle Nearest (Fawn Weaver’s mission to honour Nearest Green — genuine even amid financial troubles)

• Rare Beauty (Selena Gomez’s pre-brand mental health journey)

Why this works in an AI world: The mission is uncopiable. You can train an AI on Rare Beauty’s aesthetic. You cannot train it on Selena Gomez’s actual lived experience with mental health. The community is pre-built. Maria Shriver had an audience of brain health advocates before MOSH launched. The brand didn’t have to create the community. It gave the community a product.

The test: Does the brand’s reason to exist predate the business plan?

Archetype 2: The Identity Signal Brand

Definition: Buying the product is a public statement about who you are.

Examples:

• Rhode (glazed skin aesthetic as identity)

• Salt & Stone (outdoor/active lifestyle identity)

• Liquid Death (anti-corporate punk identity)

• Le Labo (taste connoisseur identity)

Why this works in an AI world: Identity signals are infinitely shareable. The drive for identity signalling is critical for Gen Z and Millennial audiences. Possessing or consuming a limited-edition, visually unique product is a public declaration of one’s membership in a fandom, acting as a form of social currency. When your product photographs itself when someone leaving the gym with a Salt & Stone deodorant is making a visual statement you have marketing that operates independently of your marketing budget.

The test: Would someone photograph buying this product and post it?

Archetype 3: The Science-First Brand

Definition: The product has defensible functional efficacy, not just lifestyle positioning.

Examples:

• Gruns (3.0x LTV:CAC cohort economics, clinical nutrition formulation)

• Huel (vertical manufacturing, nutritionally complete formulation, GLP-1 aligned)

• MOSH (Cognizin Citicoline, the only bar with this clinical ingredient)

• AG1 (80+ ingredients, clinical dosing transparency)

Why this works in an AI world: AI can generate infinite wellness content. It cannot generate genuine clinical efficacy. The brands that are both culturally resonant AND scientifically credible have a double moat. AI in marketing can result in a more emotional response initially, but consumers do not consider advertisements solely on their visual appeal, they consider the purpose and effort in the content. Authenticity has been noted to play an important role.

When the science is real, the cultural community built around it self-reinforces. AG1 doesn’t need to spend on trust the clinical transparency generates it.

The test: Could an independent researcher verify the efficacy claims? And would they?

Archetype 4: The Financial Machine Brand

Definition: The brand is built backwards from acquisition multiples, with unit economics designed for compounding.

Examples:

• Gruns (Chad Janis, former PE analyst, built to 3.0x LTV:CAC on payback, exits in 3 years)

• Huel (Julian Hearn bootstrapped to £18M revenue before Series A, maintained 49.3% ownership to exit)

• Salt & Stone (Nima Jalali bootstrapped to $100M+ revenue, one minority round, kept 55%+)

Why this works in an AI world: AI is making customer acquisition more competitive, not less. The brands that engineer their unit economics precisely, LTV:CAC ratios, cohort stacking, contribution margin targets will survive rising CAC environments.

The brands that rely on paid performance marketing without the underlying cohort economics will get squeezed as AI optimises the ad auction against them.

The test: Does the founder know their 6-month LTV:CAC ratio? Their contribution margin trend? Their cohort retention curve? If not, they’re not running a financial machine. They’re running a marketing campaign hoping to become a business.

The Six Things I’d Do Right Now If I Were Building a CPG Brand in 2026

I’m going to be direct here, because this is where thought leadership usually gets vague.

1. Stop building the brand. Start building the community.

The sequence that works in 2026:

• Year 1: Build the community (content, mission, point of view)

• Year 2: Give the community something to buy (hero product)

• Year 3: Scale the community’s buying behaviour (distribution, retail)

The sequence that’s failing:

• Year 1: Build the product

• Year 2: Try to build community around the product

• Year 3: Wonder why the community never materialised

Community first. Product as the expression of community values.

Traditional advertising is losing its effectiveness due to digital fatigue and AI saturation. Consumers trust people more than brands. Communities provide the belonging people crave while delivering measurable business results like 23% higher profitability and significantly improved customer retention.

2. Invest in human storytelling, not AI-generated content

AI as operations: Yes. Absolutely. Use it for supply chain, for data analysis, for A/B testing, for CRM, for operational efficiency. AI as brand voice: Extremely carefully.

Simply knowing that a piece of content was crafted by an algorithm as opposed to by a human creative made people trust it less and engage with it less enthusiastically. The brands that will win in an AI-saturated content environment are the ones that invest MORE in human storytelling. Real founders. Real customers. Real experiences. Real imperfection.

A shaky phone video of a real customer using your product is harder to fake. In 2025, that imperfection has become more valuable than perfection ever was.

3. Engineer your unit economics before you scale your marketing

The Gruns lesson is the most important lesson in this newsletter’s history: 3.0x LTV:CAC on a 6-month payback basis is the threshold that determines whether you’re building a compounding machine or burning money. Before you spend another pound on customer acquisition, know:

• Your CAC (actual, not blended)

• Your 6-month LTV

• Your contribution margin

• Your cohort retention curve

If you don’t know these numbers, you’re marketing without a foundation.

4. Bootstrap longer than you think you need to

The data is now overwhelming:

• Julian Hearn (Huel): Bootstrapped to £18M revenue, kept 49.3% at €1B exit = £420M

• Nima Jalali (Salt & Stone): Bootstrapped to $100M+ revenue, kept 55%+ at $500M exit = ~$275M

• Allison Ellsworth (Poppi): Raised only $25M total, kept enough equity that CAVU made 88x

Every year you bootstrap preserves 5-10% equity. At a $500M exit, that’s $25-50M per year of bootstrapping. The institutional pressure to raise early, raise large, and grow fast is real. But the founders who’ve built the most generational wealth in CPG are the ones who resisted that pressure longest.

5. Position for acquisition from day one, but don’t optimise for it

The counterintuitive truth about strategic M&A in CPG: The brands that get the best acquisition multiples are the ones that looked like they didn’t need to sell.

• Poppi was growing 100%+ with strong unit economics. They didn’t need Pepsi’s money.

• Rhode was selling out every launch, had 10 million Sephora opening weekend. They didn’t need e.l.f.’s money.

• Gruns hit $300M revenue in 3 years with cohort economics that would have continued compounding. They didn’t need Unilever’s money.

The brands that need to sell get commodity multiples. The brands that could keep going get premium multiples. Build the business as if you’ll never sell it. Let the strategics fight over the opportunity to buy it.

6. Treat your finances like your product

The Uncle Nearest lesson deserves to end every CPG conversation right now. $1.1 billion claimed valuation. $100 million actual. No tax returns since 2018. No independent audit. Ever. Pre-2024 records deleted.

Financial discipline is not the enemy of creative, mission-driven brand building. It is the infrastructure that allows the mission to survive long enough to matter.

File your taxes. Get audited. Know your cap table. Keep clean books. Maintain covenant-required cash balances. The mission deserves a business underneath it that can outlast the founders.

What This All Means for the Next Decade

I left that trade delegation week with one conviction I didn’t arrive with: The venture capital community is about to be embarrassed by consumer.

Not because consumer suddenly becomes “tech-adjacent.” But because the very thing they’ve been betting on AI, is creating the conditions that make consumer uniquely valuable.

When every product can be commoditised, when every process can be automated, when every piece of content can be generated at infinite scale and near-zero cost:

The irreplaceable assets are the ones you can’t generate. Trust earned over decades. Community built through shared identity. Mission rooted in genuine human experience.

Cultural resonance that makes people buy not because the product is optimal but because buying is an act of belonging.

The future of CPG is consumer-centric, tech-driven, and human at its core, and the brands that embrace these trends will capture attention, loyalty, and sustainable growth.

The next decade of iconic companies will not just be the ones with the best technology.

They’ll be the ones that make people care. And in a world increasingly flooded with infinite AI-generated sameness, making people care is the rarest, most defensible, most valuable capability on earth.

Consumer isn’t secondary to the AI revolution. Consumer is the primary beneficiary of it.

Are you building something that makes people care? Or are you optimising something that makes people buy?

There’s a $16.86 trillion difference between those two questions.

P.S. The most important data point in this entire piece came from Bank of America’s CFO: consumer spending is now approximately 68% of US GDP the highest share in decades. Meanwhile, AI infrastructure attracts 40%+ of venture capital deployment against a fraction of that economic contribution. The reallocation of capital toward consumer, already evidenced by $16B in fresh consumer VC commitments in the last 15 months, $10B+ in brand M&A exits, and fund closes from L Catterton ($11B), VMG ($1B), Forerunner ($1B), and CAVU ($325M) isn’t the beginning of a trend. It’s the correction of a decade-long mispricing. The question isn’t whether consumer gets repriced. The question is whether you’re positioned to benefit when it does.

P.P.S. One last thing. The brands I’ve covered in this newsletter over the last six months Poppi, Gruns, Huel, Rhode, Salt & Stone, MOSH, Crazy Mountain have one thing in common beyond their exits: none of them tried to be everything at once. Poppi was prebiotic soda. Rhode was skincare. Salt & Stone was fragrance-led deodorant. Gruns was greens powder. Each was a single, extraordinarily clear positioning in the service of a specific community with a specific identity. In an AI era that will generate infinite variations of everything, the brands that win will be the ones that are irreducibly specific. Depth in one thing beats width across many things every time. Build the thing nobody else can build. Be the brand nobody else can be.

Let me tell you a story about three boys from West London.

They didn’t have investment capital. They didn’t have retail relationships. They didn’t have a business plan.

What they had: A shared obsession with style. A printer. And a philosophy they hadn’t yet articulated but would eventually distil into four words:

“It’s A Secret.”

Mikey, Lee, and Will surnames largely irrelevant because the culture knew them by first names only, started making T-shirts in 2005. Not to build a company. Not to raise a venture round. Just to out-do each other in the school of self-expression.

The three childhood friends shared a common interest in style, sneakers and music during the late ‘90s house and garage era, when brands like Versace and Moschino were heavily intertwined into the culture. They originally began to make their own customised tees in an effort to “out-do one another” and “inject a sense of individuality” into their garments.

And then word got out.

In the early stages, around 2005/2006, Mikey says no one wanted to stock Trapstar. “They thought we were going to be here today, gone tomorrow.” But what started as an obstacle played out to their advantage. “They just made us go back to our same roots, keep it a little bit more close knit for people who understand who you are and what your brand is about.”

So they built differently.

Customers needed to contact them via MySpace to place orders. Items were hand-delivered in pizza and detergent boxes. “We always wanted to disguise packaging,” says Mikey. “We sort of had this seen everywhere, found nowhere mentality.”

Merchandise could be purchased via a simple direct message or a text to the brand’s “trap phone” a nod to the easily disposable burner phones.

Pizza boxes. Burner phones. MySpace DMs.

That was the logistics infrastructure of what would become one of the most culturally significant streetwear brands Britain has ever produced.

And on 29 May 2026, Trapstar Collective Limited entered administration.

This is the full story the rise, the collapse, and the rescue and what every founder in fashion, consumer, and streetwear should take from it.

The Name. The Philosophy. The Foundation.

Before we get to the numbers, you have to understand what Trapstar actually is. Because “streetwear brand” undersells it. And “fashion company” misses the point entirely.

The name “Trapstar” came from a conversation with Lee’s stepdad. He said: “You all think you’re some sort of fly boys, but you’re just trapped. Let’s see you make something of yourselves.” Mikey responded by saying: “We may be trapped, but there’s a star trapped in everybody.”

And it explains why Trapstar resonated with a generation in a way that most brands never achieve.

Jay-Z, Rihanna, Stormzy, Central Cee, A$AP Rocky, and Drake have all been spotted in Trapstar pieces. These were not paid partnerships or forced brand deals. They were genuine endorsements artists wearing what they actually loved. That authenticity is something money simply cannot buy.

Think about what it means that Jay-Z wore Trapstar before they had a PR team.

That Rihanna wore it organically. That Stormzy’s Trapstar underwear was visible during his iconic Glastonbury headline performance arguably the most watched moment in UK music that decade and nobody at Trapstar paid for that placement.

An investment from Jay-Z’s Roc Nation, a stint as the official merch designers for Rihanna’s Monster tour, a Puma collaboration all helped to catapult the brand.

This is what cultural authenticity looks like at its peak. No algorithm. No media spend. No ambassador fees.

Just three boys from Shepherd’s Bush making something so real that the biggest names in music wanted to be part of it.

The Numbers: From Pizza Boxes to £40 Million

Trapstar was founded in West London in 2006 since then, the brand has evolved to become a well-established, globally recognised name in streetwear, receiving high-profile celebrity endorsements and strategic collaborations under its direct-to-consumer retail model.

The timeline:

2005-2009: Underground era

• Selling from car boots, Portobello Market, and MySpace DMs

• Delivery in pizza boxes and detergent cartons

• No stores, no wholesale, no advertising

• Revenue: Near zero. Cultural capital: Priceless.

2010: First flagship store Trapstar would eventually be stocked at Supra on Portobello Road in London, where they now have a flagship store. “It was like we got signed to a label,” says Mikey. By then, the brand had its own buzz and built its own fanbase.

2015-2016: Puma collaboration The brand completed a notable collaboration with Puma in 2015-16. This is the moment Trapstar stepped from cult status to mainstream credibility.

2019: World Fashion Awards In 2019 they were awarded Best Streetwear Brand at the World Fashion Awards Supreme, Palace and Stussy were among the nominees in that category.

2022: The Peak

Revenue reached £40 million.

2022 saw a peak year for Trapstar, when its revenue reached £40 million due to demand for hoodies and tracksuits during the pandemic.

The “drop” model was perfectly suited to pandemic consumer behaviour:

• People at home, shopping online

• Limited edition scarcity driving urgency

• No travel, no holidays clothing became the treat

• Social media amplification at peak

At £40 million revenue, a 57-person team, Selfridges partnership, global celebrity endorsements, Roc Nation investment, Puma collaboration under the belt, and a retail model that generated hysteria with every product release...

Trapstar looked like a British streetwear institution in the making.

The Collapse: How £40M Became £17.7M in Two Years

2023 accounts: Turnover of £29.5m and pre-tax profits of £1.67m.

2024: Revenue fell to £17.7 million.

The brand saw a decline in sales, with 2024 seeing a turnover of £17.7 million, representing a 55% drop in sales in two years.

55% revenue decline in 24 months.

From the peak of British streetwear to struggling to make payroll.

What happened?

The company’s own advisers gave the official line: Management have advised that “recent revenue decline has primarily been driven by working capital constraints impacting inventory availability, rather than any underlying demand or brand performance.”

Translation: They ran out of cash to buy stock. No stock = no sales. No sales = less cash. Less cash = even less stock.

This is the death spiral of working capital-intensive brands.

And it’s a particularly brutal trap for brands built on the “drop” model because the entire business depends on having the right product available at the exact moment consumer demand peaks. Management also talked of a “challenging” time in which customers and suppliers felt the impact of inflation. Average order values and customer numbers were both down, while the operating margin plunged.

The streetwear segment has faced a wider correction following the unwinding of pandemic-era demand, with consumer spending under pressure and persistent cost inflation continuing to squeeze margins across the sector.

Every streetwear brand faced those headwinds. Not every streetwear brand went from £40M to £17.7M in two years.

The demand was still there. The community was still loyal. The cultural resonance hadn’t collapsed. The working capital had. This is an operational failure, not a brand failure. And that distinction matters enormously for what happens next.

The Administration: 57 Jobs, One Month, and a Race Against Time

Interpath Advisory was appointed administrators, just two months after Trapstar attempted to find new financial backing. The administration covers Trapstar International Limited and associated entities, which together employed 57 people at the time of filing.

The transaction was overseen by Will Wright, Howard Smith and Rebecca Makaruk from Interpath who were appointed joint administrators to Trapstar Collective Limited on 29 May 2026.

At the point of administration:

• 57 employees (jobs immediately at risk)

• Revenue: £17.7M (2024) and declining

• Working capital: Exhausted

• Inventory: Insufficient to maintain drop model

• Creditors: Unpaid

• Outstanding: Unfiled 2024 accounts (six-month extension sought)

• Potential buyers circling: Including Mike Ashley’s Frasers Group and Footasylum

Interpath said it was hoping a sale will happen quickly. Will Wright, UK CEO at Interpath, added: “We hope to wrap up a sale of the business in short order.”

The immediate challenge: Administration is a race against time. Brand equity depreciates fast in fashion. Every week without clarity is a week where retail partners hedge, employees look elsewhere, and cultural relevance fades.

For a brand built on mystery and exclusivity, public insolvency is the most damaging possible signal. Will Wright, UK CEO of Interpath and joint administrator of Trapstar Collective Limited, said: “This homegrown streetwear label has developed something of a cult following over the years, using A-list celebrity endorsements and strategic collaborations to grow the brand into a global name.”

The key question the administrators needed to answer quickly: Is this a demand problem (brand is dead) or an operational problem (brand is alive, business needs rescue)?

The evidence strongly suggested the latter:

• Consumer demand for streetwear remained strong

• Trapstar’s cultural brand equity intact

• Celebrity endorsements ongoing

• Working capital, not brand, was the constraint

This meant there was something to save. And two buyers understood that.

The Bidders: Ashley vs Aurelius

Mike Ashley’s Frasers Group was reported as a potential bidder. Frasers’ track record in administration purchases: They’ve acquired Sports Direct, House of Fraser, Game, JACK & JONES, and dozens of other brands in distressed situations.

Their model: Acquire cheap, leverage existing retail infrastructure, extract margin.

The concern with Frasers: Frasers operates at mass scale. Their value proposition is volume pricing and distribution breadth. The brands that have gone through Frasers have generally lost the premium positioning that made them culturally valuable in the first place.

For a brand whose entire equity sits in exclusivity, authenticity, and cultural credibility a Frasers acquisition could have been the thing that finally killed the brand.

The community that queued for 2am drops didn’t queue to get into Sports Direct.

Then Footasylum moved. And it became immediately clear why this was the right outcome.

The Rescue: Why Footasylum Is The Right Partner

Footasylum, Rochdale-based sports-fashion and lifestyle retailers, has won the scramble to rescue pioneering British streetwear brand, Trapstar. The three co-founders, Mikey Aryee, Lee Langaine, and Will Thomas, will continue to lead the creative and strategic direction of Trapstar, maintaining full ownership of the brand’s identity, vision, and cultural voice.

The deal structure: The transaction comprised a sale of the company’s business and assets, meaning Footasylum bought the operational entity out of administration, not a simple investment. The founders’ exact equity position in the restructured business wasn’t disclosed.

But the most important term is this: Mikey, Lee, and Will stay. As CEO, CMO, and CBO respectively. Maintaining “full ownership of the brand’s identity, vision, and cultural voice.”

For a brand where the founders ARE the culture, this is non-negotiable.

The moment Trapstar loses Mikey, Lee, and Will’s creative direction is the moment it becomes just another brand in a retailer’s portfolio.

Now let’s look at who Footasylum is, because this matters:

Footasylum by the numbers (FY2025):

Footasylum has posted record full-year results, with revenue rising 9.4% to £349.5m and underlying EBITDA jumping 26% to £28.2m for the year to 25 January 2025. Operating profit more than doubled to £21.7m, while profit after tax surged 625% to £19.9m, up from £2.8m the prior year.

625% profit growth in a single year.

Exclusive brand sales were up 101% to £33.7m, now accounting for 10% of group revenue. The retailer said sales in the first 21 weeks of FY26 are also up 10.5% year-on-year.

This is a retailer in aggressive growth mode with both the financial firepower and the operational infrastructure to solve exactly the problem that killed Trapstar.

The Footasylum comeback story: Back in 2019, Footasylum was a struggling business in which the much larger JD Sports held a stake and they agreed to a takeover valuing it at just over £90 million. But the UK competition authorities (the CMA) weren’t happy about the combo and after a long process that saw JD Sports trying to change the CMA’s view, it was forced to sell it in 2022. JD Sports divested Footasylum for £37.5 million in August 2022.

They bought for £90M. Sold for £37.5M. Classic distressed asset.

Since then Footasylum has mounted a major comeback, opening and upsizing a raft of UK stores and also expanding in Europe and the Middle East. It’s now a company that’s taking over other businesses rather than being a takeover target itself.

Acquired for £37.5M in 2022. Generating £349.5M revenue and £19.9M net profit in 2025.

That is an extraordinary operational turnaround. And it was delivered under Aurelius Group’s ownership, the same European PE firm that now backs the Trapstar acquisition.

The infrastructure Trapstar gets access to: Footasylum has more than 60 stores in the UK. The business employs about 2,500 staff across the UK.

The company also saw same store sales increase 3 percent to 172.6 million pounds, and online sales increased 6 percent to 143.1 million pounds. Exclusive brand sales were also up 101 percent to 33.7 million pounds, which now accounts for 10 percent of company’s revenue. Brand recognition, particularly among the core 16–24 demographic, continues to grow, supported by distinctive content and social strategy.

A 16-24 demographic. In 60+ UK stores. Growing internationally across Europe and the Middle East. This is almost the perfect distribution match for Trapstar’s community.

What Both Sides Said And What It Actually Means

Hannah Mercer, CEO of Footasylum: “Trapstar is one of the most iconic names to have come out of British streetwear. For more than two decades it has shaped culture, built a distinctive identity and earned a loyal following that extends far beyond the UK. It sits at the heart of fashion, music and culture, and its relevance to the consumers we serve made it a natural fit for Footasylum.”

What this means: Footasylum’s core customer 16-24, streetwear-literate, culturally engaged, IS Trapstar’s customer. This isn’t a stretch acquisition. It’s a portfolio deepening.

“Through labels such as Monterrain and Zavetti Canada, we have demonstrated our ability to build and scale brands that resonate with our audience.”

What this means: Footasylum has already built in-house brands at scale. Exclusive brand sales were up 101% to reach £33.7m. They know how to develop and scale brand within retail infrastructure. Trapstar gets access to that expertise.

Mikey Aryee, CEO and Co-Founder: “This is the right partnership at the right time. Hannah and the Footasylum team understand what we’re building. We’re focused on growing our product range, scaling our footwear collection which launched this year, and using Footasylum’s retail network to get it in front of the right people.”

What this means: The founders have a growth agenda. Footwear is explicitly called out, which is strategically interesting because footwear is where the highest-margin streetwear business lives. Supreme, Palace, and Off-White all built their most significant commercial revenue through footwear collaborations.

Lee Langaigne, CMO and Co-Founder: “From the back of car boots in London to partnering with Aurelius and Footasylum, this is a key turning point. Their retail and e-commerce expertise opens up real opportunities globally. We share the same vision. Our priority is simple: make better decisions, raise our standards and deliver the products our community deserves.”

What this means: “Make better decisions” is an admission. This is a founder who knows the operational execution failed. And who is committing publicly to a different approach.

Will Thomas, CBO and Co-Founder: “Trapstar is the culture. Partnering with Footasylum to take it global better reach, bigger platform. This one’s for everyone who’s been here from the start and everyone who’s about to find out.”

What this means: The aspiration is international. The community comes first. And new customers are the growth thesis.

The Real Lessons: What Every Founder Should Take From This

This isn’t just a Trapstar story. It’s a story that plays out in fashion, streetwear, and CPG brands every single cycle.

Here are the five lessons that matter:

Lesson 1: Working Capital Constraints Kill Brands That Brand Failures Don’t

The most important sentence in this entire story is this one from Trapstar’s advisers:

“Recent revenue decline has primarily been driven by working capital constraints impacting inventory availability, rather than any underlying demand or brand performance.”

This is not a brand that died because people stopped loving it. People still loved Trapstar. The community was still there. The cultural equity was still intact. The business died because it ran out of cash to buy the stock that would have fed the demand. This is the cruellest failure mode in fashion. And it’s almost entirely preventable with proper financial discipline.

The drop model is particularly vulnerable: When your entire sales strategy depends on releasing limited-edition product at precise moments of peak demand, your inventory management and working capital position is mission-critical.

If you have the stock, you generate the drop revenue, you generate the cash, you buy more stock. If you run out of cash to buy stock, you can’t generate the drop revenue. No revenue means less cash. Less cash means less stock. The spiral is fast and violent.

What to do instead: Model your working capital requirements 12 months forward. Know exactly how much cash you need to fund the inventory required to meet demand projections. Maintain a cash buffer of at least 3-6 months of peak inventory cost. And raise capital before you need it, not when you’re in crisis.

Lesson 2: The Drop Model Is Brilliant, Until It Isn’t

Trapstar’s “seen everywhere, found nowhere” philosophy was genuine and it was brilliant.

Limited drops create urgency. Scarcity creates desire. Exclusivity creates cultural value.

But the drop model requires perfect operational execution:

• Enough working capital to fund inventory ahead of drops

• Reliable supply chain that delivers on precise timelines

• Sufficient demand forecasting to order the right quantities

• Marketing infrastructure to generate drop buzz on demand

When working capital dries up, inventory becomes unavailable, drops get delayed or cancelled, and the community, conditioned to expect reliable drops starts to drift.

Inconsistency kills exclusivity brands faster than anything else. Because the whole value proposition is “you missed it last time, don’t miss it this time.” The moment customers learn there’s nothing to miss, the urgency evaporates.

Lesson 3: Cultural Equity Doesn’t Pay Creditors

Trapstar had extraordinary cultural equity at the point it entered administration. Rihanna wore it. Jay-Z’s Roc Nation invested in it. Stormzy wore it at Glastonbury. It won Best Streetwear Brand over Supreme.

None of that paid the creditors. This is the brutal truth of operating a brand: cultural equity and financial performance are two different things.

You can have extraordinary cultural equity and still run out of cash. Sentiment doesn’t pay creditors.

The Uncle Nearest lesson from last month applies here too: the mission, the culture, the brand story, these are the reason the business deserves to exist. But they are not a substitute for the financial infrastructure that allows it to survive.

What protects a brand isn’t its cultural position. It’s its cash position.

Lesson 4: Choosing the Right Rescue Partner Is Everything

Trapstar had at least two serious bidders: Frasers Group and Footasylum.

The difference between these two outcomes is enormous.

Frasers model: Scale, volume, mass distribution. Brands that go to Frasers tend to get rationalized into the portfolio rather than elevated.

Footasylum model: Cultural proximity, 16-24 demographic, exclusive brand expertise, e-commerce + stores omnichannel. Brands that go to Footasylum get infrastructure while maintaining identity.

For a brand like Trapstar, whose entire value sits in exclusivity and cultural credibility, the distribution partner has to understand and protect those things, not dilute them.

The fact that the founders are staying, maintaining creative direction, and that Footasylum explicitly cited Trapstar’s cultural identity as the reason for the acquisition...

This is the best possible outcome for a brand in administration.

Lesson 5: The Founder Stays or the Brand Dies

Mikey, Lee, and Will are staying. Maintaining creative direction. Keeping the brand’s identity, vision, and cultural voice.

This is non-negotiable for culture-driven brands.

The pattern in streetwear is clear:

When founders stay → brand maintains credibility → community stays loyal → growth is possible

When founders leave → brand becomes generic → community moves to the next authentic thing → the brand becomes an empty vessel

Supreme without James Jebbia is not Supreme. Palace without the Palace founding team is not Palace. Trapstar without Mikey, Lee, and Will is not Trapstar.

The deal is structured correctly. The founders maintain creative control. The infrastructure problem (working capital, distribution, retail reach) is solved by Footasylum. The brand problem (identity, culture, community) is solved by keeping the founders in place.

What Happens Next

The three growth vectors Mikey explicitly identified:

1. Growing the product range

Trapstar has historically been concentrated in hoodies and tracksuits. Category expansion into adjacent streetwear — outerwear, accessories, lifestyle is the natural next step with distribution infrastructure behind it.

2. Scaling the footwear collection (launched this year)

This is the most commercially significant announcement. Footwear is where streetwear brands generate their highest margins and their most culturally significant drops. A Trapstar trainer collaboration with the right partner could generate more buzz than any hoodie.

With Footasylum’s footwear expertise and 60+ store network, the launch and distribution potential is substantial.

3. Using Footasylum’s retail network for discovery

The retailer’s brand recognition, particularly among the core 16–24 demographic, continues to grow, supported by a distinctive content and social strategy.

16-24 year olds in Footasylum stores across 60+ UK locations + Middle East + DACH expansion. Every one of those locations is a discovery point for a potential Trapstar customer who might never have found the brand through the drop-only model.

The global opportunity: Footasylum has recently signed a strategic partnership with Apparel Group to establish Footasylum stores across the Gulf Cooperation Council region, including the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain and Oman.

Trapstar in the GCC. In the UAE. In Saudi Arabia.

Markets with enormous appetite for premium British streetwear and relatively limited brand competition at Trapstar’s cultural level.

This is the international expansion the brand was never operationally equipped to pursue independently.

The Final Reality

In 2005, Mikey, Lee, and Will delivered T-shirts in pizza boxes. By 2022, they were generating £40 million in revenue and had been worn by Rihanna, Jay-Z, and Stormzy. In May 2026, they entered administration with 57 jobs at risk and a 55% revenue decline from peak. In June 2026, Footasylum completed a rescue acquisition with the founders staying at the creative helm.

This is not a story about a brand that failed.

This is a story about a brand that was mismanaged operationally and ran out of working capital, but whose cultural equity was so strong that a £350M-revenue retailer chose it over every other distressed asset in British fashion.

That’s not a failure. That’s evidence of what the brand actually is.

Lee Langaigne: “From the back of car boots in London to partnering with Aurelius and Footasylum this is a key turning point. Our priority is simple: make better decisions, raise our standards and deliver the products our community deserves.”

“Make better decisions.” Those three words are the entire lesson.

The brand was never the problem. The decisions around financial management, working capital planning, inventory strategy, and operational discipline were the problem.

Footasylum solves the operational problem.

Mikey, Lee, and Will protect the brand.

And the community that’s been here from the start and everyone who’s about to find out gets Trapstar back.

From pizza boxes to a £350M retail partner. The brand survived. Now the real chapter begins.

P.S. The most important number in this story is not £40M (peak revenue) or £17.7M (administration revenue). It’s £100M+. Trapstar reportedly generated more than £100 million in revenue since it was founded. A brand that generates £100M+ over its lifetime without institutional capital, without a PE backer from day one, without a JD Sports or Footasylum behind it from the start built entirely through cultural authenticity, celebrity endorsement that wasn’t paid for, and a community that believed is an extraordinary achievement. The administration wasn’t the end of Trapstar’s story. It was the end of Trapstar without infrastructure. The next chapter, with Footasylum’s £350M retail machine behind it, could be the biggest chapter yet.

P.P.S. Footasylum’s exclusive brand sales were up 101% to £33.7m and now account for 10% of group revenue. That exclusive brand growth rate doubling in a single year is the signal that Footasylum knows how to build and scale brands within their retail infrastructure. Monterrain and Zavetti Canada proved the model. Trapstar is a significantly bigger cultural asset than either of those. If Footasylum can do with Trapstar what they’ve done with their own exclusive labels, this deal could be transformative for both businesses. Watch the exclusive brand revenue figure in their next filing. That’s where you’ll see the Trapstar impact.

This one is going to be uncomfortable.

Because the story of Uncle Nearest Premium Whiskey isn’t a story about a bad product.It’s not a story about bad timing, or tariffs, or a declining spirits market, it’s a story about what happens when a brilliant founder confuses building a brand with building a business. And the lessons are so clear so preventable that every founder reading this needs to sit with it.

The timeline:

• 2016: Fawn Weaver, a California entrepreneur with no spirits background, reads a New York Times article about Nathan “Nearest” Green — the first known African American master distiller, the man who taught Jack Daniel how to make whiskey, whose name never appeared on a bottle.

• 2017: Uncle Nearest launches. Within a year, Weaver is selling in all 50 states.

• 2019: A 300-acre distillery opens in Shelbyville, Tennessee the first in the country named after a Black distiller.

• 2022: Uncle Nearest reports over $100M in whiskey sales. The distillery becomes the seventh most visited in the world with 200,000+ annual visitors.

• 2023: Forbes estimates the valuation at $1.1 billion. Weaver appears on Shark Tank, NPR, CNBC. She declares publicly: “I want it to be a $50 billion company.”

• November 2023: Weaver had raised $225 million in individual support. The business was backed by 163 individual investors, providing an average check of $500,000 a person.

• August 2025: Uncle Nearest was placed into court-ordered receivership after a lawsuit from lender Farm Credit Mid-America alleging the company defaulted on roughly $108 million in loans and lines of credit. A federal judge appointed a receiver to oversee the company and manage its assets.

• February 2026: The court-appointed receiver files a report describing the company as being in “financial shambles.” He reported that financial records prior to 2024 were deleted or unavailable. He stated there had never been an independent audit. He told the court he could not assemble a reliable list of investors, how much they invested, or when those investments were made. He reported the company had been losing approximately $1 million per month. He also stated Uncle Nearest had not filed federal tax returns since 2018 and was struggling with payroll and vendor obligations. Young estimated the company’s value at roughly $100 million a number that stands in sharp contrast to the $1.1 billion valuation publicly shared in 2023.

No tax returns since 2018. No independent audit. Ever. Pre-2024 financial records: deleted.

Actual value: $100M on $158M in debt. Let me tell you how a $1.1 billion brand becomes insolvent.

And more importantly what you can do right now to make sure you’re not building the same trap.

The Origin Story

Before we do the post-mortem, you have to understand what was built. Because this isn’t a story about a fraud. It’s a story about a founder who fell in love with the vision and stopped counting.

Fawn Weaver stumbled upon a little-known story about Nathan “Nearest” Green, the first known African American master distiller and the man who taught Jack Daniel how to make whiskey. What started as a spark of curiosity turned into Uncle Nearest Premium Whiskey, a billion-dollar brand rewriting the rules of heritage, ownership, and excellence in the whiskey world.

This is a genuinely extraordinary founding story.

Nathan “Nearest” Green was born circa 1820. He taught Jack Daniel a young white man how to distill whiskey using the Lincoln County Process. For 150 years, his name appeared on nothing. No bottle. No plaque. No credit.

Fawn Weaver read about him on a flight to Singapore in 2016, flew to Tennessee to meet his descendants, and within months decided to build a brand bearing his name.

The mission was real. The execution in the early years was exceptional: By 2022, Uncle Nearest had been awarded more than 450 medals, including top honours at international competitions. It became the most-awarded American whiskey brand three years in a row.

Products are now featured in over 30,000 stores, bars, hotels, and restaurants in 12 countries. In 2023, the Uncle Nearest US distillery was the seventh-most visited in the world with over 200,000 visitors.

The product was exceptional. The story was exceptional. The execution in market was exceptional. But somewhere between the 200,000 visitors and the $1.1 billion valuation headline, the financial architecture collapsed.

And by the time anyone knew how bad it was, the records had been deleted.

The Seven Specific Failures (And What Each One Teaches You)

Failure #1: No Independent Audit. Ever. In Nine Years.

There had never been an independent audit. This sentence should terrify every founder reading this. An independent audit isn’t bureaucracy. It’s the mechanism that makes everything else work.

Without an audit:

• Investors don’t know what they actually own

• Lenders don’t know what they’ve actually secured

• The founder doesn’t know what the business is actually worth

• The company can’t identify problems until they’re catastrophic

With an independent audit (annually):

• Real numbers are verified by a neutral third party

• Discrepancies are caught when they’re fixable, not when they’re fatal

• Any inflated valuation claims get reality-checked before they become public commitments

• When you go to raise capital or take on debt, you have credible documentation

When a single executive controls all reporting, the board’s fiduciary function is effectively neutralised, resulting in a loss of operational autonomy and exposure to receivership. Liability exposure for founders and boards escalates when financial records are compromised or erased.

The Uncle Nearest receiver couldn’t even assemble a reliable list of investors, the amounts they invested, and when. Think about that. $225 million raised from 163 investors and nobody could reconstruct the cap table.

Failure #2: No Federal Tax Returns Since 2018

Uncle Nearest had not filed its federal tax returns since 2018 and was struggling with payroll and vendor obligations. The company raised $225 million from investors. It borrowed $108 million from a lender. It appeared on CNBC, NPR, and Shark Tank. And nobody filed a tax return for seven years.

This is the most fundamental compliance obligation any business has and it was ignored for the entire growth phase of the company.

What does this mean in practice?

• For investors: Their investment was in a company with seven years of unknown tax liability, penalties, and potential criminal exposure. Nobody told them.

• For lenders: The $108M loan was secured by a company whose actual financial position was unknowable because basic fiscal records didn’t exist.

• For the company: Seven years of unfiled returns means seven years of compounding penalties, interest, and potential IRS criminal referral for wilful non-compliance.

Systemic failures in financial oversight have turned Uncle Nearest from a high-growth spirits brand into a cautionary tale of governance collapse.

Failure #3: The Valuation Was A Story, Not A Number

Young estimated the company’s value at roughly $100 million. That number stands in sharp contrast to the $1.1 billion valuation publicly shared in 2023. If total liabilities sit near $158 million, that signals insolvency.

$1.1 billion claimed. $100 million actual. $158 million in debt. The company was insolvent before anyone publicly knew.

When you claim $1.1 billion in value:

• Investors invest at that implied valuation (paying too much)

• Lenders extend credit secured against that valuation (over-secured)

• The company starts making decisions as if it has $1.1 billion in backing (overspending)

Overstated its revenues by nearly $30 million in 2024. This is the financial equivalent of building a house on ground that doesn’t exist.

Farm Credit maintains that Uncle Nearest’s collateral, like its barrels of whiskey, were inflated. The barrels of whiskey pledged as collateral the physical assets securing $108M in loans were reportedly inflated in value. The lender claimed the whiskey producer provided “apparently inaccurate” barrel inventory reports that overstated values by $21 million.

Failure #4: Debt as a Growth Fuel Without Debt Discipline

The lawsuit claims the whiskey company violated loan terms and failed to maintain required financial conditions while carrying more than $100 million in liabilities. Before the receivership, the company was losing approximately $1 million per month and could not cover its $450,000 monthly payroll without borrowing from its payroll processing company, with those advances repaid by Farm Credit.

The company was borrowing money from a payroll processing company to make payroll and then repaying that with money from their primary lender.

They were robbing Peter to pay Paul at billion-dollar scale. Debt in consumer businesses is a tool, not a strategy.

Debt works when:

• You borrow to purchase income-producing assets (inventory that sells, equipment that produces)

• You have clear visibility on cash flow to service the debt

• The interest rate is below your return on that capital

Debt doesn’t work when:

• You borrow to fund operating losses

• You have no audit to verify your actual position

• You pledge assets as collateral that you’re simultaneously selling to pay other bills

The lender claimed the whiskey producer sold whiskey barrels to pay other obligations barrels that had been pledged as collateral for the loan.

Before taking on any significant debt:

1. Know your exact monthly cash burn (audited, not estimated)

2. Know your exact monthly revenue (audited, not estimated)

3. Model the debt service against both scenarios (base case and 30% revenue decline)

4. Never borrow against assets you might need to sell to survive

5. Maintain the minimum cash balance required by your loan covenants — this is not optional, it’s a legal obligation

The moment you’re borrowing from one source to service another, you have a liquidity crisis. Stop. Fix it. Do not raise more capital until you understand why the hole exists.

Failure #5: Diversifying Away from the Core Before the Core Was Secure

Here is the list of assets the court-appointed receiver identified for sale: Uncle Nearest Inc. is preparing to sell off non-core assets, including French vineyards, a Cognac château, and other real estate.

French vineyards. A Cognac château. A Martha’s Vineyard property. Real estate holdings. A whiskey company from Shelbyville, Tennessee, was buying French wine estates.

The company also recently purchased the largest Grand Champagne vineyard in Cognac, France, and Square One Organic Spirits, a boutique organic spirits company. The largest Grand Champagne vineyard in Cognac, France.

While the core business was losing $1M per month and hadn’t filed a tax return since 2018. This is the most seductive trap in consumer brand building: the temptation to build an empire before you’ve secured a throne.

The pattern is almost universal in founder-led companies that collapse:

1. Core business shows early momentum

2. Founder raises capital on the back of that momentum

3. Capital used to build adjacent businesses, prestige assets, trophy acquisitions

4. Core business cash flow insufficient to service the debt

5. Everything collapses simultaneously

The Martha’s Vineyard property: Farm Credit Mid-America accused the Weavers of missing loan payments and misusing loan proceeds, alleging that the duo diverted funds to acquire a $2.25 million property on Martha’s Vineyard.

Young filed a motion alleging that one of the Weavers’ businesses was used in an attempt to hide assets from creditor Farm Credit, including $20 million in loans that Fawn Weaver allegedly signed for.

The Weavers dispute these allegations. Fawn Weaver has maintained that the Martha’s Vineyard property was legitimate and that she was the victim of a smear campaign. But the broader structural point stands regardless of who’s right about individual transactions: a company that was losing $1M per month and couldn’t service its debt had no business making any acquisition of any kind.

The rule I’d apply: Don’t acquire anything that isn’t directly generating revenue for your core product until:

1. Your core product is cash flow positive (not just revenue positive)

2. Your debt is manageable against a worst-case revenue scenario

3. You have 12+ months of operating runway in cash

4. You have a completed, independent audit that confirms the above

The prestige assets can wait. The core business cannot.

Casamigos sold for $1 billion. The brand is tequila. Just tequila. No cognac. No vineyard. No real estate portfolio. Just an exceptional tequila, beautifully branded, at scale.

Depth in one thing beats width across many things every time.

Failure #6: 500 Money Transfers, No Oversight

Young stated that records of close to 500 money transfers between Uncle Nearest and various company accounts reveal a serious mix of funds, and that all of them were being run as a single business. 500 money transfers. No oversight. No audit trail.

When you have 500 money transfers between company accounts with no independent verification, what you have is not a business. You have a series of IOUs between entities that nobody fully controls.

When a single executive controls all reporting, the board’s fiduciary function is effectively neutralised. In cases of severe financial mismanagement or lender disputes, courts can appoint a receiver who assumes full operational authority. This is the governance failure at the heart of everything.

Fawn Weaver deliberately chose individual investors over VC and PE precisely because she wanted to maintain control: “I’m gonna find enough individuals of high net worth who are accredited investors who are willing to back my vision, who are willing to believe in me, but will stay out of my way.”

She said this like it was a strength. And in many ways, founder control IS a strength. Julian Hearn at Huel. Nima Jalali at Salt & Stone. Patrick Schwarzenegger’s companies. All maintained majority control and built extraordinary value.

But there’s a critical difference between founder control and zero accountability. What Weaver built:

• 40% equity, 80% voting rights for herself

• Individual investors (no institutional oversight)

• No independent board with genuine authority

• No CFO with actual power (the CFO she now blames didn’t apparently have audit authority)

• No independent audit

• $225 million raised, no cap table anyone can reconstruct

The paradox of unchecked control: When you’re the only one who can verify the numbers, you’re also the only one who can distort the numbers whether intentionally or not.

Investors and lenders who have no oversight mechanism have no choice but to rely entirely on the founder’s representation. When those representations turn out to be wrong, the damage is total.

Build the governance even when you don’t think you need it:

1. Independent board members with real authority (not just cheerleaders)

2. Separation of the CFO role from the founder’s personal influence

3. Annual external audit reported directly to the board, not through the CEO

4. Clear approval processes for any transaction above a threshold (e.g. any acquisition, any property purchase, any transfer between related entities above £50K)

5. A written financial policy that limits what can be spent without board approval

A lesson for every founder: Financial discipline is not the enemy of mission. It is the infrastructure that allows mission to survive.

The brands that will carry this legacy forward whether Uncle Nearest in restructured form or whatever comes next will need to be built on real numbers, real audits, real tax compliance, and real governance.

Not because that’s what the establishment demands. Because that’s what financial survival requires.

What to Have In Place Before You Take On Significant Capital

Based on everything that went wrong at Uncle Nearest, here is the minimum infrastructure every founder needs before raising serious money or taking on significant debt:

Financial Infrastructure (Non-Negotiable)

• Annual independent audit by an external firm (not the founder’s choice of accountant)

• Tax returns filed for every year of business operation

• Monthly management accounts produced by the 15th of the following month

• Audited P&L, balance sheet, and cash flow statement every quarter

• Clear, documented cap table with all investor names, investment amounts, dates, and share classes

• Separation between company bank accounts and any personal or related-party entities

Governance Infrastructure (Non-Negotiable)

• Independent board members with genuine fiduciary authority (not just advisory)

• CFO who reports to the board, not just the CEO

• Written financial policy specifying what requires board approval (all acquisitions, all loans, all related-party transactions above threshold)

• No commingling of funds between related entities without documented intercompany agreements

• Documented approval trail for all significant expenditure

Debt Discipline (Before You Borrow)

• Know your exact monthly burn rate (audited)

• Model debt service against a 30% revenue decline scenario

• Never pledge the same asset twice

• Maintain covenant-required minimum cash balances — these are legal obligations

• Read every loan agreement yourself before signing. Understand every covenant.

Valuation Discipline (Before You Publish)

• Valuation claims should be based on audited revenue, actual EBITDA, and comparable transactions

• Do not make public valuation claims that aren’t verified by independent analysis

• Your investors should know the actual value, not the aspirational one

• If someone tells you the company is worth $1.1B and you know the company has never been audited that’s not a valuation. It’s a wish.

Uncle Nearest built something genuinely historic.

Fawn Weaver put her own money into the venture. She and her husband, Keith, acquired a 300-acre property in Shelbyville, Tennessee, where they built the Nearest Green Distillery the first in the country named after a Black distiller. In just a few short years, Uncle Nearest became the fastest-growing independent American whiskey brand in US history.

That is a remarkable achievement. Full stop.

And now it’s in receivership. Potentially headed for liquidation. With 163 investors unable to reconstruct their own cap table. With no tax returns for seven years. With pre-2024 financial records deleted. The mission survived the market. It didn’t survive the financial architecture.

And that’s the lesson: No product is so good, no story is so compelling, no mission is so righteous that it survives without the boring, unglamorous infrastructure of financial discipline.

The brands that outlast their founders that carry legacies forward for generations aren’t just the ones with the best stories.

They’re the ones that filed their taxes. That got audited. That knew their actual numbers. That built governance structures that could withstand scrutiny. The story of Nearest Green deserves a company that lasts 100 years.

That company needs real numbers.

Are you building a brand or building a business? The difference is whether the numbers can survive daylight.

Keep building,

P.S. The most heartbreaking detail in the entire Uncle Nearest story isn’t the $108M default or the deleted records. It’s this: Since she and her husband have no children, Weaver plans to eventually bequeath the business to Nearest Green’s descendants. “I’m going to build it large as hell. When I pass it on, I don’t want it to be a $10 billion company. I want it to be a $50 billion company,” Weaver told Forbes. “I am never going to profit on Uncle Nearest. I’ve known it from day one. I’m raising up their family.” The intent was genuine. The mission was real. The descendants of Nearest Green deserved a thriving company. Financial discipline isn’t just about protecting yourself. It’s about protecting the people and the mission your company exists to serve. Get your numbers right. For them.

P.P.S. The receiver’s report contained this detail that should terrify every founder who’s ever raised from individual investors: He told the court he could not assemble a reliable list of investors, how much they invested, or when those investments were made. $225M raised. 163 investors. No reconstructible cap table. If you’ve taken a single pound from a single investor and you can’t tell me in 60 seconds exactly how much they invested, what their ownership percentage is, what share class they hold, and what that’s worth at a range of exit scenarios, stop everything and fix that right now. Your investors trusted you with their capital. The least you owe them is knowing they exist.