Dan Reich

Tech VCs getting over their skis investing in DTC brands set back CPG investment for a decade Historically VC has been about investing in technology that disrupted big markets and captured lots of value That model didn’t fit consumer brands...until around 2012 it suddenly did: FB/IG ads provided hyper targeted access to your core demographic — stand up a website (Tech!) and suddenly you could “cut out the middleman” and grab a bunch of margin typically “stolen” from you by “antiquated retailers” Apply that to BIG markets (Shoes! Beds! Bags!) and all of a sudden VCs were chomping at the bit (they love TAM) In 2016, Dollar Shave Club was bought for $1 billion by Unilever; by 2018 Bleecker and Chestnut streets were full of DTC storefronts and the VCs behind those brands were celebrating Then things started to change: CACs rose, growth slowed, Casper botched its IPO and Apple changed its iOS to make ad targeting even harder The investors who were just recently high fiving on the way up were now underwater (crushed under heavy pref stacks) They were quick to throw the industry under the bus: “Consumer products are too capital intensive” “There’s no big outcomes in consumer” “We’re pivoting to e-commerce enablement - picks and shovels!” “DTC just doesn’t work” ...and their peers, their LPs, the media and the ecosystem at large took them at their word The industry dismissed consumer products as a whole, and in doing so it threw the baby out with the bathwater and led a lot of capital to write off CPG But the real story: these were overfunded businesses with good (but not great) products, structurally low repeat purchase and minimal moat Allbirds, Casper and Away raised a combined $700m to create less than that much value in their end state; Unilever sold off Dollar Shave Club at a steep discount 7 years after buying it The lasting misconceptions became core narratives that were only recently violated as the VC community scratches its head at the recent run of big CPG exits that raised modest amounts of capital (Poppi, Siete, LesserEvil, Touchland, Simple Mills) Word lately is that “CPG is back” — it’s just a shame that all these people thought it ever left

1,091

114 Comments

Scaling With Boundaries: Consent-Based Growth at SX Fusion Link In Bio. Too many agencies treat creators like content machines—optimizing for growth at the cost of personal autonomy. At SX Fusion, we do things differently. Every strategy—whether it’s DM automation, PPV pricing, content cadence, or A/B testing—starts with one question: What does the creator actually want? Our model is built on consent-based growth. That means: No pressure to perform beyond your comfort zone Full transparency around monetization experiments Collaborative decisions on fan engagement style Respect for pacing, tone, and personal brand integrity Boundaries aren't obstacles—they're frameworks. And when creators feel safe, respected, and in control, the results speak for themselves: higher retention, deeper fan loyalty, and long-term success. We’re not just growing brands. We’re protecting people. #SXFusion #CreatorEconomy #OnlyFansManagement #DigitalEthics #ConsentCulture #CreatorWellness #ContentWithBoundaries #InfluencerStrategy #FanMonetization #SexualWellnessLeadership #RespectFirst #SustainableGrowth #CreatorSupport

344

22 Comments

New Research Shows Why Regulation Aligned Sex Tech Innovates Faster, Not Slower View My Portfolio There is a persistent myth in sex tech that regulation limits innovation. Recent research shows the opposite: brands that design in alignment with regulatory frameworks move faster, scale more smoothly, and avoid costly resets. A 2024 regulatory innovation study found that sex tech companies building with compliance in mind from the start reached market readiness sooner and reduced post launch revisions by 40 percent. Journal of Health Technology Regulation, 2024 What the research makes clear: Regulation aligned sex tech • shortens approval and retail onboarding timelines • reduces product recalls and redesigns • increases partner and investor confidence • accelerates international expansion • protects long term brand equity Compliance does not block creativity. It removes uncertainty. Why this matters to you: If you believe sex tech should • be built to last across markets • avoid gray zones that slow growth later • earn trust from retailers and platforms • integrate into healthcare adjacent spaces • scale without constant risk management You are thinking like a category builder, not a trend chaser. At V For Vibes, regulation alignment is treated as an innovation strategy. Products are designed with safety standards in mind from day one. Claims are evidence aligned. Documentation is proactive, not reactive. Growth is intentional, not fragile. The next era of sex tech will not reward shortcuts. It will reward brands that understand that credibility is a form of speed. Innovation that survives regulation is the only innovation that truly scales. #SexTech #SexualWellness #VForVibes #RegulatoryStrategy #HealthTech #WomenInLeadership #FemaleFounders #ResponsibleInnovation #FutureOfSexTech

256

10 Comments

How Shame Still Shapes Product Innovation—and What to Do About It Link In Bio. Stigma is still coded into how intimate products are marketed, sold, and even funded. This unspoken shame limits access, discourages R&D, and reinforces outdated taboos. At V For Vibes, we challenge those patterns with clinical clarity, beautiful design, and science-backed storytelling. Our mission is to create tools that don’t require secrecy—but invite curiosity and confidence. Innovation accelerates when we stop whispering. #SexualHealthInnovation #ShameFreeDesign #VForVibes #CultureChange #HealthTech #ProductLeadership #BreakTheStigma

249

14 Comments

ODDBALL RAISES $2M TO SCALE PLANT-BASED JIGGLY SNACKS Oddball, a New York startup reinventing the jelly snack, just raised $2M in seed funding led by Springdale Ventures to fuel retail expansion, product innovation, and presence across three Whole Foods regions. Founded by Sophia Cheng, ex-Estée Lauder exec, Oddball makes better-for-you, plant-based jelly cups with agar, a seaweed-based gelling agent, each with a full serving of fruit and no sugar, gelatin, or preservatives. The recipes were developed in collaboration with a Michelin-starred chef, blending clean ingredients with culinary precision. The brand’s mission is clear: bring back the fun of fruit snacks in a cleaner, modern form - and maybe take a bite out of Jell-O, the 126-year-old Kraft Heinz icon. Once nearing $1B in sales, Jell-O has slipped to around ~$700M as tastes shift and new challengers move in.

108

15 Comments

DTC is fragile. Retail is durable. Here’s the difference: DTC lives and dies on paid media. Your CPA scales as fast as your revenue - and usually faster. That’s not a business model, that’s a treadmill. Retail is slower to unlock but infinitely harder to disrupt. Shelves don’t fluctuate with CPM swings. Buyers don’t ghost you because Meta tweaked an algorithm. Yes, retail takes more muscle. More execution. More patience. But that difficulty is exactly what makes it defensible. DTC is the on-ramp. Retail is the moat. The next wave of lasting CPG brands won’t be built in a Shopify dashboard. They’ll be built on shelf. 📷 DTC brand Seed Health in Erewhon

126

58 Comments

Consolidation is proving to be a viable alternative for some companies in the once-hot food tech space. David 🤝 Epogee PepsiCo 🤝 poppi Flowers Foods & Subsidiaries 🤝 Simple Mills The Hershey Company 🤝 LesserEvil Brand Snack Co. FoodYoung 🤝 MeliBio Big Idea Ventures 🤝 Vevolution Venture funding for food tech has fallen sharply in recent years, but M&A activity in the space appears to be on the rise. The funding and dealmaking trends indicate that in the face of declining investor interest, consolidation is proving to be a viable alternative for some companies in the once-hot food tech space. Nathan Cooper of Barrel Ventures shares, “Many of the companies that were funded were years, if not decades away from commercial viability. They were seeing tech valuations, and required substantial amounts of cap-ex, when at the end of the day what they were selling was a CPG (consumer packaged goods) product and should have been valued as such.” Andrew D Ive of Big Idea Ventures commented, “Valuations have normalized compared to two years ago, creating an attractive window for strategic buyers to acquire de-risked, well-funded companies with validated technologies — often at reasonable prices.” This is a great article by Crunchbase highlighting the consolidation activity of the foodtech space. My tip to startups who are struggling to fundraise. Start having serious M&A conversations because you might be surprised at the partnerships you may find! https://lnkd.in/gHVJ35nm

19

🚨 Where are the funding options for sub-$1M brands? Every single week, I talk to 100+ founders LIVE inside my ShelfMade community. Through my Founder Circles and office hours, I’m in the trenches with early-stage CPG brands…hearing their wins, struggles, and everything in between. And week after week, I keep hearing the same 4 things on repeat: 1️⃣ “I’m doing less than $1M… how the hell do I raise money?” 2️⃣ “How do I get into retail… the right way?” 3️⃣ “How do I find the right manufacturer?” 4️⃣ “Who can I actually trust to partner with…agencies, suppliers, brokers, etc.?” Here’s what’s wild to me 👇 There’s no real funding option for brands under $1M in revenue. We all know how brutally hard it is to make a CPG product work. If your margins don’t work, your brand won’t either. Period. But for the brands that do have something special.. a killer product + margin, strong founder, smart strategy..the lack of funding options is a massive gap in the ecosystem. I get why investors see early CPG as “too risky.” But it’s also where the upside is the highest. Inside my Founder Circles, I have a front-row seat to who’s “working” way before the rest of the market sees it… founders with velocity, strong branding, margin, sharp instincts. And it got me thinking… 👉 What if Shelfmade became the bridge? 👉 What if we not only advised and connected early-stage founders, but funded them too? 👉 What if the ecosystem supported them through both capital and community? Early capital + intimate founder circles + advisor access = a real shot at building something lasting. No one’s putting founders in curated rooms with both peers and advisors while backing them with capital. I wish this existed when I was building.. 🔸 If you’re a founder, what’s been your biggest challenge raising? 🔸 If you’re an investor, what would make you lean in at this stage? 🔸 If you’re in the ecosystem, what are you seeing? Happy Sunday Fam

215

117 Comments

The main reason some DTC brands have a hard time crossing the chasm from online to physical retail is: Packaging 🎁 Ketone-IQ is the #1 selling energy shot in natural grocery stores, and a top performer across the 4,000 doors we are in, but it isn't easy. Here’s what we learned — 👉 Online, packaging is NOT what drives the buying decision. The customer makes a buying decision based on the digital presentation — website, ads, videos, reviews, etc. The customer only touches your packaging after paying for the product and having it arrive in the mail. 👉 In retail, the dynamic flips. Packaging (+ any shippers/stands/etc) is the entirety of the surface area you have for conveying your message. There no website with pics, videos, text, reviews, etc. So in retail you have to deliver the value proposition with 90% less surface area than online. It’s hard to simplify. It’s easier to tell a convincing story in 5 minutes versus 5 seconds. In retail you’re lucky if you can grab the customer’s attention for 5 seconds. 👉 Another major other factor in retail, unlike your website, is that your product sits directly next to your competitors. This cuts both ways — you get new eyeballs from people shopping in your category. But you’re in direct zero-sum competition for dollars against other brands. And that’s not all! 👉 Even with perfect packaging, there are still often issues with compliance. So you need to send people into stores, or work with your retail partners, to actually make sure everything is merchandised correctly — no voids, labels facing outward, shippers setup, etc. 👉 The meta lesson is it’s a giant experiment. 👨‍🔬 You need a team culture of constantly testing and iterating. Observe how your product shows up. Listen to feedback from your retail partners. Approach with curiosity and be nimble. Let me know any questions!

61

12 Comments

I have been thinking about funding cycles a lot lately. Peeq Pro is preparing for its Series A raise, and so I am dwelling on funding. But, I have also had a significant number of early stage companies ask for funding help lately also. More importantly, multiple people in Nebrask have asked me about how the funding ecosystem works. So, to that end, I went back to look at something I wrote about five years ago regarding funding cylces and how cities should think about funding in their ecosystems. Think of companies receiving venture funding as vintages or cohorts. If you want to grow your ecosystem, the cohort is not a single accelerator class or single year of seed funding, it should be thought of more as seven years. This seven year cycle will involve multiple rounds of financing, but the city needs to have the structure to support each stage of financing with connections, capital, and consistency. I have worked in communities that increased seed funding with no connections or plan to help companies find A round funders. I have also worked in communities where money has flooded the $1-5 million tranche but no early stage risk-based capital. A balance and progression is necessary. At each round you will ned 1-2x the total amount of capital for 1/4-1/3x the number of investments. So, a company like Peeq might raise 200k - 1m - 5m. In Nebraska that might mean 200k x 100 startups every year - $20m, 1m x35 startups is $35m, $5m x 10 startups - $50m. So the amount of dollars needed for support goes up even as deal number goes down. As a city/region, you should be thinking about what that structure looks like - maybe Omaha wants 100 new startups per year...that means EVERY YEAR it has to have (ACCESS TO) $20m (for starts) + $35m for Early Stage + $50m for Series A. In Nebraska, the prototype grant from Nebraska DED has dramatically helped with the starts number (roughly $5m plus match of $2.5...this gets us to about 40 starts a year in Nebraska with a clear financial path), and with companies like Grit Road Partners, Invest Nebraska, and MOVE Venture Capital, there is growing access to both capital and connections to partner capital in other states. In other words, Nebraska has created a pathway that gets halfway to 100 startups a year. While there is no actual meaning, ~100 startups a year would mark a clear, next evolution of the Omaha/Lincoln ecosystem. This is true for all but a handful of startup ecosystems. Other cities can identify similar steps on their journey by simply mapping their capital availability into the three clumps listed above. For more about cycles and capital in the Midwest, read this report from 2019, it still holds true. https://lnkd.in/g56apJ4f

29

2 Comments