Seventeen months ago, this company didn’t exist.

Last week, OpenAI bought it.

Eleven employees. No outside capital.

On track to generate over $30 million in revenue this year.

A daily tech show built by two operators, a desk, and the discipline to show up every single day and say something people feel compelled to clip, share, and argue about. Most people will read this as a media story. A clever acquisition. A bet on content. It’s not. This is what it looks like when the most important company in AI realises that building the best product isn’t enough, you also have to shape what people pay attention to. TBPN didn’t win by being bigger. It won by becoming unavoidable in the rooms that matter.

On April 2, 2026, OpenAI announced it had acquired TBPN (Technology Business Programming Network) the daily live tech show hosted by John Coogan and Jordi Hays. The deal, reported at “low hundreds of millions of dollars,” marks the first time OpenAI has acquired a media company. It is also, undoubtedly, one of the most significant media deals of the decade.

TBPN generates three hours of live content every weekday, from a Hollywood studio they call the Ultradome, watched by 70,000 people per episode and clipped obsessively across X. It had $5 million in ad revenue in 2025 and was tracking toward $30 million in 2026.

Earlier this year, we argued that the creator economy was beginning to stratify - not by size, but by trust, discipline, and long-term relevance. A new category was emerging: not creators, not publishers, but something closer to institutions.

What we called Premium Operators.

TBPN sat squarely in that tier: “like Cartier: recognisable, trusted, still building permanence.”

The defining question for that category was simple: do these brands compound into institutions, or stall somewhere in the middle?

The acquisition is the answer.

TBPN didn’t stall.

It skipped the middle entirely.

This is the anatomy of how they did it.

The Origin

“The story of TBPN is two guys who decided they should do a podcast.”

It’s Jordi Hays’s line - delivered in a way that makes the whole thing sound almost accidental. The actual origin is just as simple: sometime in late 2024, Jordi texted John. The name of the podcast is Technology Brothers. A few weeks later, they recorded the first episode.

In that first episode, no team members were present. John had to push the button to hit record himself. They spent time discussing the Meta Ray-Bans and an energy drink from a friend. Just two guys in a tiny conference room with microphones and an idea.

Less than a year later, they were at Meta’s campus interviewing Mark Zuckerberg about those same Ray-Bans, seated at a SportsCenter-style desk they’d built themselves. Fewer than six months after that, Sam Altman was calling TBPN his favourite tech show. And in April 2026, he bought it.

“Going from zero to what we are today would be almost impossible, even for us. It would be very, very challenging.” — Jordi Hays, Dialectic Podcast, November 2025

That line is not false modesty. It is (in my opinion) the most important thing Hays has ever said about TBPN. They didn’t build a show that could be replicated. They built one that compounded daily, decision by decision, for seventeen months straight and the compounding is precisely what cannot be copied. You can look at episode one and episode two-hundred-and-fifty and see the same chemistry, but between those two frames are hundreds of micro-decisions about lighting, format, guests, structure, and tone that arrived in sequence and cannot be installed retroactively.

The Founders

Every strong brand is downstream of its founders’ accumulated obsessions. TBPN is no different. As Marc Andreessen put it, the best founders are obsessed - and what makes TBPN unusual is how long both Coogan and Hays had been, separately, preparing for exactly this without knowing it.

John Coogan

Operator → Creator → Voice

Coogan’s career reads like a blueprint for earned credibility. Soylent co-founder and CTO - nine figures in revenue before he walked away, with early backing that included Sam Altman. Then Lucy, a nicotine alternative, through YC. Then an Entrepreneur in Residence at Peter Thiel’s Founders Fund, where he used documentary-style video to tell the stories of Palantir, Anduril, and SpaceX. Then a YouTube channel that crossed a million subscribers teaching the internet how startups actually work. By the time he and Jordi started recording, he had spent years mastering production craft in his spare room - adjusting lighting angles, experimenting with moody backlit sets, learning by doing what late nights in TV studios take years to teach.

Jordi Hays

Ad Networks → Fintech → Tastemaker

Hays is the investor’s lens to Coogan’s operator instinct. He built Branded Native (a YouTube ad network) spending years doing thousands of deals between companies and creators. Then Party Round, rebranded as Capital, a founder-first fundraising platform backed by a16z and acquired by Rho Technologies in 2023. Forbes 30 Under 30, Finance. He came to TBPN already fluent in exactly the business they were about to build - the commercial side of modern media, the structure of sponsorship deals, the difference between audience that converts and audience that performs. He just hadn’t had a show to put it all inside of yet.

What makes the pairing work is not just complementary skill sets, plenty of co-founders have those. It is complementary obsessions. John loves technology. Jordi loves business. John spent years mastering the craft of content. Jordi spent years mastering the commerce of it. When they sit together on camera, as Jordi describes it:

“John hits them with a question they’re not expecting, and it just opens up an interview so much more.”

They meet at the gym at 6:30 every morning. They talk through everything before they write a word or go live. By the time John sits down to write the newsletter, there’s no writer’s block - “I’m just transcribing the discussion we already had.” The show is the exhaust of a conversation that never really stops. That is the structural advantage no competitor can copy on day one.

The Network

The first question I asked when I saw this acquisition was not “how?” It was “who did these two people know?”

Because that trajectory from conference room to Meta’s campus in under a year, cited and then acquired by Sam Altman in under two, does not happen in isolation. It does not happen purely on merit, either, though the merit is undeniable. It happens inside a network. And understanding the network is the part of the TBPN story that most coverage quietly skips.

Silicon Valley is not a meritocracy in the way it likes to present itself. It is a dense, overlapping system of operators, investors, and media figures who rotate through the same cap tables, back each other across decades, and speak to each other long before anything becomes public. Coogan and Hays did not break into that system from the outside. They were already inside it - with credibility built across companies, capital, and content. The kind that compounds quietly and then all at once.

This is not a critique. It is the mechanism. The most valuable media in tech is not produced by people reporting on the ecosystem from the outside. It is produced by people who understand the incentives, have access to the conversations, and are trusted enough to be in the room before the story becomes public. Proximity is not just an advantage here. It is the entire model.

Over time, that proximity creates informational gravity. Access sharpens into insight. Insight consolidates into audience. Audience converts into leverage. At a certain point, the dynamic flips. You are no longer covering the conversation. You are where it happens.

TBPN got there in seventeen months. That is the part worth studying.

The Playbook - Five decisions that built a luxury media brand in seventeen months.

I. Name the Audience Before You Name the Show

TBPN was built for 200,000 specific people. Not tech enthusiasts - founders, operators, investors, and the engineers at the most consequential companies in the world. “It’s a very small group of people,” Jordi says, “and we’re very intentional about making sure the content is interesting to them.” Every guest booking, every topic, every piece of world-building flows from that single decision. When a doctor from the East Coast started listening every day, they noted it warmly and immediately confirmed they would never adjust the content to attract more of them. Specificity was the moat. Mass would have been the mistake.

II. Choose Advertising. Not Subscriptions.

This was a contrarian call in a creator economy that had spent years glorifying paid subscriptions as the only path to quality. TBPN went the other way, and not by accident, but by design.

The logic was simple, and unusually precise: price discrimination.

“There are people who follow the show who are billionaires, and people who are in college,” John explains. “If you find a great product, you can extract $1 billion from the multi-billionaire and help the college student start their first company.”

Subscriptions couldn’t do that. They flatten an audience into a single price point, forcing the same economic relationship onto fundamentally different users.

Advertising, done differently, didn’t.

They structured the business around annual partnerships only 29 sponsors, committed for the full year. No churn, no constant selling, no need to optimise for volume. The result was something closer to a portfolio than a pipeline. Partners like Ramp weren’t just buying impressions. They were buying proximity to a highly specific audience - founders, operators, investors - delivered with consistency and trust.

This is the part most people miss.

TBPN didn’t reject subscriptions because they couldn’t monetise that way. They rejected them because subscriptions would have limited the upside of their audience. Advertising, done at this level, expanded it.

III. Volume as Competitive Moat

Three hours of live content every weekday. Fifteen-plus hours per week. The Today Show has aired every weekday for 70 years with a team of hundreds. TBPN does it with eleven people. The difference isn’t just efficiency, it’s what happens when the hosts are also the operators.

The key insight (borrowed directly from Johns framing) is the barbell:

"I've never had writer's block because I'm just transcribing the discussion we already had."

There is no catalogue value if they don’t show up. So they always showed up.

“Your mood doesn’t matter,” Jordi says. “How you feel doesn’t matter. We have an obligation to go live.”

That obligation, repeated 250 times a year, became an identity and then a moat.

But the show was only the core layer.

Around it, they built a distribution system designed to meet the audience at different levels of time and intent. The full three-hour live stream for the deeply invested. A condensed “Diet TBPN” which is 25 to 30 minutes, for those who want signal without the sprawl. A daily newsletter for readers who have two minutes, not three hours. Clips and commentary distributed across social, extending reach without diluting the core product. Consistency wasn’t just about volume. It was about creating a system where every piece of content could travel - long-form to short-form, live to asynchronous, deep to digestible - without losing coherence.

By the time competitors noticed what they were building, it wasn’t just a show they were competing with. It was a system.

And the compounding was unreachable.

IV. Borrow From Outside the Category

Most media companies benchmark against their peers. TBPN didn’t, and instead, they looked almost everywhere else.

The format borrows more from network television than from podcasts - a structured desk, deliberate pacing, a sense of occasion. The lighting leans cinematic rather than functional. Sponsor integration follows the logic of Formula One: embedded, consistent, part of the environment rather than an interruption. Even the aesthetic choices signal intent. Cinema cameras in a category that defaults to broadcast. Bespoke tailoring in a landscape of hoodies and headphones. A studio that feels constructed, not improvised.

None of this is accidental.

“When we were thinking about how we wanted the show to feel, we didn’t just look at Pat McAfee and CNBC. I looked at how news shows were filmed throughout history - how Hollywood portrays a news studio when they have cinema gear.” - John Coogan

When a category matures, it begins to imitate itself. Formats converge. Visual language flattens. What once felt distinctive becomes standard. The easiest way to look original is not to try harder within the category, but to stop referencing it altogether.

By the time others noticed, the gap wasn’t just stylistic, it was structural.

V. A Brand is What You Make People Feel, Repeatedly

TBPN did not build its identity through a $300,000 agency brief or a neatly packaged brand strategy deck. It built it the slower, harder way: through repetition. The horse statue. The gong. The mahogany desk. The world-building bible kept on the table - friends and enemies, recurring phrases, internal mythology, themes worth returning to. None of these details would have meant much on their own. Their power came from recurrence. Seen once, they are aesthetic choices. Seen again and again, they become signals. Over time, those signals accumulate into something much more valuable than recognition: they create memory, expectation, and emotional texture. This is how brands are actually built, not through one grand reveal, but through the disciplined repetition of small cues that teach an audience how to interpret what they are seeing.

By the time Jordi walked into the studio carrying a Bottega bag and posted that it was supposedly impossible to do a tunnel walk for a niche technology podcast, the world was already fully formed. The post did not create the brand. It simply revealed how coherent it had already become.

The Business

$0 raised. $30M on the table. 11 people in the building.

The numbers are the argument. TBPN generated $5 million in ad revenue in 2025 (its first full year of operation) with eleven employees and no outside capital. It was profitable. It was tracking toward $30 million in 2026, having nearly sold out its annual ad inventory. They hired Dylan Abruscato - formerly of Postmates and HQ Trivia - as President to run the operational layer. They built the Ultradome studio as an investment thesis: a better environment produces better content, and better content earns better guests, and better guests produce better content. That loop, once turning, is hard to interrupt.

The model is structurally elegant. Annual sponsorships only; no spot buys, no late-quarter revenue scrambles - giving predictable cash flow and creative control. Ultra-short host reads, integrated naturally into live content, at a fraction of television’s ad load but a multiple of standard podcast CPMs. Fifteen-plus hours of weekly content produced at what Coogan describes as “one-tenth the employees and one-fiftieth the budget” of a comparable late-night format. In an industry that glamorises the hustle of building at scale, TBPN built at discipline.

The newsletter runs alongside the show, not as a separate product, but as what Coogan calls “the most efficient version of TBPN.” It exists because John writes it every morning for Jordi specifically, trying to find something sharp enough to make him want to argue back before they go live. That standard - writing for one high-stakes reader, not an amorphous crowd is what makes it worth reading. It is the same logic that made the show work: know exactly who you are making it for, and make it for them without compromise.

Proximity is power. It is also pressure.

The deal is elegant on paper. OpenAI, on the cusp of an IPO, needed what Fidji Simo, OpenAI’s CEO of Applications and the executive leading the company’s product and communications strategy, described plainly in her memo to staff: the standard communications playbook doesn’t apply to a company driving a civilisation-scale technological shift. TBPN had already built the space for real, daily conversation about AI with the people building it. Rather than recreate that from scratch, OpenAI bought it and promised to keep it intact.

Here is what the acquisition is actually about, and it is not content.

OpenAI is six months away from an IPO at an $852 billion valuation. It is the most written-about, most debated, most politically charged company in the world. Its products touch governments, classrooms, hospitals, and creative industries simultaneously. Every major decision it makes is scrutinised, contested, and misrepresented, sometimes all three at once. Traditional PR cannot manage that surface area. A comms team cannot move fast enough. A press release cannot build trust.

What can? A show. A daily show, watched by the exact people whose opinions shape the ecosystem (the founders, the investors, the builders) hosted by two people with enough credibility and enough irreverence that the audience never felt like they were being managed.

OpenAI didn’t buy TBPN because John and Jordi love OpenAI. They bought it because the show had earned something OpenAI simply cannot manufacture: the trust of the room. The acquisition is not a content play. It is a trust play. OpenAI is buying the one thing it cannot build on demand: a room full of the right people who actually believe what they’re hearing.

The risk, of course, is obvious. The moment the room feels managed, the trust evaporates. Which is why the editorial independence clause isn’t just good optics - it’s load-bearing. Remove it, and the asset they paid hundreds of millions of dollars for ceases to exist.

TBPN will sit inside OpenAI’s Strategy organisation, reporting to Chris Lehane, the man who invented the phrase “vast right-wing conspiracy” as a tool to deflect press scrutiny and has been described as a master of political dark arts. The ad business is shuttered. OpenAI will spotlight exclusive news through the show. Editorial independence is written into the agreement. Coogan said on air: “We can say whatever we want because we’re live.”

Maybe. But the incentive structure has changed in ways that matter. TBPN’s value was always tied to the feeling of watching two people who had nothing to lose say exactly what they thought. That feeling is now in tension with the reality of being on the payroll of the most powerful company in tech - the same company that will be discussed on air every single day. Independence is easy to protect in a contract. Culture is harder. No one sets out to soften. It happens in the editing, in the framing, in the questions that don’t get asked because the answer would be uncomfortable for people down the corridor.

Jordi and John are not journalists, they have said so clearly and repeatedly. They are the conversational layer that sits on top of the news, not the news itself. That distinction may be exactly what makes the acquisition sustainable. You can own the conversation layer without owning the reporting. The question is whether the conversation layer stays honest when the company paying for it is the subject of the conversation. This is the story to watch. Not the set, the suits, or the guests. The teeth.

If I Were Head of Brand

The asset worth protecting is the one hardest to quantify.

The acquisition solves TBPN’s capital ceiling and their distribution floor. OpenAI’s platform means global reach, institutional legitimacy, and resources to build the things they’ve been doing on discipline and instinct. What it doesn’t solve (and what it could compromise if no one is paying close attention) is the one thing that made TBPN worth acquiring: the perception that you are watching people who genuinely don’t answer to anyone.

Head of Brand (the role I’d want) isn’t a growth hacking brief. It is a brand protection brief dressed as a growth one. The mandate: make the TBPN brand bigger than OpenAI’s ownership of it. Here’s how I’d move.

Globalise the Guest Slate, Urgently

TBPN’s entire world is Silicon Valley and the American tech ecosystem. But the most consequential AI developments in the next five years will happen in London, Dubai, Singapore, Seoul, and Lagos - not just San Francisco. The show that covers the global technology conversation becomes genuinely untouchable. Bring in the founders Altman doesn’t know. Cover the deals that TechCrunch doesn’t write about. Every time TBPN looks outward, it demonstrates - visibly, credibly - that no single company controls the editorial calendar. Think localised co-hosts for international editions, embedded contributors in key markets, voices that don’t need Sam Altman’s blessing to get booked. Global coverage is not just an editorial strategy. It is the most elegant proof of independence available.

Build a Distributed Correspondent Network

Right now, TBPN’s credibility lives in two people. That is a structural fragility and an opportunity. Build a curated network of trusted voices embedded across sectors: biotech, defence, fintech, consumer, climate, policy. Rotating contributors who file live commentary, appear in weekly segments, and carry their own institutional credibility into the show. The editorial independence question gets dramatically quieter when coverage is too wide and too distributed for any one company to shape it. It also builds toward something that outlasts any individual hosts, a media institution rather than a show, which is a very different kind of asset.

Lean Into the Cultural Moment - Now, Not Later

The tunnel walk was a glimpse of something important. The Super Bowl ad was a signal. There is a version of TBPN that becomes the first tech media brand with genuine cultural cachet - not just industry cachet. Fashion partnerships. A TBPN Summit. Merchandise that people seek out rather than are given. The aesthetic infrastructure is already there: the suits, the set, the world-building, the Bottega bag. The platform just got significantly bigger. This is the window to make the move from niche-beloved to culturally legible, and to do it before the OpenAI acquisition starts to define the brand more than the brand defines itself. The show earned the moment. Now it has to use it.

The Lesson

You don’t build the most important show in tech by trying to build the most important show in tech.

You do it by showing up, iterating, and refusing to make the content for anyone except the 200,000 people who actually mattered—before you had sponsors, before you had an audience, before anyone was watching.

OpenAI didn’t buy a podcast. They bought the room where the conversation happens - and paid institutional prices for it because that kind of earned trust cannot be manufactured on demand.

The only question left is whether what they bought survives what it takes to own it.

Watch this space.

The Origin Myth

Every powerful brand has an origin story. The PayPal Mafia has an origin myth.

A Silicon Valley creation story that people still use, almost twenty years later, as shorthand for a certain kind of operator: ruthless, brilliant, contrarian, allergic to bureaucracy, and comfortable with chaos. That myth did not appear fully formed.

So let’s rewind to the late 1990s.

The crucible years

The clean version of PayPal’s story is that a few smart people built a payments company and sold it. The real version is much messier, which is exactly why it became legend.

What became PayPal began as Confinity, (an early digital payments startup) founded by Max Levchin, Peter Thiel and Luke Nosek, and as X.com, Elon Musk’s online financial services company. In March 2000, the two businesses merged in what has since been described as a deeply tense, 50-50 combination between rivals rather than some elegant meeting of minds. Sequoia’s retrospective is blunt: it was a merger between “warring startups.” As Max Levchin later put it, “we were building the plane while it was on fire.”

And yet, that tension is part of the magic. The brand was forged not in harmony, but in combat.

Internally, there were leadership battles, product disagreements and culture clashes between the two founding teams. But the real pressure came from outside the company.

As PayPal began to spread across eBay in the early 2000s, fraud exploded alongside its growth. The product was simple: send money instantly over email. But that simplicity also made it a magnet for scammers. At one point, the company was reportedly losing $10 million a month to fraud.

Fraud detection became the company’s priority. Teams worked around the clock building detection systems, analysing transaction patterns and shutting down bad actors as quickly as they appeared. Speed mattered more than hierarchy. Engineers shipped fixes overnight. Problems were confronted directly.

Out of that pressure came some of the tools that still underpin online payments today: systems for fraud detection, identity verification and mechanisms like micro-deposit confirmation.

In other words, the mythology wasn’t built on clever storytelling. It was built on crisis management.

That is the first key thing to understand about the PayPal Mafia: it was not born from comfort. It was born from constraint. A small team, a vicious market, internal warfare, external fraud, and constant existential pressure. The “mafia” aura came later. First came the trench warfare.

The exit that created the alumni network

Then came the exit, which is where the company ended and the brand really began.

PayPal went public in early 2002, and by July eBay had agreed to acquire it in a stock deal valued at roughly $1.5 billion. The transaction closed on 3 October 2002. Officially, this was a logical strategic acquisition: eBay needed a faster, safer payments layer for its marketplace, and PayPal was already becoming essential infrastructure for online trade. eBay’s own filings say as much. At the time, PayPal had scale, explosive account growth and deep adoption among eBay users.

But what matters for the mythology is what happened next.

The acquisition gave the early team money, credibility and, just as importantly, a clean psychological break. Forbes described how the group dispersed after the sale and went on to found or fund a new generation of internet companies. Reuters later noted that soon after the acquisition, key figures including Peter Thiel, Reid Hoffman, Jeremy Stoppelman, David Sacks and Max Levchin left to build the next wave.

PayPal Alumni

Peter Thiel

Co-founder of PayPal.

Later founded Palantir and became Facebook’s first outside investor.

Also has Founder’s Fund.

Reid Hoffman

Early PayPal executive.

Went on to found LinkedIn, now one of the world’s largest professional networks.

Jeremy Stoppelman

Former PayPal engineer.

Co-founded Yelp, helping define the modern review economy.

Max Levchin

PayPal co-founder and CTO.

Later founded Affirm, one of the leaders in buy-now-pay-later fintech.

David Sacks

Early PayPal COO.

Later founded Yammer (acquired by Microsoft) and co-founded Craft Ventures.

Steve Chen, Chad Hurley & Jawed Karim

Early PayPal employees.

Co-founded YouTube, now the dominant platform for online video and digital culture.

This is where the story stops being “successful startup” and starts becoming “elite finishing school.” PayPal was no longer just the company they built. It became the place they came from. Their shared past turned into a credential. Ex-PayPal stopped sounding like a line on a CV and started sounding like a mark of seriousness.

There is also a cultural reason the alumni network hardened so quickly. For many of them, eBay represented the exact thing PayPal had not been: layered, slower, more corporate, less alive. Fortune captures that mood sharply. One former PayPal executive described returning from a dream assignment at eBay only to find himself in endless presentations for ever more layers of management; he left after a year. That detail matters because it helps explain why the acquisition did not absorb the talent. It released it. The sale to eBay was not the end of the story. It was the moment the PayPal network began to spread across Silicon Valley.

The photo that turned a network into a brand

Every myth needs an image, and the PayPal Mafia got one in 2007.

That year, Fortune ran its now-famous feature on the group. The article effectively cemented the label “PayPal Mafia” in the mainstream business imagination, and with it came the visual identity: not just ex-colleagues, but a crew. A faction. A cast of capos. Fortune says the story coined the term and framed them as a new centre of wealth and power in Silicon Valley.

A small but important correction to the usual retelling: the most famous group shoot was not some vague cafe moment. Fortune staged it at Tosca, the legendary San Francisco bar. The group leaned into the bit. The article describes them gathered for the photo with a gangster motif, turning a loose alumni web into a recognisable cultural symbol. That is the moment the network became legible as a brand. Before that, they were just successful former colleagues. After that, they were the PayPal Mafia.

And that name did a lot of work.

It suggested loyalty, power, insider access and coordinated ambition. It made a messy cluster of founders and investors feel coherent. It gave the Valley a narrative device it could not resist: one company produced an outsized number of future kings. The label was tongue-in-cheek, yes, but also wildly effective. Silicon Valley loves the appearance of spontaneity, but it loves mythology even more. The Fortune package gave this group exactly that: a story, a look, and a name sticky enough to survive for decades.

The war years created the intensity. The eBay sale created the alumni class. The Fortune feature created the symbol. Together, those three moments transformed PayPal from a payments company into one of the most powerful founder brands in modern tech.

Subscribe now

The Brand DNA

If the first section explains how the PayPal Mafia was formed, this section explains what kind of people it produced.

Because PayPal did not just create wealth. It created a style of thinking. A founder temperament. A set of instincts that would later show up again in LinkedIn, Palantir, Yelp, Tesla, Affirm and beyond.

That is why the PayPal Mafia still matters. Not just because of the companies its alumni built, but because of the worldview they carried with them. A worldview shaped by technical intensity, ideological conviction, speed, and a deep suspicion of consensus. If you want to understand that worldview more clearly, Peter Thiel’s Zero to One is still one of the most revealing windows into how the group thought about building companies and seeing the world.

Confrontational meritocracy

One of the clearest things about early PayPal culture is that it was not especially interested in polish for its own sake. It valued intelligence, speed and technical ability. The team was young, argumentative and unusually intense. As Fortune later put it, PayPal did not want the same kind of candidates as Google. Google wanted PhDs; PayPal wanted “the people who got into Ph.D. programs and dropped out.” This tells you the company was not looking for institutional prestige. It was looking for sharpness, edge and raw problem-solving ability.

That culture had an upside. In a crisis, it meant people were judged less by title and more by whether they could actually solve the problem in front of them. It also had a downside: it could be abrasive, combative and, at times, exclusionary. But that abrasiveness was not incidental. It was part of the operating model.

PayPal was built in a market that moved quickly, under constant fraud pressure, with very little room for diplomatic indecision. It makes sense that the people who thrived there were not consensus managers. They were fighters. That tone would later become part of the broader PayPal Mafia brand: high-agency, highly verbal, intellectually aggressive, and often impatient with softer forms of corporate culture.

Contrarianism as identity

If there is one intellectual habit most closely associated with the PayPal Mafia, it is contrarianism.

Peter Thiel later turned this into a formal question in Zero to One: “What important truth do very few people agree with you on?” He argues that good answers take the form, “Most people believe in x, but the truth is the opposite of x.” That framing captures something bigger than startup advice. It reveals the deeper cultural logic of the PayPal Mafia: truth is not found by following the crowd, but by moving against it.

That mindset did not begin with the book. It was already there in PayPal’s earliest ambitions. The company was not just trying to process payments. It was trying to rethink how money could move online, with less reliance on traditional institutions. In other words, this was never just a normal fintech startup. It carried ideological energy from the beginning.

That helps explain why the PayPal Mafia later became associated not merely with successful companies, but with strong opinions. These were not founders trying to sound reasonable in every room. They were founders who often believed the room itself was wrong.

Extreme action bias

The PayPal worldview was not only contrarian. It was deeply biased toward action.

You can see that in hindsight through one of Thiel’s later remarks: “Strategy is often a euphemism for procrastination.” He said this years after PayPal, but the sentiment fits the company almost too well. PayPal was built under conditions where delay had real costs. Fraud was not theoretical. Competition was not theoretical. Running out of money was not theoretical. If you spent too long admiring the problem, the problem won.

This is one of the most important cultural through-lines in the PayPal Mafia story. Their later companies are very different from one another, but many of them share the same basic stance: act early, move hard, and do not wait for institutional permission. In PayPal’s case, that bias was born out of necessity. Later, it became identity. It is one reason the alumni often read as unusually forceful in public life. They came from a place where speed was not just admired; it was survival.

The nerd-hiring filter

The final piece of the brand DNA is the hiring philosophy.

Thiel writes in Zero to One that Max Levchin believed startups should make their early staff “as personally similar as possible,” because small teams move faster when they share the same understanding of the world. He then makes it more concrete: the early PayPal team worked well together because they were “the same kind of nerd.” Cryptonomicon was required reading. They preferred “the capitalist Star Wars to the communist Star Trek.” Most important, he says, they were obsessed with creating a digital currency controlled by individuals instead of governments.

It was not about broad-based corporate professionalism. It was about intellectual and ideological fit. PayPal wanted people who were technical, obsessive and mission-aligned. The result was a team with very high internal coherence and very obvious external limits. The upside was speed, trust and cultural intensity. The downside was homogeneity. Even Thiel’s own retelling makes clear that the culture was held together by likeness: similar obsessions, similar references, similar temperament. That helps explain both the power of the PayPal Mafia and one of the main critiques of it. The network became so influential partly because it was tight. But tight networks are rarely neutral.

There was also a practical layer to this philosophy. In the same section of Zero to One, Thiel says that at PayPal he made each employee responsible for “just one thing,” and that this reduced internal conflict. It is a small management detail, but an important one. PayPal’s culture was not only intense; it was structured. The company believed in clear ownership, clear accountability and minimal ambiguity. Again, you can see the family resemblance in what came later. Many PayPal Mafia companies would adopt similarly sharp internal lines: who owns what, who decides what, and who is accountable when it works or fails.

What the culture actually produced

Taken together, this is the real PayPal DNA: argument over politeness, conviction over consensus, execution over theatre, and obsessive alignment over broad institutional niceness.

That culture produced a very specific kind of founder. Usually male, usually highly technical, usually allergic to bureaucracy, often politically or intellectually heterodox, and strongly drawn to large systems-level problems. It also produced a network that was unusually durable, because the people inside it did not just share a company on their resumes. They shared a way of seeing the world.

And that is why the PayPal Mafia still feels distinct. Not because its members all agree. Clearly, they do not. But because the culture that shaped them was so specific, and so intense, that you can still see its fingerprints years later.

The Product Portfolio

If the first two sections explain the PayPal Mafia’s myth and mindset, this section shows what that mindset actually produced.

Because the PayPal story is not just impressive because one company survived. It is impressive because the alumni did not go on to build slight variations of the same thing. They built the architecture of the modern internet.

Not all of these companies were founded solely by PayPal alumni, and not all of them emerged directly from one another. But taken together, they form something that looks less like a normal startup legacy and more like an industrial output. Payments, professional identity, digital video, defence software, local discovery, consumer credit, electric vehicles, private space infrastructure. It is an absurdly wide portfolio. And yet the same fingerprints keep showing up: systems thinking, strong founder control, technical ambition, and a willingness to build in categories that looked risky, unfashionable or premature at the time.

The unicorn factory

The easiest way to understand the PayPal Mafia is to look at the companies.

LinkedIn came from Reid Hoffman, who had been one of PayPal’s key executives. LinkedIn was not flashy in the beginning. It did not promise to “change the world” in the utopian startup language of the 2010s. It did something more practical and, in the long run, more powerful: it turned professional identity into data. Your CV, your network, your job history, your social proof, your access to opportunity - all of it became legible, searchable and monetisable. LinkedIn did for careers what PayPal had done for payments: it pulled an offline behaviour onto the internet and made it infrastructure.

YouTube is often treated as a consumer internet success story first and a PayPal Mafia story second, but the connection matters. Steve Chen, Chad Hurley and Jawed Karim were all early PayPal employees. What they built was not just a video site. It became the default home for digital attention. Entertainment, education, commentary, fandom, music, podcasting, political persuasion, child stardom, beauty tutorials, conspiracy theories, product reviews - YouTube did not just host online video. It became one of the main stages on which internet culture itself would play out. In that sense, it may be the most culturally expansive PayPal spinoff of all.

Yelp, founded by Jeremy Stoppelman and Russel Simmons, looks smaller in mythological terms but was hugely important in shaping consumer behaviour. Yelp helped formalise the review economy. It made local reputation portable and public. Before platforms like Yelp, trust in local businesses was often informal, word-of-mouth and geographically limited. After Yelp, restaurants, salons, cafes and service businesses had to live with a permanent layer of searchable public judgment. That is a major shift. It changed not just discovery, but behaviour. Businesses started performing for the algorithmic public.

Palantir is where the PayPal DNA becomes most obvious. Co-founded by Peter Thiel, Alex Karp, Joe Lonsdale, Stephen Cohen and Nathan Gettings, it took the anti-fraud logic of PayPal and pushed it into a much more serious domain: state intelligence, defence and large-scale data analysis. If PayPal taught its founders how to detect suspicious patterns inside payments systems, Palantir asked what happens when you apply that same logic to governments, militaries and institutions. It is one of the clearest examples of the Mafia moving from internet products to power infrastructure.

Affirm, founded by Max Levchin, brought one of PayPal’s original instincts into a new era. Levchin had always been interested in trust, credit and consumer behaviour online. Affirm took those interests and rebuilt them for e-commerce, positioning itself as a cleaner, more transparent alternative to traditional credit cards. Whether one sees buy-now-pay-later as liberating or dangerous is almost beside the point here. The important thing is that Levchin once again found a financial layer hiding beneath everyday consumer behaviour and turned it into a tech product.

And then there is Tesla, which sits slightly differently in the story. Elon Musk did not found Tesla in the literal sense, but he joined early, led its funding, became chairman, and then turned himself into the defining force behind the company. That distinction matters historically, but culturally, Tesla still belongs in the broader PayPal portfolio because it reflects the same expansion of ambition. By that point, the logic of the network had moved well beyond software. The PayPal people were no longer just building websites and payment layers. They were moving into cars, rockets, defence, and civilisation-scale bets.

That is what makes this portfolio feel so unusual. Most successful startup alumni go on to found more startups. The PayPal Mafia went on to build sectors.

A portfolio of infrastructure

Look closely at the categories, and a pattern starts to emerge.

PayPal itself was payments infrastructure. LinkedIn became professional infrastructure. YouTube became media infrastructure. Palantir became data and defence infrastructure. Yelp became reputation infrastructure. Affirm became credit infrastructure. Tesla, and later SpaceX through Musk, pushed the same instinct into physical infrastructure: transport, energy, aerospace.

This is one of the most important things to understand about the PayPal Mafia’s product portfolio. They did not just build brands people liked. They built systems people came to rely on.

That is a meaningful distinction. Consumer brands can be fashionable. Infrastructure tends to endure. It becomes embedded. Once enough people depend on your platform to get paid, get hired, be seen, assess risk, discover a restaurant, secure financing or run part of a defence apparatus, you are no longer just another company. You are part of how the modern world operates. Each company solved a different problem, but together they came to govern large parts of the internet’s infrastructure.

That is also why the portfolio feels so much larger than the original company. PayPal was a product. The Mafia’s later empire was a stack.

The “Mafia” Distribution Model

If the earlier sections explain the myth, the culture and the companies, this section explains the mechanism.

Because the PayPal Mafia’s real edge was never just intelligence, or timing, or even ambition. It was distribution. Not distribution in the consumer-tech sense of CAC and channels, but distribution of a different kind: access, trust, introductions, capital, board seats, and a shared willingness to keep backing one another long after PayPal itself was gone.

By the mid-2000s, the network was already active - alumni backing one another, sharing deals and stepping into each other’s companies as investors, advisers and board members.

Internal reciprocity

This is where the “mafia” label starts to make sense. Not because they were a formal bloc, and not because they always agreed, but because the network kept compounding.

Peter Thiel is the clearest example. Founders Fund’s own biography notes that after PayPal he made the first outside investment in Facebook, then went on to provide early funding for LinkedIn, Yelp and many other startups, including several run by former colleagues. That is not just good angel investing. It is network reinforcement. Capital flowed through people who already understood one another’s style, speed and appetite for risk.

Reid Hoffman sits on the other side of that same pattern. Greylock’s bio describes him as a partner focused on products that can reach hundreds of millions of users, and Microsoft announced in 2017 that he joined its board of directors effective immediately. This shows how the PayPal network did not stay confined to startup land. It moved into the boardroom layer of power as well: not just building companies, but helping shape the institutions that sit above them.

The broader point is simple. The network did not dissolve after the eBay sale. It matured. Former colleagues became investors, board members, acquirers, advisers and reference checks for one another. Over time, that value compounded as members accumulated more capital, more status and more reach - and eventually, that reciprocity became institutional.

The venture capital arms

Over time, that reciprocity became institutional.

Founders Fund is the most obvious expression of the PayPal worldview as venture capital. The firm was founded by Peter Thiel, Ken Howery and Luke Nosek, and its own site describes it in plain terms: a San Francisco venture firm investing in companies building revolutionary technologies. Even the language tells you something. This is not a brand built around incremental software. It is built around scale, contrarianism and civilisation-sized bets. Its portfolio includes companies like SpaceX, Palantir, Stripe, Airbnb and Anduril. In other words, Founders Fund took the old PayPal instincts (technical boldness, distrust of consensus, appetite for hard problems) and turned them into a capital allocation strategy.

Greylock, where Reid Hoffman became a partner in 2009, represents a slightly different branch of the same tree. Greylock’s own materials emphasise early partnership with teams building companies that matter, while Hoffman’s biography highlights products capable of reaching hundreds of millions of participants. That orientation fits the more networked, social, platform-heavy side of the PayPal legacy. If Founders Fund became associated with contrarian deep-tech and hard-power ambition, Greylock became a natural home for scale, network effects and products that spread through behaviour.

Craft Ventures, co-founded by David Sacks, is another variation on the model. Craft describes itself as a firm built by founders for founders, with a bias toward practical company-building rather than ceremonial venture capital. Sacks’s official bio says he has invested in more than 20 unicorns, including Affirm, Palantir, SpaceX, Uber, Airbnb and Facebook. The flavour here is different again: more operational, more product-minded, more SaaS-era in tone. But it still belongs to the same broader pattern. The alumni did not just recycle influence informally. They built firms designed to keep turning founder judgment into financial leverage.

The talent multiplier

This is the part of the PayPal story that investors understand instinctively, even when they do not say it out loud.

An “ex-PayPal” founder became a signal.

Not a guarantee, obviously. But a signal. It implied a few things at once: technical competence, comfort with speed, familiarity with chaos, and proximity to a network that could open doors.

That is how brand value works. A name stops describing where you worked and starts shaping how people price you.

I would be careful about reducing this to a neat formula. The “50 per cent premium” idea is directionally interesting, but the deeper truth is harder to quantify and more important to understand. In venture, pedigree matters because risk is social as much as financial. Investors are not only betting on a product. They are betting on whether a founder can recruit, raise, survive, attract talent and stay in motion. The PayPal label suggested all of that at once. It functioned like a shorthand for capability. That is the multiplier. It made alumni easier to fund, easier to hire around, and easier to believe in.

What the network really did

This is why the PayPal Mafia became more than a famous alumni group.

Most startup networks are nostalgic. This one became operational.

It moved money. It moved talent. It moved legitimacy. It created a world in which one company’s former employees could keep shaping what got funded, who got introduced, which companies were taken seriously, and what kinds of ambition were seen as reasonable. That is the real distribution model: not just launching products into the market, but launching people into positions of influence.

And once you see that, the “mafia” label starts to make sense.

Current Status & Controversy

This is where the PayPal Mafia story gets more complicated.

For a long time, the group’s mythology rested on a familiar Silicon Valley script: brilliant outsiders, moving faster than incumbents, building the future before everyone else caught up. But by 2025 and 2026, that framing had started to feel a little dated. The alumni were no longer just shaping startups and venture portfolios. They were shaping policy, influencing governments, funding political projects and, in some cases, helping decide how public institutions should work. Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency became the clearest example of that shift, while David Sacks’ move into the White House as AI and crypto czar pushed another part of the network directly into policy formation. At the same time, Peter Thiel’s orbit remained deeply embedded in Washington, and Palantir’s government footprint only grew.

The network’s old instincts, speed, anti-bureaucratic thinking, distrust of institutional drag, are no longer being applied only to companies. They are being applied to the state.

You can see the same logic in the policy areas themselves. DOGE was framed around efficiency, software modernisation and reducing waste. Sacks’ portfolio has centred on AI competitiveness, lighter-touch regulation and crypto clarity. In July 2025, reports indicated that the White House planned to push American AI sales abroad and crack down on state laws seen as too restrictive. This is classic PayPal Mafia terrain: move fast, centralise control where useful, strip out friction, and treat regulation as something to be minimised unless it serves strategy.

There is also a harder-power version of this shift. Palantir, long the most government-facing PayPal spinoff, has moved deeper into defence, intelligence and national security. What began as anti-fraud tooling at PayPal evolved into large-scale data analysis systems used by governments and militaries. At that point, the original PayPal mindset had travelled a long way - from detecting suspicious payments online to identifying patterns in warfare and state intelligence.

The criticism

This is also the point in the story where the brand starts to lose some of its shine.

Part of the criticism is structural. The original PayPal Mafia was famously male and unusually homogeneous. The term itself has often been used to refer primarily to the men, even though women were integral to the company’s actual success. Early female employees worked across product, payments and fraud systems - in some cases helping build the very infrastructure the company depended on - but were far less likely to be included in the mythology that formed later.

More recent criticism has gone further, arguing that the network helped glamorise a version of Silicon Valley power that is clubby, exclusionary and heavily shaped by “bro culture.” A Berkeley Law commentary described Musk’s “all-male clique” as emblematic of that problem, while WIRED has written more broadly about the entrenched sexism and elitism associated with tech’s “bro code.”

The other criticism is cultural and political. In recent years, several figures associated with the PayPal Mafia have moved sharply rightward, or at least become more openly aligned with anti-regulatory, anti-DEI and nationalist currents inside American politics. WIRED’s 2024 discussion of Silicon Valley libertarianism explicitly used the PayPal Mafia as an example of the Valley’s longstanding suspicion of centralised power, while more recent reporting has tied parts of the group to the broader rise of the tech right. That does not mean every member shares the same ideology. But it does mean the brand now carries a more charged political undertone than it once did.

Rebels or establishment?

So the question at the end of all this is fairly simple: are they still the rebels, or have they become the establishment? In the early years, they were defined by opposition to incumbents. Now, the tension is different. It comes from holding power, not just challenging it.

The answer is probably both, which is what makes the brand so durable. They still like to position themselves as outsiders, contrarians and critics of bureaucracy. In style, they remain anti-establishment. In substance, many of them now sit close to the centre of power - even if they still position themselves as outsiders. Musk helped drive a government restructuring agenda before DOGE was effectively wound down. Sacks is shaping national AI and crypto policy from inside the White House. Palantir is more embedded in the U.S. state than ever. Thiel’s influence still runs through venture, defence and Republican politics. That is not the profile of a rebel fringe. It is the profile of a network that has largely made it.

And that, really, is the final twist in the PayPal Mafia story.

They began with a narrow, high-pressure wedge: online payments. They used that pressure cooker to forge a dense network of operators. They then expanded into what you might call second-stage systems: social networking, video, data, reputation, credit. Now, in this latest phase, the same logic is being applied to even larger arenas, AI, defence, energy, public administration and the machinery of government itself. The ambition is no longer just to build the next great company. It is to shape the systems around which the next era will be organised.

That is why the PayPal Mafia still holds attention. Not because the mythology was perfect, and not because the politics are uncomplicated. But because the arc is unusually clear. A small fintech startup became a founder factory. The founder factory became a power network. And the power network is now operating far beyond Silicon Valley.

The PayPal Mafia is not just a story about one company’s success. It is a case study in how power compounds - through people, through networks, and eventually through systems.

The Business of an Inside Joke

At a time when most creators are obsessed with scale, Gstaad Guy has built something far more valuable: density.

Across Instagram and TikTok, the anonymous creator behind Constance de von Gstaad and his gauche American cousin Colton has amassed a following of roughly two million people. In influencer terms, that’s respectable but hardly astronomical. But raw numbers miss the point entirely. His audience is unusually concentrated with the exact people luxury brands care about: founders, financiers, aristocrats, fashion executives, and the sort of individuals who spend winters in Gstaad and summers in Cap-Ferrat.

The account began as a private joke - short satirical sketches about the habits of the ultra-wealthy shared among friends in niche WhatsApp groups. Today it sits at the centre of an unlikely luxury ecosystem. Gstaad Guy has collaborated with houses that rarely (if not never) play in the influencer economy at all, including Loro Piana, Audemars Piguet, and Acqua di Parma. His jewellery label, Poubel, now sells through Selfridges. His rosé, Palais Constance, has become a status bottle in certain European circles. And his podcast regularly hosts senior figures from luxury and hospitality.

The paradox is part of the appeal. Gstaad Guy built his brand by mocking the habits of the global elite.

They responded by inviting him in.

In an era obsessed with “quiet luxury” and cultural fluency, he has achieved something rare: turning satire into social capital and social capital into a luxury brand.

Origin & Persona Breakdown

Before the partnerships, the jewellery line, and the rosé bottles circulating through European ski towns, Gstaad Guy was simply a joke among friends.

The creator behind the account (who still prefers to keep the focus on the characters rather than his own identity) was raised partly in Switzerland and educated in the sort of institutions that feed into the upper tiers of global business and finance. By the late 2010s he was working in technology, including a stint at Apple focused on Apple Pay.

But this fintech background is more than a biographical footnote. His years at Apple Pay and a subsequent tenure at Coinbase (the epicentre of the ‘Colton’ crypto-wealth era) shaped him into a sophisticated operator. It is the reason his ventures, Poubel and Palais Constance, function less like influencer merchandise and more like modern consumer startups.

Poubel, for example, launched with the mechanics of a direct-to-consumer brand: limited capsule drops, scarcity-driven releases, and distribution through retail partners like Selfridges. The products aren’t simply extensions of the content - they’re designed to operate as businesses in their own right.

He isn’t just the face of the brand; he is the architect of its backend, applying Silicon Valley’s growth and scalability frameworks to the high-friction world of European luxury.

The content began almost accidentally. Around 2018, he started recording short sketches mocking the quirks of ultra-wealthy social life - private jet etiquette, ski resort hierarchies, the unspoken rules of “appropriate” luxury. The videos circulated privately at first, shared through WhatsApp threads among friends who recognised the characters instantly.

Those characters became the foundation of the entire universe.

At the centre sits Constance de von Gstaad: a hyper-refined old-money aristocrat who speaks in a precise blend of British understatement and Alpine snobbery. He exists almost entirely in Loro Piana cashmere, moves effortlessly between Gstaad and St. Moritz, and evaluates the world through a brutally simple framework. Things are either “fantastique” - excellent, well-made, appropriately discreet - or they are “à la poubelle”, unworthy of consideration.

Opposite him is Colton, his American cousin and the embodiment of new-money exuberance. Where Constance is restraint, Colton is excess: LA energy, crypto wealth, logo-heavy wardrobes, TikTok enthusiasm, and a permanent willingness to misunderstand the rules of old-world taste.

The brilliance of the pairing lies in its accuracy. Old money and new money have always performed a dance around each other - one valuing discretion, the other visibility. Gstaad Guy simply turned that tension into comedy.

But the humour works because it never feels cruel. The sketches are affectionate rather than cynical. The jokes land because the creator clearly understands the culture he is satirising.

Which is precisely why the audience recognised itself in the mirror.

What began as a private inside joke soon escaped its original WhatsApp threads. Wealthy friends shared it publicly. Fashion executives reposted it. Eventually, the same people being gently mocked began circulating the videos themselves.

By the time the account went fully public, the joke had already travelled through the exact network it was describing.

And the global elite, somewhat surprisingly, seemed delighted to be in on it.

The Engine: Satire, Status, and the Insider Flywheel

Most satire about wealth comes from the outside. It mocks the elite from a distance.

Gstaad Guy operates on a different frequency entirely.

His humour works because it comes from inside the culture rather than outside it. The sketches don’t mock wealth so much as observe its practices - the difference between a respectable watch and a flashy one, the politics of alpine lunches, the horror of logos appearing where they shouldn’t. They are, in essence, inside jokes.

And that distinction changes everything.

When Constance declares something fantastique or dismisses it à la poubelle, the humour resonates because the audience recognises the logic. Anyone who has spent time around serious luxury knows the rules are rarely written down. They exist in subtle signals: fabrics rather than logos, understatement rather than spectacle, the correct chalet rather than the busiest one.

The satire works because it is accurate.

That accuracy produces a powerful psychological effect. Instead of alienating wealthy audiences, the content builds rapport. Viewers feel understood rather than judged. The joke becomes a shared language - one that signals belonging.

Which is precisely why the distribution mechanism works so well.

When someone shares a Gstaad Guy video, they are not simply forwarding a joke. They are demonstrating cultural fluency. The act of sharing becomes its own form of status signalling:

I understand this world well enough to laugh at it.

The result? An unusually concentrated audience. While many creators focus on mass attention, Gstaad Guy’s network skews toward people who inhabit the environments he depicts - founders, investors, fashion executives, hospitality operators, and the sort of families who spend January in Courchevel.

That density created the next stage of the flywheel.

Luxury brands, notoriously cautious about partnerships, recognised something unusual about the account: the audience looked remarkably similar to their own customer base.

Most creators deliver reach. Gstaad Guy delivered relevance.

For brands built on discretion and long-term reputation, that distinction matters enormously. Traditional influencer marketing often carries reputational risk; luxury houses rarely want to appear as though they are chasing internet attention. But Gstaad Guy occupied a different lane entirely. The humour was refined, the aesthetic aligned with the codes of the industry, and the audience already lived inside the world being depicted.

In short, he felt less like an influencer and more like a cultural insider.

Once that became clear, collaborations followed - but selectively.

Loro Piana enlisted him as an ambassador, an unusual move for a house better known for understatement than internet partnerships. Audemars Piguet brought him into campaigns that leaned into the humour of modern wealth culture. Acqua di Parma followed with collaborations that fit naturally within the Gstaad Guy world.

Then came the logical next step: ownership.

Rather than relying entirely on partnerships, Gstaad Guy began translating the universe into products. Poubel, his jewellery label, draws directly from the language of the sketches - charms inspired by the word poubelle, rendered with playful references to obscure markers of elite life. Palais Constance, his rosé, extends the character into hospitality culture: the sort of bottle that appears naturally at slightly too-long lunches in Gstaad and on sun-drenched tables at LouLou in Ramatuelle.

The result is less an influencer business and more a self-contained ecosystem.

Content generates cultural relevance. Cultural relevance attracts the right audience. The audience attracts the right brands. And eventually, the creator owns the brand himself.

And there we have a one-of-a-kind flywheel.

Jim Collins famously described great businesses as systems that compound momentum over time: each turn of the flywheel makes the next one easier. The magic is rarely a single breakthrough moment; it is the accumulation of small, reinforcing advantages.

Gstaad Guy’s version simply runs on culture rather than capital.

The content establishes taste. Taste attracts the right audience. The audience signals credibility to brands. Brand partnerships deepen the world of the character. And eventually, the universe expands into products, experiences, and community.

Once the loop is in motion, each piece strengthens the next.

But the real test of a cultural flywheel is its ability to convert digital signals into hard revenue. Which brings us to the numbers.

Growth & Business Metrics

In traditional creator economics, scale is everything. The bigger the audience, the larger the opportunity for monetisation.

Gstaad Guy demonstrates a different model: audience density over audience size.

The result is an audience with unusually high commercial value.

From a business perspective, the growth story looks something like this:

Audience

• ~2M Instagram followers

• Highly concentrated luxury and founder audience

• Global distribution across Europe, the US, and Middle East

Revenue evolution

• Estimated earnings now roughly 5× higher than his previous tech salary

• Revenue mix: brand partnerships, appearances, collaborations, and owned products

Brand collaborations

• Loro Piana ambassador partnership

• Audemars Piguet integrations

• Acqua di Parma collaborations

Owned ventures

• Poubel jewellery - luxury charms inspired by the sketches

• Selfridges pop-ups (running through 2026)

• Palais Constance rosé entering hospitality and luxury retail

Cultural influence

• Named to the BoF 500

• Podcast hosting senior luxury executives and operators

• Increasing presence at alpine and Riviera industry gatherings

None of these metrics individually would qualify as explosive internet growth. Taken together, however, they describe something more durable: a creator evolving into a brand platform.

This density of influence reached a boiling point in 2025 with the brand’s aggressive expansion into the GCC. The launch of Poubel on Ounass (the Middle East’s premier luxury platform) and a landmark immersive pop-up at ICD Brookfield Place in Dubai signaled a shift from Alpine satire to global empire. By capturing the attention of the DIFC crowd and the ‘Old Money’ families of the Gulf, he proved that the Gstaad Guy mythology isn’t just a European phenomenon; it is a universal language for the global HNW (High-Net-Worth) community.

But the real story isn’t the numbers. It’s why this particular brand works right now.

Cultural Resonance in 2026

Timing matters in culture as much as it does in business.

If Gstaad Guy had emerged a decade earlier, the joke may have landed differently. The 2010s internet thrived on exposing wealth - puncturing privilege, critiquing excess, and flattening hierarchies. Luxury was something to be interrogated.

The mood in 2026 is more complicated.

After years of minimalism, “quiet luxury,” and endless discourse about consumption, audiences have developed a new appetite: self-aware indulgence. People still appreciate discretion and taste, but they are increasingly comfortable acknowledging that luxury is, at its core, unnecessary and that this is precisely part of the appeal.

Gstaad Guy captures that tension perfectly.

Through Constance and Colton, the sketches replay one of wealth culture’s oldest tensions: old money versus new. Constance prefers cashmere, discretion, and restaurants where the staff already know the table. Colton prefers logos, enthusiasm, and making sure everyone else does too.

Neither character is entirely wrong. Both exist in the real world.

What makes the content resonate is the tone. The humour is affectionate rather than moralising. It allows audiences to acknowledge the absurdities of wealth without feeling accused of participating in them.

That approach has proven particularly effective in the luxury industry, where brand identity is built as much on cultural fluency as on product quality. Houses like Loro Piana and Audemars Piguet have long relied on subtle signals - materials, heritage, and discretion - to communicate value. Gstaad Guy simply translates those signals into narrative form.

The result is a rare kind of cultural bridge.

Fashion brands recognise their world in the aesthetic codes. Hospitality operators see the alpine rituals and Riviera references that structure their clientele’s lives. Consumers recognise the characters as exaggerated versions of people they know.

And because the satire is rooted in affection rather than critique, the audience is willing to play along.

This is why the brand has expanded so naturally across categories. Jewellery, rosé, collaborations, and podcasts are not random extensions; they are logical expressions of the same universe. The product becomes another way to participate in the joke.

In a sense, Gstaad Guy has achieved something that many luxury brands struggle to manufacture: community built on cultural literacy.

You do not follow the account simply to watch content. You follow it because you understand the references.

And understanding the reference is the point.

Moat & Differentiation

In an internet economy crowded with creators, Gstaad Guy’s advantage is not scale. It is structure.

Most influencers operate as individuals: a personality, an audience, and a stream of brand deals. Gstaad Guy built something more durable - a character universe.

By placing Constance and Colton at the centre of the brand, the creator separated the content from his personal identity. The audience follows the characters, not the individual behind them. That distinction matters. Personal brands depend on constant visibility; characters can travel across formats, products, and time.

The second layer of the moat is selectivity. Partnerships are rare and carefully chosen. Houses like Loro Piana and Audemars Piguet do not feel like advertisers entering the content; they feel like natural inhabitants of the world the characters already occupy.

Then there is the ecosystem itself.

Content introduces the universe. Products like Poubel allow audiences to participate in it. The podcast expands the conversation. Events deepen the community.

What began as satire has evolved into something closer to a cultural platform.

And platforms tend to compound.

Risks & Future Outlook

Every strong brand eventually faces the same question: how far can the concept stretch before the joke wears thin?

For Gstaad Guy, the most obvious risk is character fatigue. Satirical personas work because they feel fresh and culturally precise. Over time, however, even the sharpest characters can become predictable if the universe around them stops evolving.

There is also the question of identity. The brand has benefited from the creator remaining largely behind the curtain, allowing Constance to take centre stage. But as the ecosystem expands - from products to podcasts to events - the tension between persona and person becomes harder to maintain. Audiences eventually want to understand the operator behind the character.

Finally, there is the broader context of luxury itself. The Gstaad Guy universe thrives in environments where indulgence, travel, and discretionary spending remain culturally aspirational. Luxury has historically proven resilient, but it is still tied to economic cycles and shifting cultural attitudes toward wealth.

None of these challenges are existential.

In fact, the brand’s evolution already hints at the solution. The podcast allows the creator to move beyond pure satire into thoughtful conversations with operators and executives. The product lines deepen the universe without depending solely on content. The world expands, but the core joke remains intact.

In other words, the brand is slowly graduating from satire to authority.

And that transition may prove to be its most valuable asset.

If I Were Head of Brand Inside the Gstaad Guy Universe

Gstaad Guy operates with an unusually strong cultural flywheel. The challenge now is not growth for its own sake, but calculated curation - protecting the humour and exclusivity that built the mythology. To transition from a “creator brand” to a “legacy house,” I would implement three strategic pillars.

1. Turn the World Into Real-Life Moments

Luxury brands thrive when the audience feels they are participating in a world rather than consuming a product. The Gstaad Guy universe is already rich with geographic lore - ski towns, beach clubs, and members-only enclaves.

• The Move: Transition from digital sketches to Physical Rituals.

• Execution: Small, invitation-only gatherings in “mythological” locations: Verbier during high season, Saint-Tropez in August, or private dinners during Art Basel and the Gstaad Menuhin Festival.

• The Goal: These aren’t “influencer events”; they are environments where the sketches come to life. It’s about creating “I was there” moments that reinforce the brand’s social capital.

2. Hyper-Specific Product Curation

The success of Poubel and Palais Constance lies in their ability to translate humour into tangible objects. The risk for creator-led brands is over-expansion; the opportunity is insider specificity.

• The Move: Lean into the “If You Know, You Know” (IYKYK) aesthetic.

• Execution: Instead of broad lifestyle categories, focus on “Artefacts of the Universe.” Think limited-run tableware for four-hour lunches, bespoke travel trunks for ski weeks, or collaborations with heritage manufacturers (e.g., Loro Piana or Charvet) that already exist in Constance’s orbit.

• The Philosophy: In luxury, restraint is the ultimate signal. Fewer things, done with obsessive quality, signal more status than a constant stream of merchandise.

3. The Preservation of Ambiguity

The brand’s advantage is the “distance” between the creator and the character. Constance exists as a persona larger than the individual behind it.

• The Move: Protect the Mystery.

• Execution: As the ecosystem expands, resist the urge to “humanize” the brand through behind-the-scenes transparency or personal storytelling.

• The Goal: By maintaining a degree of distance, the character remains timeless. In the high-end market, timelessness is the only currency that doesn’t devalue. We aren’t building a personality; we are building a legend.

The best luxury brands don’t just sell products.

They create a language only certain people understand.

Gstaad Guy simply turned that language into a joke and then built a brand around it.

The era of the celebrity beauty brand is over.

Not because consumers stopped caring about famous people, but because fame stopped being a differentiator. When every actress, singer, and reality star has a skincare line, celebrity ceases to signal quality and starts to signal extraction.

For years, the playbook was embarrassingly simple. A celebrity would sign with a major incubator (Seed Beauty, Coty), select a handful of pre-existing formulas, attach their name to a familiar component, and exit with a licensing cheque. The consumer wasn’t treated like a customer they were treated like a fan.

But by 2024, we reached saturation. The “celebrity face” didn’t just lose power it became a liability. In a crowded market, it stopped functioning as a USP and started functioning as a warning sign.

Most of these brands fail for the same reason: they’re built on transient attention, not compounded trust.

Enter - The Rhode Pivot which I would argue is not just a brand but a brilliant case study. Hailey Bieber and the team at Rhode did something fundamentally different. They didn’t start with a product launch; hey started with a Visual Thesis. While her celebrity peers were busy trying to sell “everything to everyone,” Hailey and her team (led by the likes of Lauren Ratner) decided to treat Rhode like a design studio. They didn’t lead with “I’m Hailey Bieber, buy my cream.” They led with a specific skin finish - the “Glaze” - and then built a brand that served as the only tool to achieve it.

The brilliance of the Rhode pivot is that Hailey moved from being the face of the brand to being part of its foundation. She became the “Muse-in-Chief.” If she disappeared tomorrow, the “Grey-and-Matte” world of Rhode would still have a pulse because the brand has its own visual DNA that exists independently of her Instagram stories.

2016 vs. 2026: From Decoration to Essentialism

To understand why Rhode is landing in Australia with such force and anticipation, we have to look at the massive cultural shift in how we view our skin and overall beauty regime. It’s not just a change in trend; it’s a change in our “facial philosophy.”

• The 2016 “Kylie” Era (The Painted Face): This was the era of Decoration. Makeup was a separate layer - a high-maintenance mask of primers, foundations, and powders used to reconstruct the face. It was about hiding the skin to create a “perfect” matte canvas.

• The 2026 “Rhode” Era (The Hybrid Face): We have moved into the era of Essentialism. Rhode doesn’t see “Skincare” and “Makeup” as two different categories. They sell Pigmented Skincare.

When you look at the Pocket Blush or the Peptide Lip Tint, they aren’t designed to “cover” your skin; they are designed to melt into it. The “Glaze” isn’t just a finish for your serum; it’s the finish for your entire face. In this era, the “status symbol” isn’t how well you can apply a contour; it’s how healthy, hydrated, and “alive” your skin looks under a sheer wash of colour.

In the Australian context, where beauty ideals are shaped by movement - beach to bar, work to dinner, daylight to late - that positioning lands incredibly well. The cultural preference has never been full glam; it’s ease, polish, and restraint. Rhode sits between skincare and makeup as a daily constant, designed for women who want to look put-together without ever looking done.

The Business Angle: High-Leverage Restraint

In its first chapter, Rhode made a deliberately unfashionable business decision: restraint.

Where most celebrity brands launch with bloated SKUs and a vague promise of “something for everyone,” Rhode launched with three products and a distinct voice, look and feel.

• The Peptide Lip Treatment

• The Barrier Restore Cream

• The Peptide Glazing Fluid

This wasn’t minimalism for aesthetics’ sake; it was strategic compression. By narrowing the range, Rhode didn’t just simplify its supply chain it also simplified the consumer’s decision-making. No hero product buried under noise. No choice paralysis. Just a clear instruction: this is the uniform.

What’s notable, in hindsight, is how early Rhode was to this approach. Long before “small but essential” became a common launch strategy, Rhode treated restraint not as a limitation, but as leverage. That decision has since become a template being adopted by a growing class of founder-led and celebrity-adjacent brands that prioritise clarity over coverage, and depth over breadth.

From a business perspective, restraint does three high-leverage things at once. First, it concentrates demand, allowing faster sell-through, cleaner forecasting, and tighter inventory control - a rare luxury in celebrity-led consumer. Second, it accelerates habit formation. When a brand becomes part of someone’s daily routine rather than an occasional indulgence, repeat usage compounds faster than novelty ever could. Third, it preserves pricing power. Fewer products, each doing more symbolic work, means each SKU carries disproportionate brand weight.

In an industry addicted to excess, Rhode’s restraint isn’t just tasteful. It’s instructional. And increasingly, it’s becoming the blueprint.

The Numbers: A Well-Run Business

When e.l.f. Cosmetics acquired Rhode in a reported billion-dollar deal, it was widely framed as a bet on cultural momentum - a celebrity brand with outsized attention and unusually strong demand. But e.l.f. doesn’t buy buzz. It buys operators. What made Rhode compelling wasn’t just how visible it was, but how cleanly it converted that visibility into a durable, profitable model.

Shortly after the acquisition, when e.l.f. disclosed Rhode’s financials, the headline everyone latched onto was marketing efficiency. A roughly 9x MER. A 9x MER simply means Rhode generated $9 in revenue for every $1 spent on marketing. That’s exceptionally high by consumer standards - but it also invites closer scrutiny into what counts as marketing, and what doesn’t. Add to that marketing spend hovering around 11–12% of revenue, and cue the breathless takes about a once-in-a-generation celebrity marketing machine.

I’m skeptical of miracle narratives. And the numbers, when you sit with them a little longer, tell a more interesting (and more realistic) story.

Let’s start with what’s true. Rhode is unusually efficient at driving demand, and Hailey Bieber is undeniably a material part of that equation. Most brands pay celebrities in cash for endorsements, which flows cleanly through the P&L as marketing expense. Rhode didn’t do that. It compensated its most powerful distribution asset (Hailey herself) largely through equity.

Accounting-wise, that equity compensation sits in G&A (general operating expenses), not marketing. On paper, it shows up as overhead rather than a direct cost of driving sales.

In practice, though, it behaves much more like marketing spend.

If you treat Hailey’s equity compensation as payment for attention, credibility, and distribution, the picture shifts. Not dramatically, but meaningfully.

Suddenly, Rhode’s marketing efficiency looks less like a miracle and more like what it actually is: excellent performance built on smart structure rather than magic.

That reframing matters.

It doesn’t weaken the business, it clarifies it. Rhode isn’t a unicorn defying gravity; it’s a disciplined operator using its assets intelligently. Equity replaced cash. Distribution was owned, not rented. The marketing didn’t disappear, it was structured differently.

What’s more impressive than the headline efficiency is what sits underneath it: margins that allow reinvestment, operating costs that reflect a real team, and returns that point to profitability rather than vanity growth.

That’s why the e.l.f. Cosmetics acquisition makes sense. Rhode isn’t a fragile hype engine dependent on continued virality. It’s a workhorse - built to generate cash, sustain demand, and scale steadily.

In other words, the story isn’t that Rhode is a marketing miracle. It’s that it’s a well-run business.

And that’s what makes it acquirable.

Inside the Brain of the Brand (The Lauren Ratner Effect)

Rhode doesn’t feel accidental because it isn’t.

While most commentary has focused on Hailey Bieber’s aesthetic, the real strategic edge sits elsewhere - in how the business is built. Underneath the clean visuals and pared-back language is a low-drag, high-margin operating model that borrows more from fashion and marketplaces than from traditional beauty.

That’s the Lauren Ratner effect.

Ratner didn’t come up through cosmetic labs or heritage beauty houses. Her background spans Reformation and Gilt - environments obsessed not with abundance, but with yield. How fast things move. What gets stuck. Where margin is created or destroyed.

That lens changes everything.

1. The Inventory Weapon (An Anti-Sephora Start)

Most beauty brands launch wide because they’re chasing shelf presence. The assumption is simple: more SKUs equals more legitimacy.

Rhode did the opposite.

By launching with just three products, the brand didn’t just create scarcity, it created operational clarity. Every dollar of working capital went into hero SKUs. There was no long tail of “nice to have” shades, no dead stock quietly eroding margin.

The difference is structural. While competitors manage excess inventory risk across dozens of products, Rhode concentrates demand. That concentration allows cleaner forecasting, faster turns, and tighter cost control. It also enables ingredient purchasing at meaningful scale - fewer products, larger volumes, better unit economics.

This isn’t minimalism as aesthetic. It’s inventory discipline as advantage.

2. Taste as a Yield Strategy (The Gilt Playbook)

At Gilt, Ratner learned that selection beats volume, not because it looks better, but because it converts faster.

Rhode applies that logic through language.

Milk. Glaze. Butter.

These aren’t cute names. They’re cognitive shortcuts. Instead of asking consumers to decode ingredient lists or clinical claims, the product explains itself instantly. The benefit is understood before the rational brain has time to object.

From a business perspective, this matters. When a product is easy to understand, it’s easier to recommend. When it’s easier to recommend, customer acquisition costs fall. You don’t need a 30-second ad to explain what “Milk” does. The name does the work.

This is taste deployed as efficiency.

3. Editorial Velocity vs. Corporate Lag

Traditional beauty companies move slowly for a reason: committees, compliance layers, global rollouts. The result is long development cycles and reactive product launches.

Rhode functions more like a magazine.

Products are treated as editorial decisions not endless pipeline items, but deliberate placements. What fits the issue. What advances the story. What gets cut.

The best example is the Lip Case. It wasn’t just an accessory; it was a distribution hack. By turning a lip treatment into a phone-adjacent object, Rhode embedded itself into the most-used item in a customer’s daily life.

That’s not beauty thinking. That’s attention economics.

If a product doesn’t live well in a mirror selfie, a bathroom shelf, or a tote bag, it doesn’t exist. Rhode designs for that reality from day one.

4. Protocol Over Product

The final Ratner move is the shift from selling items to selling a system.

Rhode doesn’t just sell individual products. It encourages a specific way of using them, together and repeatedly.

Most brands sell products. Rhode sells a way of showing up.

That’s what makes the brand hard to compete with - and easy to scale.

Design That Drives the Business

Good brands sell products. Great brands design objects.

What distinguishes Rhode isn’t just what it makes, but how it occupies physical space. In a crowded market, the most valuable territory isn’t the “shelf” it’s the Everyday Carry (EDC).

From Vanity to Pocket: The Real Estate Pivot

For decades, skincare was a stationary habit. It lived in the bathroom, tucked away behind a mirror. Rhode’s genius was realizing that the modern consumer lives on their phone, not at their vanity.

The Lip Case wasn’t a gimmick; it was a territory grab. The Shift: By attaching a consumable (the balm) to a hardware staple (the phone), Rhode transformed a 10-second bathroom ritual into an all-day presence.

• The Economic Edge: This isn’t just visibility; it’s frequency of use. When a product is literally fused to your hand, the replenishment cycle accelerates. You don’t buy a second tube because the first ran out; you buy it because the brand has successfully integrated itself into your “digital uniform.”

Rhode didn’t just build a better lip balm; they built a reason for you to never put it down. In an era of infinite choice, the brand that stays in your hand wins.

The ‘Shelfie’ Economy: When Packaging Does the Work

Rhode’s packaging doesn’t shout. It doesn’t compete for attention through neon hues or loud typography. Instead, it relies on Visual Calm - matte grey finishes, sculptural curves, and a tactile softness.

This isn’t just an aesthetic choice; it’s an acquisition strategy.

1. Designing for the Passive Impression

Most products are designed to be “noticed” in a store. Rhode is designed to be “lived with.” These objects are curated to look at home on a travertine counter, a linen bedsheet, or a messy tote bag. By being aesthetically neutral, Rhode lowers the “social friction” of sharing.

• The Logic: When a product is “selfie-ready” by default, the user doesn’t feel like they are posting an ad; they feel like they are documenting their life.

• The Result: The product earns its visibility simply by existing in spaces people already want to show. In this model, User-Generated Content (UGC) is the default behavior, not a requested favor.

2. When Design Replaces Spend

In the traditional beauty business, you pay for impressions through Instagram ads or billboards. Rhode effectively replaces a portion of its paid media budget with industrial design.

• Ambient Loyalty: When an object is pleasant to touch and look at, it stays on the counter instead of being hidden in a drawer. This visibility creates “Ambient Loyalty” - a constant, silent reminder to the consumer to use and repurchase.

• Efficient CAC: Awareness travels through physical proximity. Someone sees the grey bottle in a friend’s bathroom, asks about it, and tries it. Customer acquisition costs fall because the object itself is the most effective billboard the brand owns.

Australia as the Trust Market

Global beauty brands often underestimate Australia. That’s their first mistake.

Despite its relatively small population, Australia consistently punches above its weight as a skincare market - not in volume, but in discernment. This is a country shaped by sun exposure, outdoor living, and early education around skin health. SPF literacy is high. Ingredient familiarity is common. And consumers are far less forgiving of products that promise transformation without substance.

In other words, Australia isn’t a trend market. It’s a trust market.

Why Australia Is Hard - and Valuable

Australian beauty consumers are unusually fluent. Years of dermatology-led messaging, a dominant pharmacy channel, and brands like La Roche-Posay, CeraVe, and Mecca Cosmetica itself have created a customer base that reads labels, understands actives, and expects results.

That fluency breeds scepticism, particularly toward celebrity brands.

The default state is not excitement, but doubt. Does it work in the sun? Will it pill under SPF? Is this skincare-first, or just good lighting? Those questions are asked instinctively. And once trust is lost, it’s rarely regained.

But the upside of that scepticism is durability. When Australian consumers buy in, they tend to stay. Habit formation is strong. Repurchase rates are high. Brands that earn trust here often find they’ve built something sturdier than momentum - they’ve built loyalty.

That’s why Australia functions as a kind of proving ground. If a brand works here, it usually travels well elsewhere.

Mecca as Cultural Endorsement

This is where Mecca matters.

Mecca isn’t just a retailer. It’s a gatekeeper. A filtering mechanism. A credibility layer between global brands and one of the most discerning beauty audiences in the world.

Mecca’s assortment strategy is famously selective. Brands are tested not just on performance, but on philosophy, formulation integrity, and long-term relevance. Being stocked isn’t about hype cycles, it’s about fit. The result is a level of consumer trust that few retailers globally enjoy.

For Australian shoppers, the logic is simple: if Mecca carries it, it passed the test.

That’s why the partnership between Mecca and Rhode is less about distribution and more about endorsement. Mecca doesn’t create demand, it certifies it. It gives consumers permission to engage, to try, to incorporate a brand into routine without feeling like they’re taking a risk.

From a business perspective, this kind of certification accelerates adoption while lowering friction. It shortens the trust-building phase that usually slows new entrants. And in a market where trust is the primary currency, that’s invaluable.

Clean Girl Isn’t LA. It’s Coastal.

Much has been written about the “clean girl” aesthetic, often through an American lens. But in Australia, the look has always been less about polish and more about continuity.

It’s coastal, not Californian. Bondi, not Beverly Hills.

The ideal isn’t full glam softened down - it’s more so skincare-forward, sun-conscious, and mobile. SPF is non-negotiable. Makeup is minimal, functional, and often applied on the go.

This is where Rhode’s restraint lands so cleanly.

In a market that values ease but rejects laziness, Rhode’s positioning reads as intentional. It feels like a brand that understands the rhythm of Australian life, rather than one trying to sell into it.

Australia may be a smaller market by scale, but it’s outsized in influence. Winning here signals something broader: that the brand can hold up under scrutiny. That it doesn’t rely on hype alone. And that its promise works when the sun is bright, the standards are high, and the consumer knows exactly what they’re looking for.

If I Were Chief Creative & Cultural Officer at Rhode

This role works because it’s not about running the business day-to-day, it’s about protecting the centre of gravity as the brand scales. The job is to make sure expansion never erodes the restraint that made Rhode work in the first place.

As Chief Creative & Cultural Officer, my mandate would be simple:

guard continuity while extending the world.

Not more products for the sake of growth. More touchpoints that deepen belonging.

Below is how I’d approach it.

1. The “Invisible” Retail Strategy (Rhode Residences)

Rhode doesn’t belong in a brightly lit Sephora aisle; it belongs in a dimly lit, travertine-clad bathroom.

• The Idea: Instead of traditional “stores,” Rhode should do a multi-year partnership with a global luxury developer or hotel group (like Aman or Standard International) to create “The Rhode Suite.” * The Why: You aren’t “sampling” the product on your hand in a mall; you are using the full range in a $2,000-a-night suite. It moves the brand from “skincare” to “high-end utility.” It creates a “sensory memory” where the brand is associated with the best sleep and the best shower of your life.

• The Edge: You are selling an environment, not an SKU.

2. The “Hard-Goods” Expansion (Rhode Objects)

The Lip Case was the “gateway drug” into hardware. As CCO, I would push Rhode into Industrial Design.

• The Idea: Launch “Rhode Object 001” - a heavy, brushed-aluminum vanity tray or a sculptural, refillable “Glaze Dispenser” for the bathroom.

• The Why: Skincare is “ephemeral” (you use it and throw the bottle away). Objects are permanent. If you own a Rhode “Object,” you are a customer for life because you want to keep filling that beautiful vessel.

• The Edge: This transitions Rhode from a “Beauty Brand” to a “Design House.” It competes with Hermès Home or Byredo, not just e.l.f.

3. “The Sunday Club” (Aesthetic Governance)

Most loyalty programs are about “spend $100, get a free sample.” That’s cheap. Rhode should have an “Aesthetic Gated Community.”

• The Idea: A physical and digital “Common Room” for the top 1% of the community. Access isn’t bought; it’s earned through taste. Members get “The Grey Book” - a seasonal printed lookbook of art, architecture, and skin health, curated by Hailey and Lauren.

• The Why: It builds Cultural Moats. By the time a competitor copies the “Peptide Lip Treatment,” Rhode has already moved on to being a curator of “Modern Living.”

• The Edge: You are building a Privilege Tier. It makes the brand feel like a “Private Club” rather than a “Mass Market” product.

4. The “Rhode Protocol” (Procedural Luxury)

Most brands sell you a product and say, “Good luck, hope it works.” True luxury - think Swiss longevity clinics or high-performance sports teams - sells outcomes through clearly defined standards.

• The Idea: I would launch The Rhode Protocol. It’s not an app; it’s a bi-annual physical kit (Spring/Summer and Autumn/Winter editions). Packaged as an archival object, it pairs the products with a considered usage framework clarifying how they’re intended to be layered and lived with, in sync with seasonal shifts, sleep, hydration, and natural light.

• The Why: It shifts behaviour from shopping to adherence. By defining a standard rather than a set of products, Rhode moves from selling items to shaping routine.

• The Edge: Once someone adopts a protocol, switching brands feels disruptive. Rhode moves from being a preference to being a reference point.

  ---

  Rhode doesn’t work because it has a famous founder. It works because it was designed to survive without one.

  In a market saturated with faces, Rhode built a system. In an industry addicted to excess, it chose restraint. And in a category historically driven by hype, it built for habit rather than novelty.

  That’s the real lesson. The next generation of winning beauty brands won’t be built on who fronts them but on what holds when attention fades. Celebrity may still open the door, but only structure keeps the lights on.

WHOOP is easy to miss. The band is unadorned and screenless, offering no visible data and little reason to draw attention to itself. What distinguishes its users is not how they look or who they are - contrary to the loud, often reductive takes found on X - but how the device fits into an already structured life. Training appears planned rather than maximal, intentional rather than impulsive. Sleep is treated as a fixed input, not a negotiable luxury. When asked about the product, most describe it plainly: “as a way to track recovery” and move on. WHOOP is not designed to be discussed. It is designed to be consulted.

The Signal of Time

What WHOOP signals, intentionally or not, is a particular relationship to time. Its users are rarely focused on pushing harder in any single session. Instead, they are managing capacity across weeks, months, and years, often making decisions with an awareness of cumulative cost. WHOOP users aren’t trying to win today’s workout. They’re trying to avoid burnout six months from now.

Training, travel, work, and rest are treated as variables that need to stay in balance, not something to keep pushing harder and harder. That orientation is not purely behavioral. It depends on having enough control over one’s schedule to protect sleep, enough flexibility to recover after strain, and enough margin to treat health as something to be managed proactively rather than reactively. In that sense, WHOOP does not create this way of living so much as it formalizes it. The product gives structure to an existing approach toward life - one that treats health as a long-term asset, subject to compounding or depletion depending on how it is managed. WHOOP isn’t about pushing harder. It’s about lasting longer.

The Contrast of Interaction

Most wearables are designed to be checked. They surface data continuously, invite interaction throughout the day, and reward visibility - a ring closed on the Apple Watch, a readiness score refreshed on the Oura Ring, a training metric recalculated mid-session on Garmin.

WHOOP functions entirely differently. Its data is not meant to be glanced at mid-action or shared in real time. Instead, it is reviewed after the fact, once the day has already been lived. It shifts the relationship between user and device from performance to assessment, from encouragement to evaluation. Rather than prompting effort in the moment, WHOOP frames behavior as something to be measured over time, with consequences that compound over time. By removing real-time feedback, WHOOP avoids becoming a dopamine device. Users check it less, but stay subscribed longer, because its value compounds after the day is done.

Why Whoop is Winning Now

A decade ago, this approach would have felt strange. Self-tracking was new, effort was still something to be displayed, and visibility was part of the reward. Over time, that shifted. Data became constant. Pushing harder stopped being impressive. What never caught up was recovery. As work lost its edges, effort became easier to extend and harder to switch off.

The challenge stopped being how to do more. Most people already knew how to push. What became harder was knowing when to stop. At a certain point, more effort stopped producing better results and started producing burnout. The advantage shifted to people who knew when to pull back.

That kind of judgment isn’t evenly distributed. It depends on having enough time, flexibility, and control over your schedule to act early rather than wait for something to break. Recovery takes space. Sleep takes control over your calendar. Even moderation assumes you can afford to slow down without paying for it later.

For some, health is something to be repaired after strain has already taken its toll. For others, it is something to be maintained continuously, with the expectation that small adjustments now prevent larger costs later. WHOOP sits squarely within that latter orientation. It does not promise transformation or acceleration. Instead, it assumes the user already has momentum and offers a framework for preserving it. That assumption is not just philosophical; it is commercial.

The Business of Maintenance

A useful way to think about this is in terms of how durable systems are built. The most enduring companies rarely rely on constant urgency to function well. Instead, they invest early in processes that reduce the need for intervention later - maintenance schedules that prevent breakdown, design choices that remove points of failure, operating rhythms that preserve capacity over time. The goal is not speed in isolation, but continuity.

WHOOP applies the same logic to the body. Products designed around maintenance rather than motivation tend to embed themselves more deeply into daily life, because their value compounds quietly over time. Rather than motivating effort on demand, it creates a system that makes strain visible, recovery measurable, and sustainability easier to manage before problems surface.

The Quiet Luxury of Behaviour

WHOOP’s appeal has little to do with how it looks and almost everything to do with how it changes behaviour over time. There is no outward signal of effort, no visible proof of discipline, no metric designed for public consumption. The band itself recedes quickly into the background. What replaces those cues is a pattern of decisions that only become noticeable in aggregate: an earlier bedtime that holds even during busy weeks, training sessions that feel measured, a willingness to pull back when the data suggests it matters. These are private adjustments, often invisible to anyone else.

This is where WHOOP intersects with taste, though not in the conventional sense. It does not operate through logos, design flourishes, or aesthetic distinction. Its value is expressed through conduct. The product rewards consistency rather than intensity, judgment rather than bravado. Over time, that shapes a way of living that feels incredibly deliberate. Progress is not announced. Effort is not dramatized. The emphasis is on staying well enough to continue, rather than pushing hard enough to be noticed. In that respect, WHOOP reflects a broader shift in how seriousness is signaled. In many domains - work, health, even style - credibility increasingly comes from restraint. The most convincing forms of discipline are no longer the loudest or most visible. They are the ones that hold, week after week, without requiring reinforcement. WHOOP does not bestow that sensibility. It assumes it.

The Embedded System

So what is WHOOP, actually and why does it inspire this level of loyalty?

At a functional level, it is a continuous measurement system designed to run discreetly in the background of daily life. The band collects physiological data around the clock, tracking signals related to sleep, strain, and recovery, and synthesizes them into a small number of indicators meant to support decision-making.

The emphasis is not on volume of information, but on relevance. WHOOP deliberately compresses complexity, translating a wide range of inputs into signals that can be interpreted without constant engagement. Just as importantly, the system is structured around delay. Feedback is retrospective rather than immediate. The user is not prompted mid-activity, nor nudged throughout the day. Instead, information is reviewed after the fact, once behavior has already occurred.

That sequencing changes the role the product plays. WHOOP does not compete for attention in the moment. It waits. Over time, this creates a different kind of relationship between user and data- one that prioritises reflection over reaction. As historical context accumulates, the product becomes less about individual days and more about pattern recognition. Single sessions matter less than trends. Short-term fluctuations are absorbed into longer arcs. What emerges is not a tool for maximizing effort, but a reference point for managing capacity. WHOOP’s usefulness increases as baselines stabilize and personal norms become clearer. The device becomes harder to replace not because it motivates behavior, but because it remembers it. In doing so, WHOOP shifts from being a piece of hardware to something closer to embedded design: a strong system against which decisions can be calibrated over time.

The Power of the Negative Space

From a business perspective, WHOOP has been unusually disciplined about what it chooses not to be. While the Apple Watch chases the role of the universal interface managing your texts, your music, and your daily steps and the Oura Ring positions itself as the ultimate lifestyle companion for sleep and wellness, WHOOP has remained a specialist. It is not a smartwatch trying to colonise your attention, nor a piece of jewelry trying to blend in. It is a system for managing load and recovery.

There is power in that kind of focus. The strongest businesses don’t win by competing everywhere at once; they win by choosing a narrow problem and solving it better than anyone else. WHOOP’s decision to specialise narrows the audience, but it sharpens the value proposition and makes the product harder to replace.

Rather than trying to become a universal fitness device or lifestyle accessory, WHOOP positions itself as a system for managing load and recovery - infrastructure for people who care about durability over display. WHOOP is not built for casual engagement or intermittent use; it is designed for people who already train, already perform, and are thinking less about motivation than about sustainability. This focus shapes the product at every level. The absence of a screen removes the temptation to chase constant interaction. The compression of data into a small number of signals prioritises interpretation over precision theatre. Even the language WHOOP uses; recovery, strain, readiness, reflects an emphasis on capacity management rather than achievement. In a market crowded with devices that promise optimization, WHOOP reframes the problem: the question is not how to do more, but how to continue without breaking down.

This level of restraint is a masterclass in what Jim Collins - the legendary business researcher and author of the seminal leadership book Good to Great - calls the “Hedgehog Concept.” Collins argues that the most enduring, successful companies are not those that try to do everything (the foxes), but those that focus on one big thing they can be the best in the world at. By ignoring the “fox-like” distractions of notifications, apps, and step-counts, WHOOP has maintained a “hedgehog” focus on the intersection of human physiology and long-term durability. They haven’t just built a tool; they have built a moat out of their own refusal to pivot.

How WHOOP Makes Money (Time as the Switching Cost)

Commercially, this orientation produces a very specific kind of advantage. WHOOP’s value increases with time, not novelty. Its insights are longitudinal by design, meaning they only become meaningful as historical context accumulates. Baselines stabilise. Patterns emerge. The product becomes less interchangeable the longer it is worn, because it is no longer just measuring the body - it is measuring your body, across weeks, months, and years. Time itself becomes the switching cost. This is where WHOOP’s business model coheres. By aligning usefulness with duration, the company avoids the typical wearables trap of front-loaded excitement followed by disengagement. There is no feature cliff to fall off, no moment where the device has “taught” the user everything it can. Instead, the relationship deepens quietly. Each additional week of data makes the system more contextually aware, more personally calibrated, and more difficult to replace. Retention is not driven by habit alone, but by accumulated insight.

Just as importantly, WHOOP’s restraint functions as brand insulation. By resisting the pull toward mass-market features and gamified engagement, it sidesteps direct competition with consumer tech giants chasing scale. WHOOP does not need to win the wrist. It needs to remain indispensable to a narrower, more committed user. That trade-off (breadth for depth) is strategic. It allows the company to build loyalty and to grow a business where durability matters more than velocity. Seen this way, WHOOP is less a piece of fitness hardware than a system of record for physical capacity. Its commercial strength lies not in persuasion, but in memory. The product does not tell users who to become. It reflects back what their behavior is already producing, over time. That is a harder value proposition to market but a far easier one to defend once embedded.

WHOOP’s strategy is to win your time; its subscription model is how it captures the value of that time. The business is one of the few hardware companies that has successfully decoupled its value from the device itself. You aren’t paying for the strap; you are paying for the access to your own longitudinal truth.

• The Hardware as a Loss Leader: By giving away the device for “free” with a commitment, WHOOP removes the friction of the initial purchase. They aren’t in the business of selling gadgets; they are in the business of selling a recurring utility.

• The Sunk Cost of Data: Because the value of the insights compounds over years, the longer a user stays, the more expensive it feels to leave. Canceling isn’t just stopping a service; it’s an act of “data-deletion” for your own physical history.

• High-Margin Continuity: Unlike competitors who must launch a new, flashy watch every 12 months to drive revenue, WHOOP’s revenue is decoupled from the hardware cycle. This allows them to focus on software refinement and research, leading to higher margins and a predictable, durable cash flow.

The Behavioral Moat

What ultimately keeps people with WHOOP is not feature depth, but behavioral alignment. The product becomes more useful as it becomes more personal. Longitudinal baselines turn abstract metrics into context; habits form around interpretation rather than reaction. Over time, users stop asking what the device wants from them and start using it as a reference for decisions they were already inclined to make.

That shift is critical. When a product reinforces identity rather than trying to reshape it, switching costs are no longer technical, they are biological. Replacing the device does not simply mean learning a new interface; it means forfeiting years of accumulated self-understanding. Historical data is not easily ported, nor is the intuitive fluency that develops alongside it. Users come to recognise their own specific patterns: how travel affects recovery, how stress registers physiologically, or how restraint today creates capacity tomorrow. This knowledge is not transferable in the same way features are; it is embedded, earned, and difficult to replicate. In practice, this creates a loyalty that is less about satisfaction and more about a dependence on continuity. The product stops being something you wear and becomes a component of how you think.

Radical Non-Interference

The decision to remove the screen is the clearest expression of WHOOP’s philosophy. It is not just an aesthetic choice or a technical limitation; it is a position on attention. While most performance products assume that more feedback produces better outcomes, WHOOP rejects that premise. It treats constant visibility as a distortion - something that alters behavior in the moment rather than improving it over time.

By refusing real-time prompts, WHOOP prevents health from becoming a performance. There is no incentive to respond to data immediately, no reward for hitting a target in public, and no pressure to convert every metric into instant action. This design choice breaks the reflexive loop that defines modern consumer technology: stimulus, response, validation. Instead, WHOOP creates distance.

Data is revealed after the fact, when it can be interpreted rather than obeyed. In this framework, delay is not a flaw in the system; it is the system. In a world thriving on immediacy, the screenless design is a refusal to compete. It prioritizes reflection over reaction, trusting that the user does not need a nudge to care, but a system disciplined enough to know when silence is the better signal.

The Founder’s Conviction

A product this opinionated rarely emerges by accident. Decisions like removing the screen, delaying feedback, and resisting mass-market incentives are not optimisations; they are convictions. They suggest a founder, in this instance, Will Ahmed, with a specific view of performance that prizes durability over intensity and judgment over instruction. To build something so restrained, especially in a category obsessed with engagement, requires confidence not just in the product, but in the user it is designed for.

WHOOP’s origin reflects this worldview. It began not as a lifestyle brand, but as a response to Ahmed’s own experience as a collegiate athlete at Harvard, where he realized that while we were tracking what the body did, we weren’t tracking what the body could handle. It was built for environments where performance already mattered - for athletes, operators, and institutions where marginal gains were meaningful and failure was costly. That early context shaped the product’s priorities, and it explains why WHOOP feels less like an accessory and more like infrastructure. Ahmed’s bet was simple but radical: he believed that measurement, used sparingly, could outlast motivation.

What ultimately differentiates this product is not what it tracks, but what it refuses to perform. In a category obsessed with visibility, motivation, and optimisation, it has built a business around restraint. The system works because it aligns with a specific way of living, one that values continuity over intensity, judgment over reaction, and maintenance over transformation. The result is a product that becomes harder to replace the longer it is used, not because it adds more, but because it remembers more. In the end, the advantage is not the device itself, but the behavior it quietly reinforces.

If I Was Chief Innovation Officer at WHOOP: From Wearable to Ambient

If I were leading innovation at WHOOP, I would expand it beyond the device and into the spaces where people sleep, work, and recover. The goal is to move beyond the wrist and turn WHOOP into a silent, invisible operating system for the high-performance life.

• WHOOP Ambient (The Optimised Environment): I would move the brand into the home and hospitality space (partnering with brands like Aman or 1 Hotels). If your band detects a significant recovery deficit, your environment should respond: the HVAC automatically drops to your optimal circadian temperature, the lighting shifts to a specific recovery hue, and your morning schedule is “soft-blocked” via calendar integration to protect your capacity.

How? When recovery drops meaningfully below baseline, the user doesn’t see an alert, they feel it: the room cools slightly overnight, lights dim earlier, and their morning calendar softens automatically, signalling that today is about rest, not performance.

• The Biological “Ghost Mode”: Innovation isn’t just adding features; it’s knowing when to remove them. I would introduce a UI protocol that detects when a user is becoming obsessive or “chasing the green.” The app would enter “Ghost Mode” - hiding all metrics for 48 hours and simply telling the user: “The system is recording. You are doing enough.” It would be the first tech product that rewards you for ignoring it.

How? After repeated metric-checking or “chasing green,” the app temporarily hides all scores and displays a single line such as “The system is recording. You are doing enough.” shifting the user from control to trust.

• The Predictive Capacity Ledger: I would build a “Simulated Strain” engine. Users could input a future stressor - a high-stakes board meeting, a cross-continental flight, or a marathon - and the AI would simulate their physiological baseline 72 hours later. We wouldn’t just be measuring what happened; we would be giving users the ability to “spend” their capacity with the foresight of a CFO.

How? Before a known stressor could be a long flight, a board meeting or a race the user inputs the event and sees a simple forecast showing how much capacity they’re likely to have left 72 hours later, turning future effort into something that feels spendable rather than abstract.

• The Biological Blueprint (Closing the Data Gap): I would double down on the fact that for half the population, “baseline” is a moving target. Most health tech treats women like “smaller men,” ignoring the 28-day hormonal arc that dictates recovery capacity.

How? Instead of a fixed “baseline,” the app recalibrates expectations across the user’s hormonal cycle, so a low-recovery day feels contextualised rather than alarming.

• The Reproductive Engine: I would move beyond cycle tracking and into Cycle Leveraging. I’d build an interface that proactively suggests when to push for a Personal Best (Follicular phase) and when to pivot to “maintenance mode” (Luteal phase) before the user even feels the dip.

How? Without prompting action, WHOOP subtly labels certain days as “capacity-rich” or “maintenance-preferred,” allowing users to align effort with physiology rather than fighting it.

• Predictive Life-Stages: Leveraging WHOOP’s research into pregnancy (where they’ve identified a “Pre-birth Inflection Point” in HRV seven weeks before delivery), I would turn the app into a Longitudinal Life-Coach. From prenatal monitoring to the metabolic shifts of perimenopause, the innovation lies in providing a “Biological Weather Forecast” - telling the user what is coming for their body years before a doctor does.

How? As long-term patterns shift, WHOOP begins surfacing gentle horizon signals “Your recovery profile is changing” helping users emotionally prepare for biological transitions before they feel disruptive.

In a world obsessed with doing more, faster, WHOOP has succeeded by betting on the opposite. They realised that the most valuable data isn’t the kind that prompts you to move, but the kind that gives you the permission to stop. As Charlie Munger famously said:

“The big money is not in the buying and the selling, but in the waiting.”

For WHOOP, the big gains are not in the training or the “strain” - they are in the recovery. They are in the waiting. By building a business around the moments when nothing is happening, they have created a product that is becoming everything.

There was a window in the early 2010s where it felt like you could slap a subscription onto anything and suddenly a boring, old industry had new life. Movies became Netflix. Songs became Spotify. Groceries became HelloFresh. The logic was simple: one sale is a transaction, but a subscription is recurring revenue. Investors love recurring revenue because it is both predictable and scalable, which means these businesses are more likely to receive funding and at higher premiums.

The idea of transforming the fitness category into a recurring fee model felt not only rational but inevitable. And thus, ClassPass was born.

Origins

ClassPass, like many great businesses, was born out of frustration. Founder Payal Kadakia, a dancer and former Bain consultant, was tired of hunting for classes online. So, in 2013, she launched Classtivity (rebranded to ClassPass in 2014) - a discovery tool for fitness classes. You could type in the type of activity you wanted to do, and it would show you a map of options across your city.

On paper, it solved the problem of fragmented information but in practice, it didn’t solve the bigger problem, which is that most people are allergic to micro-decisions. You don’t just want to be shown a map of options, you want to be able to book them on the website too.

So Payal pivoted.

Scrapping the original business model, she rebuilt around a much larger idea: removing the friction of trying something new and bundling that into a single membership that gave users the ability to hop from studio to studio.

It was smart arbitrage opportunity : studios had off-peak empty spots – 6 a.m. yoga, 11 a.m. HIIT, mid-afternoon barre when everyone else was chained to their desks – and those spots were worth essentially nothing once the class started. ClassPass negotiated access to that “perishable inventory” at a fraction of the retail price and wrapped it in a subscription that translated into predictable recurring revenue on their side and psychological freedom on the consumer side.

Subscribe now

Peaks and pits

ClassPass exploded. Users believed they were hacking the system – accessing $35 classes for the price of coffee – and studios believed they were filling empty spots that would otherwise go unused. Consumers got variety, studios got incremental revenue, and ClassPass sat in the middle, quietly printing demand-side arbitrage.

But almost every “win-win” marketplace has a hidden loser, and in this case, it was the underlying unit economics. The unlimited $99/month plan, which became a minor cultural phenomenon in big cities, was a car crash in slow motion. Super-users abused their ClassPass membership, stacking two workouts a day, and the more value they extracted, the worse the unit economics became.

The company tried to fix this by layering on complexity and introducing friction. Unlimited memberships gave way to capped plans. Capped plans gave way to credit systems. Credits became dynamic pricing. Suddenly every class had a different “value,” and the once-clear proposition collapsed into mental math: how many credits do I have, how many will this cost today, and is the algorithm going to punish me for liking this instructor too much?

The logic from HQ’s perspective was clear enough – if some studios were being overused and others underused, dynamic pricing could nudge behaviour and protect margins – but every one of those tweaks made the product feel slightly worse for users and slightly more precarious for studios.

Marketplaces only work when everyone wins. Nick Sleep calls it “scale economics shared”, which is the idea that a company uses its growing scale to give more back to customers - usually through lower prices - to win long-term loyalty. Amazon and Costco are prime examples of this.

Unfortunately, ClassPass went the other way. It squeezed the very people who made the platform valuable.

When a platform keeps more for itself and gives less to its ecosystem, the flywheel slows, and that is exactly what happened.

COVID & the exit

ClassPass’ model depends on three things: studios being open, consumers showing up, and a large enough pool of participating venues that make the subscription feel abundant with options. COVID took all three out in one go.

Whatever loyalty existed to the ClassPass brand evaporated even faster than loyalty to individual studios, because they never built a durable moat of its own: no switching costs, no network effect strong enough to defend, no counter-positioning, no brand power that lived outside the studios themselves. Aggregation only works when you have supply and demand.

Digital fitness got dramatically better at the same time. Peloton turned living rooms into studios. Apple Fitness+ rode along in your pocket. People evolved.

In January 2020, ClassPass raised $285 million in funding at a $1 billion valuation, and in October 2021, was acquired by Mindbody in an all-stock deal.

Why the Model Stopped Working

Supply side

The first big problem was that studio owners started to pull away. They started comparing notes on what ClassPass paid them per visit, how those payouts had changed over time, how many of their once-loyal members had migrated onto the platform simply because it was cheaper. Clearly, they did not like what they found.

Some studios reported being automatically enrolled into “first class free” programs without their consent - meaning they earned nothing for those classes while ClassPass still collected subscription revenue. Studios carried the full cost of delivery: instructor pay, front-of-house staff, rent, electricity, amenities.

Others noticed ClassPass listing their classes at prices far below sustainable levels, often paying out less than half of their direct rates. Long-time members would cancel their studio memberships and rejoin through ClassPass because it was cheaper. Small studios simply couldn’t compete with a global platform dictating both pricing and visibility.

Studios eventually realised what ClassPass had actually created: a generation of fitness consumers with zero loyalty and infinite choice. A system optimised for variety will never organically create commitment.

The brand relationship moved from “I do yoga at X” to “I found this yoga class on ClassPass,” and that linguistic shift tells you exactly who was gaining power and who was losing it.

As the resentment built, studios did the only thing they could: they left.

And what happens when supply dries up? Demand follows.

Demand side

Early ClassPass felt like standing in a Chanel store with an unlimited credit card.

ClassPass today feels a lot more like admin: “I need to use my credits before they expire.” The mindset shifted from “I get to” to “I have to,” which is one of the steepest behavioural downgrades you can trigger in a consumer product.

Too many credits, too many rules, too many small frictions layered on top of what is, for most normal people, an already fragile habit. Fitness works when it’s simple and emotionally rewarding.

At the same time, culture shifted underneath them. The last few years have seen the rise of ritual and routine, to the point of religion. Tracey Anderson is the perfect example of this, with cult-like fans who’ll spend initiation fees upwards of $1,500 and monthly fees of $900 for full membership access. Consistency became more aspirational than discovery, because your workouts became increasingly a part of your identity.

Even within certain aesthetics, like the pilates clean-girl universe, people split into micro-communities. Are you a Lagree girl, a hot-mat loyalist, or strictly reformer?

To an outsider the differences are negligible, but within the culture they operate as taste markers and identity cues.

ClassPass was optimised for variety seekers at the exact moment the most culturally influential pockets of the market became ritual seekers.

Business Model as Feature vs. Business Model as Tax

Before getting into growth ideas, I think ClassPass needs to be run through a simple diagnostic: does the business model make the product experience better, or is it just financial engineering?

This is a mental model I learned from Kirsten Green on The Generalist.

Every great consumer company passes this test.

A great example is Spotify – its subscription model isn’t just about creating revenue predictability; it fundamentally improves the experience by removing ads and enabling offline listening. Compare that to many other subscription-based consumer companies, where the model is in place primarily to benefit the company, not the customer.

- Kirsten Green

ClassPass is the bad consumer company in the above example. It’s credits, caps, and dynamic pricing don’t enhance the fitness experience; they complicate it.

All the issues with ClassPass ultimately collapse into two simple truths:

1. Users don’t feel like they’re getting a good deal.

2. Studios don’t feel like they’re getting a good deal.

The business model must move from extraction to shared upside. The incentives should be rewritten so that what’s good for the user is also good for the studio, and therefore good for ClassPass.

So how do we do this?

If I was the Head of Growth for ClassPass, here is where I would start:

1. Fix the pricing model to rebuild trust with studios and users

Back to basics.

The key problem here is the business model does not work. Every evolution of the business model - credits, dynamic pricing, caps - slowly made the product experience worse. Right now, the economics actively make the product feel more confusing, less intuitive, and less rewarding.

If I was head of growth at ClassPass, my first move would be clarity. When users and studios sign up, they should know how much value they are getting out of this, without needing to open a calculator.

The credit system and dynamic pricing does not work. ClassPass should think about experimenting, something that I would pay for would be a “Routine” option:

• Users pay a flat monthly fee for a fixed number of classes at three chosen studios

• Studios receive a fixed per-class payout to fill empty spots, creating a “fractional” membership where they can access contract-like revenue, with a higher likelihood of conversion

• ClassPass should revenue share if a user converts for the first 3/6 months of the user’s membership, ensuring incentives are aligned

Simplicity is a growth lever here.

I’m not sure if they already do this, but ClassPass should lean into the data they hold and help owners understand who’s coming in, what patterns they follow, which classes drive repeat visits, how their performance compares to similar studios in other cities. Make ClassPass not just a source of customers, but a source of insight they couldn’t get themselves.

Subscribe now

2. Make bookings better

Once users know the value of their subscription, I would then focus on making booking easier.

Smarter recommendations come from abandoning radius-based feeds and actually building taste intelligence. This means learning from behaviour the way Spotify or TikTok do: map a user’s “fitness fingerprint,” cluster them with similar users, and recommend studios, instructors, and class types based on pattern recognition rather than proximity. If someone consistently books early-morning pilates with female instructors in two neighbourhoods, the app should know that. If I only book pilates classes, please don’t show me boxing. I can search it if I need.

3. Gamify progress

Fitness is story. Strava is a $2.2 billion company built on that idea.

People stick with routines when they can see who they’re becoming. Strava nailed this by turning workouts into social proof - shareable maps, stats, achievements - and then layering on the simplest, most addictive mechanic of all: kudos. A run isn’t just logged; it’s applauded. That peer affirmation is massively dopamine-inducing, and it keeps people coming back because progress feels public, witnessed, and celebrated.

ClassPass should lean into this and build visualisation tools that turn behaviour into a story - streaks (the same way an Apple Watch does it), Instagram templates, favourite studios, instructor loyalty, time-of-day patterns, new activities tried, personal records. Package it like the fitness version of Spotify Wrapped. People love data that tells them more about themselves, especially when they can share it.

4. Focus on the core product

You should not be able to buy a coffee or avocado toast with your ClassPass credits.
You should not be able to book a nail appointment with your credits either. In my opinion, these add-ons don’t enhance the fitness experience; they dilute it.

This kind of horizontal expansion reflects a platform trying to grow outward before it has earned the right to. When the core product is already strained, branching into adjacent categories complicates the user journey and distracts from the fundamental job the product is meant to do: make fitness easier, more consistent, and more rewarding.

You cannot afford to lose focus when the core product is not working.

5. Become culturally relevant again

Finally, ClassPass needs to be cool again, because right now the brand mostly shows up in complaint threads on Reddit and TikTok.

Something I have been observing is a shift in how we travel.

People are less interested in the tourist attractions, rather there is a bigger focus on “trying on” a city for a day. They want to live like a local, eat where locals eat, drink where locals drink, and sweat where locals sweat.

ClassPass should lean into this, becoming the go-to provider for travellers. When you visit the boxing gym in London, or the reformer studio in NYC, you explore new neighbourhoods and make friends.

At home, the promise of endless choice works against the desire for ritual. When you’re travelling, it’s a way to find routine or familiarity in a new city, and I think ClassPass should turn that into a signature use case.

The Rolodex Takeaway

ClassPass invented the fitness subscription model and proved that people would absolutely pay to live inside a network of experiences instead of being tethered to one.

But the next chapter requires a different kind of imagination - one that tackles the structural imbalance the first model created. ClassPass drove prices down to keep users happy, but that discount had to be paid for by someone, and it was studios footing the bill.

If ClassPass can rebuild trust with studios, simplify the user experience, and reposition itself as the global guide to how modern people move, it might have a real chance at turning this sinking ship back around.

The demand for great fitness experiences is still there. It’s just waiting for a platform worthy of becoming a habit again.

In 2008, if you wanted to go on a holiday, you booked a hotel. Choices were simple, would you choose the hotel with the best pool, the best views or the best beds? Travel was a product you consumed - an experience designed by the hospitality industry, not by you.

In 2009, everything changed. A couple of friends launched a company that convinced people to let strangers into their home, and the travel industry broke free from the monopoly of hotels. You could now stay in a Parisian loft, pretending to be Camille Rowe, or a treehouse in Bali, finding your inner ‘Eat Pray Love’. You could rent out a chateau in France and pretend to be kings.

Ordinary homes became inventory, and ordinary people became entrepreneurs.

Fifteen years later, Airbnb isn’t just competing with hotels. It has rewritten how we imagine trips, how we spend in cities, and how we measure what makes a place special.

This deep dive explores:

• The rent hack that sparked the original idea

• How three founders went from blitzscale to near-collapse during COVID

• The IPO and Airbnb’s post-pandemic reset

• The revenue model

• The non-obvious reasons Airbnb wins (and why they’re hard to copy)

• And, finally, what I’d do if I were Head of Growth at Airbnb

Let’s get started.

Origins (2007-2009)

Before there was Airbnb, there was simply airbeds.

Brian Chesky and Joe Gebbia were two college friends who had a new apartment and a rent problem.

In their search for ways to make a “few bucks”, Joe sent the below email, documenting the start of Airbnb.

San Francisco at the time was a perfect storm: a city defined by conferences and chronically short on hotels, with rates going for up to $1000 a night during the week.

During one design conference, Brian and Joe set up airbeds in their apartment, offered Wi-Fi and breakfast, and charged $80 a night. They called the site AirBed & Breakfast.

Three strangers booked, including a young graduate named Amol who spent the weekend not just sleeping on their floor but exploring the city with them. It felt more like hosting a friend than selling a room.

Around the same time, Michael Seibel of Justin.tv (which would later become Twitch), took an interest in the founders. He introduced them to local angels, but investors saw right through Brian and Joe: they had no users, no traction.

Instead, Seibel told them about a new program in Silicon Valley called Y Combinator. The winter batch was months away, so they looked for ways to survive in the meantime. The U.S. presidential conventions were coming up and were notorious for overrun hotel capacity, so they pitched local press and managed to drive about a hundred bookings. It was proof of demand, but not enough money to keep them afloat.

So how did they solve the money problem? One night, half-joking, they came up with an idea: design limited-edition cereal boxes, fill them with Cheerios, and sell them online as political memorabilia. They called them Obama O’s and Cap’n McCain’s.

Against all odds, it worked. They cleared somewhere between $20,000 and $30,000 in profit - just enough to survive until YC applications opened.

Characteristically, they missed the YC application deadline they had been waiting so patiently for. Seibel lobbied Paul Graham to give them a second chance, but when the actual pitch came around, it fell on deaf ears. Paul couldn’t get conviction that people would pay to stay on a stranger’s floor.

What actually convinced Paul was the cereal boxes Joe gifted him at the end of the pitch. Paul Graham has always prized scrappiness, and in that moment he saw it: these founders were cockroaches who would find a way to survive no matter what. In YC’s worldview, that mattered more than timing or TAM.

That decision, to back the founders rather than the business, would turn out to be one of the best bets YC ever made.

From Scrappy to Scalable (2009–2011)

YC was full of smart people, but the Airbnbs (as he called them) stood out for sheer relentlessness.

“During the batch our nickname for Brian Chesky was The Tasmanian Devil, because like the cartoon character he seemed a tornado of energy. All three of them were like that. No one ever worked harder during YC than the Airbnbs did. When you talked to the Airbnbs, they took notes. If you suggested an idea to them in office hours, the next time you talked to them they’d not only have implemented it, but also implemented two new ideas they had in the process. They probably have the best attitude of any startup we’ve funded”

- Paul Graham

Airbnb’s goal during YC was to reach ramen profitability, which means making enough money that the company can pay the founders’ living expenses, if they live on ramen noodles. For the Airbnbs, ramen profitability was $4000 a month: $3500 for rent, and $500 for food.

The key to unlocking growth was to focus on the hottest subset of the market. For Airbnb, that was NYC.

In NYC, the founders learnt two key lessons.

1. The importance of photos - having professional pictures for listings transformed listings overnight

2. The importance of having cashless payments - moving transactions via the AirBnB platform created trust for hosts and guests, just like Uber did to the traditional taxi industry. In a increasingly cashless society, this convenience became a moat in the early days

Whilst interacting with AirBnB’s first hosts in NYC, they got to understand who they really were. Many hosts were just like them - young, cash-strapped, and using Airbnb to help make rent in the middle of the GFC. From then on, they steered the company by a simple truth: Airbnb worked because it simultaneously solved demand (cheaper than hotels) and supply (rent money for hosts).

As Marc Andreessen puts it: “In a great market, the market pulls product out of the startup.”

Airbnb didn’t need the best tech or the most polished team; it just needed a product that basically worked. The appetite for affordable, authentic travel did the rest, dragging the company forward whether or not the team touched it.

In late January 2009, about three weeks into Y Combinator, their efforts started to show results, and their numbers crept upward. $460 in fees the first week. $897 the second. $1,428 the third. When Brian emailed Graham to declare they’d hit ramen profitability, PG shot back: “You know what you’ve set yourself up for next week.”

Brian’s reply was seven words: “We are not going to slow down.”

After YC, Airbnb had barely 2,500 listings on its site and just 10,000 registered users when Sequoia led a $600k seed round at a $2.4M valuation, taking nearly a quarter of the company.

Now the question was scale.

Enter Nate: the growth engineer. Cofounder Nate was a Harvard software engineer who had made $1m as a teenager in email marketing. He was scrappy, but importantly, knew how to get a lot of eyes on the product.

Nate cross-posted Airbnb listings onto Craigslist, siphoning traffic from the web’s biggest classifieds site. He ran hyper-targeted Facebook ads: “Host a wine lover in New York,” “Rent your place to a yoga fan in San Francisco.” Airbnb was able to amass supply quickly, and supply begat demand. By mid-2010, Airbnb had facilitated over 700,000 nights.

Hotels make their margins on compression pricing - charging multiples when big events spike demand. It’s basic supply and demand economics. By soaking up overflow demand at cheaper prices, Airbnb blunted hotels’ ability to gouge. Safe to say, the industry was not happy. But even as they lobbied against it, hoteliers quietly acknowledged the truth: Airbnb had struck a chord with consumers, and coexistence was now inevitable.

What made the blow sting even more was Airbnb’s business model. By inventing an entirely new industry, Airbnb was able to create their own payment terms. Unlike hotels or booking websites, guests pay Airbnb at the time of booking, and Airbnb keeps that cash (including fees) until after check-in - which could be weeks or even months away. Roughly 12–15% was revenue, the rest sat as float on the balance sheet (this is an idea we will explore later in the article).

The result was an extremely favourable negative cashflow dynamic that essentially funded growth, even as it raised hundreds of millions in venture dollars. By the time Reid Hoffman led Greylock’s $7.2M Series A in 2010, Airbnb already had more cash from customers than it had raised from investors.

Blitzscaling on Trust (2011–2014)

By early 2011, Airbnb had facilitated over 1 million bookings. The flywheel was visible in real time: travellers booked their first stay abroad, came home, and listed their own spare rooms. Each trip created both sides of the marketplace at once, making the network self-propelling.

That summer, Andreessen Horowitz led a $112 million Series B at a $1 billion valuation, elevating Airbnb into the unicorn club just three years after the cereal-box hustle and a maxed out credit card binder.

Travel is by definition cross-border, which meant Airbnb had a unique problem.

Unlike other startups at the time who could build city by city, Airbnb had to win everywhere at once. There would not fragmented regional champions, so Airbnb had to beat out other rivals to win. In Europe, Rocket Internet’s Wimdu looked threatening. They had copied the Airbnb model, scaled hard in Europe, and briefly seemed like a real threat. But the one thing you cannot build when scaling fast is trust - and trust was everything.

You’re staying in a stranger’s house or letting a stranger stay in yours. How do you know it will be a good experience? That the place is real, the host is decent, the guest isn’t crazy? Reviews became the social contract. They turned a terrifyingly strange idea into something reassuringly normal, and once that system started to compound, it was nearly impossible for competitors to fake. Wimdu could manufacture listings, but it couldn’t manufacture credibility.

By January 2012, Airbnb had facilitated 5 million nights. Six months later it was 10 million. By late 2013, Founders Fund invested $200 million at a $3 billion valuation, and in 2014, TPG led a $500 million round at $10 billion. Blitzscaling wasn’t just working - it was accelerating.

From Utility to Identity (2014-2015)

In 2014, Airbnb unveiled the Bélo, a symbol meant to capture “belonging anywhere.” Airbnb was signalling to their market that they were no longer a utility, but rather a global travel community.

And yet, Airbnb’s aspirational storytelling met a user base making transactional choices: do I book a hotel for $200 a night, or an apartment for the same price?

In the early years, Airbnb was the obvious choice - it was cheaper. But by 2014–2015, that had shifted. Travellers realised the cost advantage was fading, sometimes even reversing. But they also realised hotels were sterile. Airbnb gave them access to neighbourhoods they would never otherwise see, and stays that felt unique, even cool. The value proposition quietly morphed from price to experience, insulating the company from pure price competition and creating a moat traditional hotels couldn’t replicate.

Airbnb shifted from default choice to one option in a broader travel mix - a holiday might now include Airbnbs, hotels, even friends’ couches.

Crisis and a $100B IPO (2015–2020)

In 2015, Expedia bought HomeAway - the only really viable product-wise competitor out there in the market for ~$4 billion. This was not Expedia saying they’re going to compete with Airbnb - this was surrender. Airbnb was now operating in a category of one.

The numbers confirmed it. In 2015, Airbnb generated nearly $1 billion in net revenue on 80 million bookings.

The company started experimented with adjacencies: Airbnb Experiences launched in 2016, promising travellers not just places to stay, but things to do. In 2017, they introduced Airbnb Plus and Luxury Retreats, moving upmarket to compete with boutique hotels. They experimented with running a travel magazine, film production studio, concierge services, even owning an airline; anything travel adjacent, they wanted to own.

The question on everyone’s lips was when Airbnb would IPO. But growth was slowing - from 70% in 2016 to under 30% in 2019 - while expenses were rising faster than bookings, eroding the leverage expected at scale.

Then came COVID. Global travel collapsed overnight. Bookings fell more than 80%. Airbnb faced an existential crisis: with no guests, no revenue, and a still-massive cost base, survival was on the line. They laid off ~25% of staff, cutting back all non-core experiments. They cut $1bn in marketing expenses. Brian describes it at the time as a “second founding” of Airbnb as a business.

Ironically, the same crisis that nearly killed Airbnb also revealed another competitive advantage. As people learned COVID spread through air, not surfaces, hotels felt risky; private homes felt safe in comparison. By mid-2020, hotel bookings were still down 90%, but Airbnb’s were only down 50%. By late summer, bookings were within 15–20% of pre-pandemic levels.

In December 2020, Airbnb finally went public in one of the most anticipated IPOs of the decade. Priced at $68 a share, it doubled on day one, closing at $144 and valuing the company at over $100 billion - more than Marriott, Hilton, and Hyatt combined. This was Wall Street declaring that a platform built on spare rooms was worth more than the institutions that had defined travel for a century.

The founders collectively retained 31% ownership: Brian Chesky held 11%, while Joe Gebbia and Nate Blecharczyk each owned 10%. For a company that once scraped by selling novelty cereal boxes, the fact that its original founders walked into the IPO still controlling nearly a third of the company was almost as remarkable as the market cap itself.

Airbnb had proved that lofty rhetoric about belonging could inspire, but what sustained it was the ability to remain inside the traveler’s decision set - sometimes on price, often on experience, always as one option among many.

Airbnb Today (2021–2025)

For most of its life, Airbnb chased expansion. Post-IPO, the mandate shifted. Chesky repositioned Airbnb as a leaner, more focused company. The layoffs during COVID had forced discipline and Airbnb doubled down on its core: homes and experiences.

The results (Q2 2025):

• 134.4 million nights and seats (experiences) booked, up 7% YoY

• Gross Booking Value of $23.5bn, up 11% YoY

• Average price per night: $174.48, up 3% YoY

• Revenue of $3.1bn, up 13% YoY, primarily driven by increase in volume in nights booked (mainly driven by growth in non-core markets), small increases in seats sold, longer stay periods, and slightly higher average price per night

• Airbnb implied fee take rate (defined as revenue divided by GBV) of 13.2%

Airbnb full year financials

The Future of Airbnb

On May 13 2025, Airbnb expanded beyond places to stay and introduced three things:

• Airbnb Services – Incredible services to make your stay more special

• Airbnb Experiences – Explore a city with the locals who know it best

• All-new Airbnb app – A redesigned app that makes it easy to book homes, services, and experiences - all in one place

Like Amazon’s leap from books to everything, the company is expanding into longer stays, hotels, services, and experiences.

Airbnb already experimented with Experiences back in 2016, but Chesky now views them as central to growth. They are targeting three distinct audiences:

1. first-time visitors who gravitate to landmarks

2. repeat visitors seeking authenticity

3. locals looking for unique activities

Each have billion-dollar potential.

Services push the model even further. Chefs, masseuses, cleaners, and other on-demand offerings represent an “Amazon of services” opportunity. Early signs are promising: 10% of bookings are already local, without meaningful marketing.

Together, Experiences and Services pull Airbnb from being an occasional travel utility into something people might use every week, smoothing seasonality and deepening engagement.

Layered on top of this is Chesky’s conviction that Airbnb must be one of the first truly AI-native consumer apps. He draws a sharp distinction between apps that use AI and apps designed for it. In his framing, ChatGPT is a jet engine strapped to an old plane. Airbnb wants to build the aircraft designed for that engine. The vision is an AI concierge that plans and personalises not just accommodation, but entire trips, local services, and even community connections. This is about embedding AI into the interface itself, not just sprinkling features on top.

On the supply side, Airbnb’s growth engine is evolving. The platform now counts roughly 10 million listings, most of which arrived organically. That organic wave is slowing. To unlock the next leg, Airbnb is experimenting with the Co-Host Network, which matches homeowners with people who want to host but don’t own property, as well as leaning into mega-events like the World Cup or the Olympics.

Geography is another lever. Despite operating in 220 countries, 70% of Airbnb’s revenue is concentrated in just five: the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, France, and Australia. Growth markets like Mexico, Brazil, Spain, Germany, Italy, Korea, and Japan are already expanding at twice the rate of core geographies. With localized marketing, payments, and supply, they represent Airbnb’s next S-curve.

Airbnb isn’t pitching itself as a travel company anymore. It’s aiming to be:

• The Amazon of travel + services

• An AI-native lifestyle app

• A real-world community platform

The strategic bet is that AI, services, and community will take Airbnb from seasonal, transaction-driven usage to daily relevance, embedding the platform into how people live, connect, and consume services. If successful, Airbnb will no longer be just where people stay when they travel, it will be a defining part of their everyday.

How Airbnb Makes Money

Airbnb takes a percentage of every booking.

💡 Revenue = Nights Booked x Average Price per Night x Take Rate

Put simply, to grow revenue, Airbnb must increase the number of nights booked on the platform, the price that hosts are charging per night, and the percentage amount that they take from hosts / guests.

How do you increase bookings?

1. More supply - targeting new markets, cohosting, regulatory compliance to unlock difficult jurisdictions

2. Better matching - AI-driven search, verified listings, and reviews that build trust, boosting conversions

How do you increase average prices?

1. Higher quality homes

2. Premium positioning - verified homes, better photos

How do you increase take rate?

1. Value add host services - cleaning, management, tax, compliance ect

2. Travel add ons - insurance, experiences, services layered on top of home bookings

Subscribe now

Airbnb’s Hidden Bank

I want to briefly introduce the idea of Airbnb’s float.

Float is money that a company holds temporarily before it has to give it to someone else. While the company holds it, it can earn interest.

• Banks: when you deposit money, the bank doesn’t just sit on it - it lends it out or invests it, while still promising you can withdraw anytime

• Superannuation funds (pensions): your contributions get invested for decades before you retire. That gap between when money comes in and when it’s paid out is float

For Airbnb, float works on a shorter cycle:

• Guests pay when they book

• Airbnb holds the money until check-in

• Only then does Airbnb release it to the host

The principle is the same - but Airbnb’s float is short-tail (holding for weeks/months, not years). Balances refresh constantly as new bookings replace completed ones. This strengthens cash flow in two ways:

1. Interest income - cash parked in safe, liquid instruments earns yield

2. Negative working capital - Airbnb gets paid before it has to pay hosts

Unlike a pension fund that invests for decades, Airbnb’s float is conservative and short-term. The money sits in cash and government-backed markets rather than risky assets. Even so, it’s meaningful: Airbnb reported about $11bn in customer balances. In a high-rate environment, 5% yield on that balance equals roughly $550m annualised interest (seasonality means the realised number is likely lower, but it’s clearly a lot of money). Every dollar here floats straight to the profit line.

This not only increases Airbnb’s earnings, but it also means the business model is much more resilient. The platform grows without tying up capital in assets, and overtime, makes Airbnb harder to disrupt because competitors must not only match its network and trust system, but also overcome its superior unit economics and cash-generation engine.

Non Obvious Reasons Why Airbnb Wins:

Airbnb’s real moat is transforming uncertainty into trust at scale

With 200+ million verified identities and earlier visibility into trip intent (because discovery now begins on social media and flows into its app), Airbnb reduces the inherent variance in travel: unknown accommodation quality, unknown host reliability, unknown location, unknown guest quality. Every reduction in uncertainty expands a guest’s willingness to book and gives hosts more confidence to let strangers into their home - unlocking inventory that would otherwise stay out of the market.

Marketplace physics: the real bottleneck is operators, not homes

In two-sided markets, the constraint is always the scarcest input that can scale with quality. Homes are plentiful; capable micro-operators are not. The Co-Host Network connects capital-rich owners with time-rich operators, then layers in services - pricing, cleaning, restocking, tax, compliance. This reframes the bottleneck from “homes available” to “operators available.” Take rate expansion will come from services that feel like productivity tools, not from visible fee hikes.

Experiences are a disguised consumer flywheel for Services

Roughly 10% of Experiences are booked by locals - demand that arrives without marketing spend. Alongside first-time and repeat travelers, these locals seed repeat utility and keep guests opening the app between trips. That engagement is the perfect on-ramp for Services: if people already trust Airbnb for things to do, it’s a natural step to trust it for things they need - from cleaning and restocking to transport and dining.

Elastic supply, not fixed inventory

Hotels are constrained by hard assets; Airbnb owns none. Supply flexes because hosts hold the homes, not the company. That structure gives Airbnb asset-light elasticity: new supply enters without capex, and exits without cost when demand falls. The result is faster growth, lower risk, and greater resilience. When COVID left hotels sitting on empty rooms and heavy debt for two years, Airbnb simply paused. Supply returned as soon as demand did.

Discovery, not just search

Hotels answer “where near the conference?”, whilst Airbnb increasingly answers “what kind of life do you want this week?” Categories, flexible dates, and collections turn lodging into a taste-driven browse. That expands the total addressable trip types and pulls demand into off-peak or overlooked inventory.

Multi-duration versatility

Nights sell across use cases: vacation, relocation, contract work, medical travel, campus visits, multi-month stays. Each new duration adds frequency and raises LTV of the guest.

Anti-fragile demand routing

When shocks hit, travelers reshuffle: driveable over fly-to, rural over urban, shorter over longer. Airbnb’s unfair advantage of having a globally distributed supply lets it redirect demand into places hotels can’t reach. That routing flexibility turns macro volatility into share gain, while fixed-footprint competitors sit idle.

Brand permission for “special”

Guests don’t brag about room 512. They share A-frames, riads, treehouses. “Memorable” is measurable: it fuels organic distribution, compresses CAC (customer acquisition cost), and nudges hosts to invest in uniqueness. The product markets itself because the stay becomes content.

If I was the Head of Growth for Airbnb, here are the things I would be focusing on:

Nightly City Meetups (host-led social on-ramps)

Whether you are travelling solo or with a few friends, the best part of travelling is always the people you meet on the way. Solo travellers often stay at hostels because it is cheap, but also because it offers an in-built friend group to explore the city with.

If I was head of growth at Airbnb, I would create free or low-cost meetups (could be run by hosts or not) everyday, in locations around the world. In-app, a new “Meetups” tab could show all the events in your area over the duration of your stay:

• Neighbourhood walks

• Pilates class

• Bar crawl

• Day trips

Group caps and in-app RSVPs allow Airbnb to capture rich, real-time behavioural data on what works in each neighbourhood and demographic.

This aligns with Airbnb’s brand promise of belonging anywhere - not just renting a room but entering a network. Each meetup also becomes a funnel into Airbnb Experiences, upselling into tours, activities, or even extending stays.

Airbnb Tables (book restaurants inside the app)

When you land in a new city, the first thing you usually want to do is find somewhere good to eat, hopefully within walking distance.

But discovery is fragmented - you bounce between Google Maps, Resy, OpenTable, and TikTok, then cross-check against your Airbnb address to see what’s close.

Often - I have even messaged hosts to ask for good spots to eat.

If I was head of growth at Airbnb, I’d add a “Tables” tab tied to your stay:

• host-curated lists or ability to import from Google Maps

• live availability

• one-tap booking

• pre-trip holds for hard-to-get spots

This could be powered by your stay details (e.g. family trip → kid-friendly, solo → counter seating).

Airbnb already owns where you stay and is pushing hard into what you do. With Tables, they move closer to owning where you eat. Taken together, this forms a closed-loop ecosystem: Stay → Eat → Experience → Repeat

Airbnb has always been about making the world feel smaller, right from the very first airbeds on the floor.

At Rolodex, we are very bullish on Airbnb as a permanent option in the accomodation vertical, and as a growing platform for community, experiences and services.

Most of all, we are very bullish on the founding team. Brian, Joe and Nate all operate on a higher level than most.

As CEO, Brian Chesky takes a $1 salary. His entire compensation is a 10-year stock plan from Airbnb’s IPO. The plan only pays if Airbnb’s share price compounds at ~32% annually through 2030, implying a $300B valuation versus ~$75B today. There are no bonuses or safety nets: if the stock doesn’t grow, he earns nothing.

That is real alignment with shareholders, and something I wish we saw more of. Airbnb’s future will be defined by that same founder intensity - building a company designed not just to grow, but to endure into what Brian himself calls a “22nd-century company.”

In the music industry, there is a simple rule. Careers peak early and fade fast. The system is built on one-hit wonders, album cycles, and temporary stardom. Labels own the past, platforms control the future, and artists are rarely in command of either.

Taylor Swift is the exception that rewrites the rule. She isn’t just the biggest artist alive; she’s one of the largest cultural institutions in existence, bigger than most companies, sports leagues, or governments could ever hope to be. Her tours gross more than the GDP of small nations. Her fan base operates like a sovereign economy, minting its own artefacts, slang, and subcultures. Her brand equity is so vast that billion-dollar corporations like Apple and Spotify have literally bent policy to appease her.

Measured in commercial terms, she has built a franchise with the durability of Disney, the distribution of Netflix, and the pricing power of LVMH. Measured in cultural terms, she sits somewhere closer to religion than entertainment, with rituals (bracelets, Easter eggs), scriptures (lyrics, liner notes), and congregations (sold-out stadiums).

Nature insists that even the brightest stars fade. Yet two decades in, Taylor is more omnipresent than ever. She has turned albums into annuities, tours into franchises, and personal heartbreak into billion-dollar IP. What looks like magic from the outside is, on the inside, a vertically integrated machine: tightly run, endlessly adaptive, and designed for compounding.

While her personal net worth exceeds $2 billion, the true enterprise valuation of Taylor Swift, Inc., calculated on the basis of its unquantifiable brand moat and compounding cash flow streams, is a multi-billion dollar question.

What follows is part origin story, part equity research report. In today’s piece, we cover:

• The rise: from Pennsylvania teenager to Nashville outsider, and how Taylor built early leverage through songwriting, social media, and touring

• The eras: album by album, how she reinvented her sound, aesthetic, and strategy to expand markets rather than just serve them

• The re-recordings and the tour: why reclaiming her masters and launching The Eras Tour became the most powerful counter positioning move in modern music

• The business model: a breakdown of recorded music, touring, films, and direct-to-consumer sales, and how each became part of a diversified empire

• Valuation: our SOTP analysis that places Taylor Swift, Inc. at ~$12bn, a trophy asset with durability and growth upside

• The moats: applying Hamilton Helmer’s 7 Powers (plus two of our own) to explain the structural advantages behind her business

Before there was Taylor Swift, there was just Taylor (1989 - 2006)

Taylor Alison Swift was born on the 13th of December, 1989, in West Reading, Pennsylvania. Her dad, Scott Swift, came from a wealthy Philadelphia family and worked as a stockbroker at Merrill Lynch (one of America’s biggest banks). Her mum, Andrea, had a background in finance and marketing before becoming a stay-at-home parent to Taylor and her younger brother, Austin.

The Swifts weren’t music royalty, but they weren’t outsiders either. Taylor’s grandmother, Marjorie, was a famous cuban opera singer and TV personality, and is one of many people who inspired her at a young age to pursue singing.

Some of her other idols included female country stars like Faith Hill and Shania Twain, artists who had both made the move from small towns to Nashville.

To Taylor, Nashville was like a magical fantasy land of country music. So naturally, she made her mind up - she was getting to Nashville, one way or another.

“I got it into my head that there was this magical land called Nashville where dreams come true and that’s where I needed to go. I began absolutely non-stop tormenting my parents, begging them on a daily basis to move there.”

Over spring break in 2001, Andrea, Taylor and Austin loaded into their car and drove to Nashville. Taylor darted in and out of record labels on Music Row, handing out demo CDs to receptionists while Andrea waited in the car.

They didn’t know it yet, but this 11-year-old named Taylor Swift would go on to change the music industry in a way no one has ever done before.

More demos, more road trips, more nagging. Finally, at 13, RCA offered her a development deal (the industry equivalent of “we’ll keep an eye on you”). It wasn’t a record contract, but it was enough for the Swift family to commit to the move, the kind of act usually reserved for future Olympians or child prodigies.

In 2004, still a high school freshman, she signed a publishing contract with Sony/ATV - their youngest songwriter ever. To be clear, this was a writing contract, not a recording contract. Sony paired Taylor with veteran Liz Rose, who would later help Taylor write standout songs like Teardrops on My Guitar, Tim McGraw, and eventually All Too Well.

“I didn’t just want to be another girl singer. I wanted there to be something that set me apart, and that had to be my writing.”

After one year with RCA, Taylor decided to walk away. They didn’t think there was a big enough market for a teenage country singer. After all, country music was on the decline with young listeners.

A pattern starts to emerge here familiar to anyone who studies breakout founders: incumbents underestimate young people. RCA underestimated Taylor and her market.

To quote Taylor Swift herself, “When you’re young, they assume you know nothing.”

It turns out, of course, that Taylor expanded the country market before further expanding her empire to mainstream pop. Great founders and great products expand markets. Much like Uber or Airbnb, Taylor was able to wedge herself into a stagnant category, unlock latent demand, and in the process make the entire market bigger than it looked on paper.

In order to resign to a record label, Taylor decided to do things a little differently this time around. Rather than begging labels, she staged her own auction. At 14, she booked the Bluebird Café, a Nashville institution, and invited every exec in town. In the audience was Scott Borchetta, plotting his escape from Universal to launch his own indie record label, Big Machine. Borchetta pitched Taylor on a shared risk: he’d back her as a songwriter making country music for teenagers; she’d back him as a first-time founder leaving corporate safety.

To help get the label off the ground, Taylor’s dad even invested $120,000 for a 3% stake in Big Machine. It was a small cheque that would yield outsized returns - effectively the founding capital of Taylor Swift, Inc.

Subscribe now

Taylor Swift (2006)

In June 2006, Taylor released her debut single, Tim McGraw - a masterstroke in borrowed credibility. For a 15-year-old newcomer, anchoring her breakout to country’s biggest name was both homage and strategy.

Released on October 24, 2006, Taylor’s self-titled album came with a personal manifesto. In the liner notes of the CDs, she added a pointed P.S.: “To all the boys who thought they would be cool and break my heart, guess what? Here are 14 songs written about you. HA.” This is our first glimpse at her biting humour, which would later become one of the defining features of her songwriting.

What changed the trajectory of this first album wasn’t radio or label dollars. It was social media in its earliest form. Like any other teenager, Taylor had a MySpace page. Unlike every other teenager, Taylor was building a distribution channel. Taylor treated the platform like a customer support desk, replying to fans one by one, years before Instagram or TikTok made that parasocial connection standard. She was pioneering direct-to-consumer distribution for music: bypassing gatekeepers, building her own channel, and making teenagers feel like she was their friend, not a celebrity.

Well over a year later, in January 2008, after 63 straight weeks in the Billboard 200, Taylor Swift’s debut album became the number one album in the world. It stayed in the Top 200 for 275 weeks - nearly five and a half years. She was crowned Top Country Artist that year. What other artist could do that, let alone with their debut album?

As a new artist, a popular way to acquire new customers is to open for larger artists on tour. Taylor spent the first year of her debut album touring as an opening for Rascal Flatts, Brad Paisley, George Strait, and eventually, in a perfect full-circle moment, for Tim McGraw and Faith Hill.

By the end of this era, Taylor had a loyal fanbase, a string of hits, industry awards, and a narrative engine that doubled as marketing. The teenage girl from Pennsylvania who once dropped demo CDs at Nashville reception desks was now an asset in motion.

Fearless (2008)

Unlike her debut, which needed a year-long social media grind to climb to No. 1, Fearless debuted at the top of the Billboard 200 in November 2008 and stayed there for 11 straight weeks. Love Story and You Belong With Me were mass-market entry points, country songs engineered for teenagers who didn’t think they liked country. Fearless became the best selling album in the US in 2009, and the most awarded country music album of ALL time.

The mechanics had shifted. For debut, Taylor was doing things that don’t scale, acquiring customers by hand. With Fearless, the distribution finally matched the ambition. Arena tours, television, awards shows - she was now working at scale, and the system responded in kind. The Fearless Tour grossed $63 million, fuelled by the loyalty she had cultivated directly with her fans and then amplified through mainstream distribution.

The major cultural moment for Fearless came in 2009 at the MTV VMAs, when Kanye West stormed the stage during her acceptance for Best Female Video for You Belong With Me, which to be clear, is not the biggest video award of the night.

The interruption went viral, even drawing commentary from the President of the United States, who called Kanye a “jackass”.

For Taylor, this is really a seminal point in her career. It locked in her position as the protagonist; she was nineteen, humiliated on live television by one of the world’s biggest artists, and the audience instantly knew whose side they were on. Being underestimated and interrupted became part of her brand equity.

As a side note, this was also a very seminal point for Kanye. After this incident, Kayne retreated to a self-imposed exile in Hawaii, recording My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy (arguably his best album and a major commercial success).

During the Fearless era, fans were introduced to the boyfriends of Taylor Swift - part of the formula that helped turn her autobiographical style of music into cultural IP. Her first famous fling was with Joe Jonas, who infamously broke up with her over a 27-second phone call. This would fuel early songs like Forever & Always and cement the idea that her relationships weren’t just private, they were a byproduct. When fans bought a CD, they were buying into the falling in love, regrets, mistakes and heartbreak.

Later in 2009, Taylor had been romantically linked to John Mayer and Taylor Lautner, had a cameo in Hannah Montana: The Movie, acted in the movie Valentine’s Day and performed on SNL as the first guest to write their own opening monologue.

By 2010, Fearless had sold millions, won four (yes, four!) GRAMMYs, including Album of the Year, making her the youngest artist ever to win.

There was no doubt that Taylor was on track for stardom.

Speak Now (2010)

If Fearless proved Taylor could scale, Speak Now was a test of independence. By 2010, Taylor had achieved what most artists spend entire careers chasing, but a lingering narrative remained: a teenager couldn’t possibly be the architect of her own success. Nashville’s whisper network credited co-writers, producers, even luck. Speak Now was her way of closing the debate. Every one of the album’s 14 songs was written entirely by her.

The market didn’t just reward her, it confirmed her autonomy had commercial power. The album sold over a million copies in its first week, at a time when piracy had collapsed physical sales. Every track charted on the Billboard Hot 100, the first time an album had ever achieved that. The Speak Now World Tour grossed $123 million worldwide, moving her from successful artist to a stadium-filling enterprise.

The songwriting reflected the risks of independence. Innocent was her response to the Kanye controversy; Dear John turned a short, turbulent relationship with John Mayer into a six-minute reckoning. Back to December addressed Taylor Lautner, notable for being one of her few apology songs.

Fans leaned into the intimacy, piecing together songs with the boyfriend’s splashed across tabloids. For them, the music felt like access - coded messages, inside jokes, heartbreak rendered in real time. The media took the same material and flattened it into a caricature: the “serial dater,” unserious and juvenile.

What they failed to see was that this was the business model. Few artists have sustained that degree of autobiographical openness at her scale. That intimacy became the engine of the parasocial relationship Taylor has with her fans; it’s why listeners feel like they are experiencing life alongside her. Taylor’s relatability is her magic in many ways.

Red (2012)

By 2012, Taylor Swift had consolidated control over her songwriting and proven she could scale a business on her own terms. The question was: what next? Stay rooted in country, or risk alienating that base to chase a larger market? Red became the pivot album - half-country, half-pop, caught between worlds.

The record was sprawling: 16 songs, later expanded to 22 on the deluxe edition. One minute there was Begin Again and Treacherous - traditional ballads steeped in Nashville. The next, I Knew You Were Trouble and We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together - Max Martin and Shellback pop hits designed for Top 40 radio.

One song, however, towered over the rest.

All Too Well was written in the aftermath of her breakup with Jake Gyllenhaal, beginning as a 10-minute stream of consciousness she trimmed down to five minutes for the album. Co-written with Liz Rose, it was diaristic, cinematic, and brutally specific. Whilst it wouldn’t chart during 2012, All Too Well (10 Minute Version) from Red (Taylor’s Version) would become the longest song in history to top the Billboard Hot 100.

Commercially, Red was massive but fell short in Awards season. It debuted at No. 1, sold 1.2 million copies in its first week, and produced her first global pop anthems. Yet at the 2014 GRAMMYs, it lost Album of the Year to Daft Punk’s Random Access Memories. Critics called the album unfocused. Taylor openly admitted she was devastated.

“I remember not going to afterparties,” she admits. “I went home and I cried a little bit, and I got In-N-Out Burger and ate a lot.”

Her response captured the mindset that’s defined her entire career; using criticism as fuel.

“You have a few options when you don’t win an award. You can decide like, Oh, they’re wrong, they all voted wrong. Second, you can be like, I’m gonna go up on the stage and take the mic from whoever did win it. Or third, you can say, maybe they’re right - maybe I did not make the record of my career. Maybe I need to fix the problem, which was that I have not been making sonically cohesive albums. I need to really think about whether I’m listening to a scared record label and what that’s doing to the art I’m making.”

From a business perspective, Red accomplished two things. First, it validated her instinct that the ceiling in country was too low; the pure pop tracks were clear winners on the album. Second, it revealed the durability of her fanbase. Despite the stylistic whiplash, they stayed with her. That loyalty gave her the green light to fall headfirst into pop.

1989 (2014)

1989 - the best pop album of all time.

Welcome to New York, Blank Space, Style, Shake It Off, Bad Blood, Wildest Dreams. Talk about a generational run.

At the 58th Annual GRAMMY Awards in 2016, 1989 made Taylor the first woman to win Album of the Year twice. It became the first album to produce three No. 1 singles since Katy Perry’s Teenage Dream (close contender for best pop album of all time in my opinion). By 2016, the 1989 World Tour had grossed $250 million, making it the highest-grossing tour in U.S. history at the time.

To promote the album, Taylor hosted “Secret Sessions” in her own home, handpicking fans from Tumblr and Twitter to hear the album early. They flooded social media with photos and stories of Taylor playing them unreleased tracks and baking them cookies.

Then came the Spotify fight. In July 2014, Taylor wrote a Wall Street Journal op-ed arguing that streaming economics undervalued music:

“In recent years, you’ve probably read articles about major recording artists who have decided to practically give their music away for this promotion or that exclusive deal. My hope for the future, not just in the music industry, but in every young girl I meet… is that they realize all their worth and ask for it. Music is art, and art is important and rare. Important, rare things are valuable. Valuable things should be paid for. It’s my opinion that music should not be free and my prediction is that individual artists and their labels will someday decide when an album price point is. I hope they don’t underestimate themselves or undervalue their art.”

A week after 1989 dropped, Taylor pulled her entire catalogue from Spotify. This is the first time we really see Taylor step into the role as an advocate for artists, the self-proclaimed “loud person of the music industry”.

Three years later, she would return, but only on her terms. Power move.

When Apple Music launched in 2015 with a three-month free trial that paid artists nothing, Taylor intervened again:

“We don’t ask you for free iPhones. Please don’t ask us to provide you with our music for no compensation.”

Within 24 hours, Apple reversed course - a rare public concession from the world’s biggest company (at this point in time). Taylor was no longer just participating in culture, she was influencing corporate policy. Her name held measurable brand equity and the weight of her power extended beyond the charts and into the boardrooms of billion-dollar companies.

This was also the era where Taylor mastered the art of public narrative. The “squad” - a curated circle of models, actresses, and musicians - functioned less as a friend group and more as a brand extension. The Bad Blood music video was no less than a cultural artefact, positioning Taylor as the nucleus of a power network disguised as a sisterhood.

Her relationships continued to surface in the music - Harry Styles lingered in Style and Out of the Woods, while Calvin Harris and Tom Hiddleston kept her in the tabloids. Unlike earlier eras, the relationships felt secondary; fuel for specific songs, but not the whole story.

By the end of the 1989 cycle, she was officially the world’s biggest pop star.

Reputation (2017)

The unraveling began with a song. On Valentine’s Day 2016, Kanye West released The Life of Pablo. Buried inside was Famous, with a lyric that reduced Taylor Swift to a punchline, made worse by a music video that depicted a naked wax figure of her in bed. West insisted she had approved the line. Taylor said she hadn’t. Then Kim Kardashian released Snapchat clips of a phone call that seemed to show otherwise.

The internet took its side and “Taylor Swift is over” trended worldwide. Trolls spammed her Instagram with the snake emoji. For someone who had grown up on approval and applause, the reversal was devastating.

Taylor went into hiding.

“You have a fully manufactured frame job, in an illegally recorded phone call, which Kim Kardashian edited and then put out to say to everyone that I was a liar,” she says. “That took me down psychologically to a place I’ve never been before. I moved to a foreign country. I didn’t leave a rental house for a year. I was afraid to get on phone calls. I pushed away most people in my life because I didn’t trust anyone anymore. I went down really, really hard.”

It was an exile that seemed total.

When Reputation dropped in November 2017, it was either going to mark the end of Taylor’s career or her renaissance. The stakes couldn’t have been higher.

The lead single Look What You Made Me Do played like a declaration of war. Fans braced for an album of anger and self pity. What they got was far more nuanced. Beneath the hard exterior, much of Reputation was written by a Taylor falling in love.

Introducing Joe Alwyn, a British actor largely unknown outside indie film circles. He was the opposite of her high-profile exes: quiet, private, uninterested in gossip. Their relationship, which would last through the next four albums, marked more than romance. It signalled a turning point where Taylor began asserting greater control over her image and choosing what parts of her life the public would - and wouldn’t - get to see.

When Look What You Made Me Do shot to No. 1, and the album sold 1.3 million copies in its first week - second only to 1989 - she did not look like someone whose career had been cancelled. She looked like a superstar still mining her personal life as successfully as ever.

The Reputation Stadium Tour grossed $345 million worldwide, breaking the record for the highest-grossing U.S. tour of all time. More than the numbers though, the album reset her public image. The old archetypes of America’s sweetheart, the serial dater, the girl scribbling in her bedroom no longer applied. Reputation presented Taylor as a complex character, refusing to let you judge her.

Lover (2019)

After two years in the shadows of Reputation, Taylor Swift re-emerged a little wiser and a lot more in love. Lover, released in August 2019, was marketed as her “return to light” - a deliberate soft reset after the darkness of snakes, armour, and barbed wire. Love, she reminded the world, was something she had always done better than revenge.

The album was intimate and real. The hyper-specific atmosphere of pastel and pink skies that contrasted so strongly with Reputation proved once again Taylor’s ability to switch aesthetics without losing her audience.

To release an album drenched in sincerity after years of public trials was not an act of naivety, but of courage. Taylor risked vulnerability, writing about love without irony, about anxiety, about self-doubt without disguise, about politics, at a time when cynicism would have been safer.

‘Cause they see right through me
They see right through me
They see right through
Can you see right through me?
They see right through
They see right through me
I see right through me
I see right through me

The Archer captures the essence of Lover in a single breath - vulnerable and exposed – it is the sound of Taylor at her most relatable.

Importantly, Lover was the first album she owned outright under her new Republic deal. After six albums that built Big Machine’s balance sheet, this one built hers.

Folklore (2020)

In July 2020, Taylor Swift executed one of the great pivots in modern pop.

In the midst of a global pandemic, Taylor announced via an Instagram post at 8am that her eighth album, Folklore, would drop that night at midnight.

Taylor described it as “a collection of songs and stories that flowed like a stream of consciousness.” For years, Taylor had been the “country-pop” singer, with too many boyfriends and too much drama. Taylor abandoned her confessional-style songwriting with Folklore, and with it, reached new heights of literary acclaim and celebrity.

The Last Great American Dynasty told the story of Rebekah Harkness, the former owner of Taylor’s Rhode Island mansion. Betty, Cardigan, and August stitched together a teenage love triangle, each from a different perspective. For over a decade, her songwriting had been dismissed as clever diary-entries. With Folklore, she transcended that critique entirely, showing she could build entire fictional universes and still hold listeners rapt.

For the second time in her life, Taylor Swift expanded her market. First, she had proved that her music could cross from Nashville radio to teenage bedrooms, from country loyalists to mainstream pop. With Folklore, she reached listeners who had never considered themselves fans - indie kids, critics, older audiences - and pulled them into her orbit.

Folklore was the entry album for a whole new demographic of Swifties. It sold two million units in its first week globally and broke Spotify’s record for the biggest opening day for a female artist. It took only one week to become 2020s best selling album in the US. She won 2021’s GRAMMY for Album of the Year for the third time, making her the first woman to earn that title and tying her with legends like Stevie Wonder and Frank Sinatra.

Folklore expanded the definition of what a Taylor Swift album could be.

Evermore (2020)

Five months later, in December 2020, Taylor did it again. With no warning, she announced Evermore, calling it Folklore’s “sister record.” I think Taylor might be the only artist alive who could execute at this speed and quality.

Evermore debuted at No. 1 on the Billboard 200, her eighth consecutive chart-topping album. The numbers confirmed what Folklore had already suggested: Taylor no longer needed traditional marketing or tours to win. She owned her distribution. One Instagram post was enough to trigger millions of sales, streams, and vinyl pre-orders globally.

More than numbers, Evermore was about consolidation. Together, the two albums solidified Taylor’s status not just as a pop star but as a generational songwriter capable of thriving in multiple registers. For critics who had long viewed her as a pop confection, Folklore and Evermore forced a major re-evaluation.

Midnights (2022)

Released in October 2022, Midnights marked Taylor Swift’s return to pop’s main stage after two years of indie folk detours.

After fifteen years of playing protagonist in the global tabloid economy, she turned the joke inward. Midnights isn’t about breakups or feuds so much as the weight of being Taylor Swift. It’s the artist narrating her own archetypes - the anti-hero, the vigilante, the insomniac - marking the moment she stopped being written about and started writing her own legend (we will see Taylor do this more often in TTPD and TLOAS).

The release shattered records. Midnights logged the biggest Spotify debut in history (184.6 million streams in 24 hours) and occupied all Top 10 spots on the Billboard Hot 100 simultaneously - the first artist ever to do so. At the 66th Annual GRAMMY Awards in 2024, Midnights made her the first artist to win Album of the Year four times; it also won Best Pop Vocal Album.

Midnights was proof that, after fifteen years in the public eye, she could still seize the centre of culture and redefine the rules of chart success.

Subscribe now

The Tortured Poets Department (2024)

Announced in February during a GRAMMY acceptance speech and released in April, TTPD arrived as a surprise double album: 31 tracks, sprawling and literary. It wasn’t designed for radio in the way 1989 was, or even for indie credibility like Folklore.

TTPD was an album for the fans.

The references came rapid-fire: Dylan Thomas, Sylvia Plath, Patti Smith, Joseph Campbell. Breakup postmortems sat next to inside jokes, existential spirals next to late-night voice notes. To outsiders, it read as indulgent and depressing. To insiders - the Swifties who live in TikTok comments, chase down Easter Eggs and annotate lyrics like English teachers - it was like Christmas had come early.

Underpinning the album was massive personal upheaval. Taylor was processing the end of a six-year relationship with Joe Alwyn, the quiet English actor many thought she’d marry. She was also closing the door on a decade-long entanglement with Matty Healy. At the same time, she was falling, loudly and publicly, for Travis Kelce, a Kansas City Chiefs tight end who seemed to exist in the cultural opposite of indie anonymity. This album somehow manages to catch all three of these moments.

Within its first 24 hours, TTPD broke Spotify’s single-day streaming record (over 300 million streams). It debuted at No. 1 on the Billboard 200 with the biggest opening week of her career. The release became the equivalent of a product launch event: fans camped outside record stores for midnight vinyl drops, TikTok flooded with lyric theories, and headlines stretched across both culture pages and business journals.

Taylor was testing the outer limits of how much narrative the market could absorb and finding no ceiling.

The Life of a Showgirl (2025)

As performers get older, and more successful, their willingness to pivot typically softens as well. So it’s intriguing (yet maybe not suprising) that with The Life of a Showgirl, Taylor offers a whole set of new propositions.

The reviews have been mixed. Some critics are calling it her weakest record; others see it as another reinvention. But that split reaction may actually be the most accurate way to listen to The Life of a Showgirl.

The entire theme of the album is multiplicity. Taylor is not just one thing here - she’s witty, she’s in love, she’s mourning, she’s sarcastic, she’s supportive, she’s the eldest daughter holding everything together. And she’s doing it all in sequins and lace.

“This album is about what was going on behind the scenes in my inner life during this tour, which was so exuberant and electric and vibrant.”

The album isn’t supposed to feel cohesive; it’s supposed to feel like too much. The Life of a Showgirl is a culmination of what it felt like to live inside the chaos of the Eras years; a sold-out world tour, performing on average every 4.2 days, singing 44 songs across three-and-a-half hours, running the length of a stadium stage night after night all while falling in love, recording a new album, and re-recording Speak Now and 1989.

In its first day, it sold 2.7 million copies in the U.S. - more than TTPD managed in its entire first week. As of two days ago, Taylor officially broke Adele’s decade long record for biggest album sales in a single week, passing 3.5 million units sold.

If I sound like I am repeating myself, it’s because I am.

Taylor Swift isn’t just the biggest artist in the world, she’s the benchmark. At this point, her only competition is herself.

The Re-Recordings and the Eras Tour

By 2018, Taylor Swift had delivered six albums to Big Machine Records, the independent label that had bet on her as a teenager. In return, she had carried the company on her back. Industry estimates suggested her catalogue accounted for as much as 80% of Big Machine’s revenue.

Taylor revealed via her Tumblr that for years, she had been trying to regain control of her masters. Big Machine refused and instead, offered a trade: for every new album she made with them, she would receive an old one in return.

She refused: “I had to make the excruciating choice to leave behind my past.”

Under her new record deal with Universal Music Group, she made sure she owned the rights to all of her albums.

In 2019, Big Machine was sold to Scooter Braun’s Ithaca Holdings in a deal valued around $300 million, giving him control of her catalogue. A year later, Braun sold Taylor’s masters, videos, and artwork to Shamrock Capital for about $300 million again (noting her work was ~80% of Big Machine’s revenue, this was about a 20% markup in 1 year for Scooter Braun).

Then, Kelly Clarkson tweeted an idea:

It sounded absurd. To replicate six albums, Taylor would have to reassemble collaborators, recreate arrangements, and re-inhabit songs about teenage heartbreak with a thirty-year-old’s voice.

No one thought she would do it.

But Taylor is a maniac on a mission. For her to dedicate prime years of her career to this project, to spend time doing this instead of creating the next album, proves just how much she wants this. The Taylor’s Version project was not merely a protest but rather a masterful exercise in vertical integration, allowing her to recapture 100% of the masters revenue stream and exert maximum leverage over distributors.

From 2006 to 2019, she had averaged ten new songs a year (or a new album roughly every two years). So it’s completely implausible that Taylor could recreate her old albums AND keep making new albums, right?

Wrong.

In 2020, she released 25 songs. In 2021, 46 songs. Alongside two brand-new albums (Folklore and Evermore), she released the re-recordings with Fearless (Taylor’s Version) and Red (Taylor’s Version). What looked like an impossible workload became a demonstration of will.

“It’s all in how you deal with loss,” she says. “I respond to extreme pain with defiance.”

The results were undeniable. Fearless (Taylor’s Version) debuted at No. 1, as did Folklore and Evermore. She became the first artist in history to release three albums in less than a year that all entered at the top of the charts. By this point, her negotiation with Universal had already set a new benchmark: future masters would be hers outright, licensed to the label for only ten years, after which she would regain full control. Industry insiders called it the most artist-friendly deal in modern history.

This was happening in tandem with The Eras Tour. Announced in late 2022, The Eras Tour was the most ambitious live project of Taylor Swift’s career: a 3.5 hour retrospective spanning all ten albums. Each era, country, pop, indie-folk, and beyond, was staged as a chapter in a single narrative, turning her discography into one cohesive live product.

The record-breaking ticket sales of The Eras Tour are a direct result of Taylor Swift’s monopolistic pricing power over her core audience, demonstrating near-perfect demand inelasticity at the high end of the market. Demand was so overwhelming it crashed Ticketmaster, sparking congressional hearings on monopolistic practices in the live entertainment industry.

Taylor and her team understand that the modern concert model is less about a single show and more about Experience-as-a-Service (EaaS). The Eras Tour is a high-touch EaaS product where the ticket price covers the performance, but also grants access to a collective, hyper-social cultural moment.

The high initial spend on a ticket is merely the activation cost for a listener who will generate compounding revenue through re-recordings, streaming, merchandise, and future concert films for decades to come.

When the final show wrapped in Vancouver in December 2024, the scale was staggering. The tour stretched across 149 dates, visited 21 countries, and grossed over $2 billion in ticket sales. Taylor spent 484 hours on stage, the equivalent of more than 20 full days, performing to sold-out stadiums.

The Eras Tour generated enough profit to make her a billionaire outright and gave her the financial firepower to finally buy back the very masters that had once been sold out from under her. By turning her past into product, she had earned the capital to reclaim it.

Subscribe now

Investment Thesis on Taylor Swift, Inc.

Taylor Swift, Inc. represents the most durable artist-owned franchise in modern music. Through vertical integration of IP (albums + re-recordings), scaled distribution (direct-to-fan, social media), and monopolistic live events (The Eras Tour), Taylor has converted an inherently volatile industry into a recurring, diversified cash flow machine.

We initiate coverage with a Buy recommendation and a base-case valuation of $12.1bn, implying a 15.0x EV/EBITDA multiple on forward normalised earnings and valuing Taylor Swift, Inc. as a top-tier global entertainment company. We view the Taylor Swift, Inc. franchise as a “trophy asset”, with material upside anchored in catalogue appreciation, repeatable touring economics, and ancillary monetisation via films and DTC sales.

Key drivers:

1. Recurring IP annuity stream: Ownership of masters and control over publishing creates a long-duration cash flow profile comparable to other evergreen top tier catalogues, which have sold at 22x+ annual earnings. Our assumption is that Taylor is in the Top 3 biggest artists in the world, and therefore merits a premium to the top end of this range given her legacy status and growth trajectory

2. Touring as a franchise, not an event: By structuring multi-year, stadium-scale tours, Taylor effectively annualises ~$170m of EBITDA every cycle

3. Ancillary monetisation flywheel: Concert films, streaming partnerships, and DTC merchandising add repeatable layers of monetisation. Taylor has demonstrated an ability to commercialise content across platforms at high incremental margins

Bottom Line: Taylor Swift, Inc. is a vertically integrated monopoly with optionality far beyond music.

Earnings

Disclaimer: This valuation is a thought exercise only. Taylor Swift, Inc. is not a publicly traded company, and the numbers presented here are illustrative, not precise. Valuing an artist is inherently speculative given the unique, finite, and unpredictable nature of their career, catalog, and cultural impact. Treat this analysis as entertainment, not investment advice.

Valuation (Sum of the parts)

We value Taylor Swift, Inc. at an enterprise value of $12.1bn, implying a 15.0x EV/EBITDA multiple on estimated EBITDA of $804m. Including non-operating assets, net worth is $12.2bn.

• Touring ($1.1bn / 9% of EV):

  Annualised EBITDA of $170m, we apply a 6.4x multiple to get a valuation of $1.1bn. Multiple based off median of comps Live Nation and TKO, but adjusted with 50% discount for finite life. Touring remains event-driven and cyclical, but Taylor’s stadium-scale economics and pricing power is unmatched

• Recorded Music ($8.6bn / 71% of EV):

  The core asset. Using a 28.6x multiple (30% premium to the 22x multiple that top-tier catalogues receive) to get a valuation of $8.6bn, we reflect the durability and scarcity value of Taylor’s catalogue. The asset trades above industry norms due to its cultural permanence, continued relevance via re-recordings, and global streaming power

• Movies ($2.0bn / 16% of EV):

  Using industry median multiple of 15.2x, benchmarked to comps such as Netflix, Disney, and Warner Bros and then applying 50% discount to account for concentration risk, we value the movies segment at $2.0bn. The concert film strategy demonstrates Taylor’s ability to monetise distribution across formats, creating an annuity-like earnings stream with high scalability

• Direct-to-Consumer ($357m / 3% of EV):

  Using industry median multiple of 10.2x, benchmarked to consumer product comps such as Funko and Hasbro, we value the DTC segment at $357m. While smaller in contribution, DTC sales underscore Taylor’s unique integration of fan commerce into the music model

• Sponsorships ($80m / 1% of EV)

  Cash annuity stream during her active years, but not a perpetual asset. Earnings are personality-driven and non-transferable, dependent on Swift’s direct involvement.

Conclusion: Taylor Swift, Inc. is diversified across recorded music, touring, film, and DTC but its durability rests on the catalogue. Few entertainment assets combine permanence, pricing power, and fan loyalty at this scale.

The Playbook

If you put Taylor Swift, Inc. through Hamilton Helmer’s 7 Powers framework, you realise her career is basically a business school case study in moats. There’s a reason Harvard has a literal class on “Taylor Swift and Her World”.

I used this great resource to help me frame my thinking for Taylor Swift; the business.

1. Counter positioning is clear. The re-recordings are textbook counter positioning. Not many artists have ever attempted to remake their entire catalogue at scale - because why would they? It’s a massive effort, and in doing so, you actively devalue your old work. Other artists could theoretically try it, but they won’t: most don’t have the fan trust, the stamina, or the leverage to pull it off without cannibalising themselves

2. Taylor’s cornered resource is herself - her songwriting, her masters, and her work ethic. She owns the rights to her future catalogue, something no one else has. That deal with Universal is a cornered resource at contract level. On top of that, her cultural position - the parasocial trust she’s built over two decades - is an asset you can’t hire or buy

3. Branding is obvious. If you hear a song and it’s Taylor, you know it. If you don’t know it, someone tells you it’s Taylor, and suddenly it’s bigger just by association. That’s brand equity.

4. Switching costs are just as clear. When she pulled her catalogue from Spotify, Daniel Ek flew across the Atlantic to beg her back. No other artist creates that kind of platform-level dependency. For fans, “switching” isn’t just listening to another artist - it’s leaving behind a community, memories, identity built up over two decades. That’s an unusually high switching cost for any brand

5. Scale economies are maybe her sharpest edge. At her level, she could credibly threaten to go fully independent, bring distribution in-house, and the majors knew it. That’s why her Universal deal flipped the model: she licenses her masters instead of giving them up. The fear of “what if Taylor goes solo” got her the best contract in music history

6. Then there’s the fan network (network effects). Swifties don’t just consume music, they create an entire knowledge economy around it (bead industry during The Eras Tour 🚀). TikToks decoding Easter eggs, podcasts, Reddit threads - the lore is the distribution. Every new fan doesn’t just add value, they compound it, and I think this is a real testament to the fact that Taylor has had direct access to her fans from day one, allowing them to build a parasocial relationship like no other artist

7. Process Power: Taylor’s organisation, from her family, who backed her career like founders investing early capital, to her band, who has been with her since she was 16, to Tree Paine, who rewrote the modern playbook for celebrity crisis management; everyone operates with insane precision. Every pivot, album rollout, re-recording, tour looks effortless from the outside but is actually the product of a system honed over decades of practice

Beyond the traditional seven powers, two additional dynamics have become defining features of Taylor Swift, Inc.

First: productivity. Taylor is hungry, she is a maniac on a mission. No other artist, perhaps since Mozart, wants it as badly as Taylor.

Second: narrative distortion. Steve Jobs was famous for his reality distortion field, where he bent perception to match his vision. Taylor is a master at choosing the version of the story that lands with the biggest cultural punch. Was she blindsided by the sale of her masters or warned a day before? Was she denied the chance to buy them, or did she hate the terms? It doesn’t matter. The version that wins is the one Taylor tells.

What began as a teenager knocking on doors in Nashville has become a billion-dollar enterprise and a cultural institution. Taylor Swift’s power lies not just in her voice, her songwriting or her star power, but in her ability to keep reinventing herself while pulling her audience along for the ride. She is both CEO and storyteller, artist and operator - proof that in today’s culture, the most valuable companies might not be companies at all, but people.

In business terms, Taylor Swift has achieved what most founders never do: she’s scaled herself. Each song, album, and tour compounds, creating a flywheel of value - financial, cultural, and emotional. Her fight for ownership has created the most sophisticated entertainment enterprise of the century.

As The Guardian’s Laura Snapes noted, she has no peers.

Chuck Klosterman put it more bluntly: “Weren’t we told they don’t make pop stars this big anymore? Nobody bothered to tell Taylor Swift.”

Barbara Walters distilled it into a single line: “Taylor Swift IS the music industry.”

Call it what you want: artist, empire, institution. If there were ticker symbol ‘SWFT,’ I’d have it on permanent buy.

Five years ago, you could email or DM a founder and buy them a cup of coffee in exchange for 30 minutes of their time. Today, Silicon Valley mentors are charging $2,500 for their advice.

Welcome to the Expert Economy - where advice is no longer free, it’s a luxury good.

Just as Cameo made celebrity shout-outs a commodity and OnlyFans put relationships on subscription, Intro has turned expertise into an on-demand service.

For some, this feels capitalistic and misaligned with the ethos of what made Silicon Valley so great. People are nostalgic for a time when 12 year old Steve Jobs could look up Bill Hewlett, the co-founder of Hewlett-Packard, in the phone book to ask for spare parts and end up with a summer job. When Larry Page and Sergey Brin could email Jeff Bezos asking for advice and mentorship and instead walk away with a $250,000 cheque for their seed round.

Alas, the yellow pages are gone and thousands are opening their wallets for the very same access that was once free. The phrase “pick your brain” has been productised; one founder joked about feeling like “an OnlyFans girl but for tech founders”. Tongue-in-cheek as that may be, it underscores a new reality: access to expertise has become a luxury good, and a generation of “intellectual influencers” are cashing in.

Subscribe now

Intro is a LA based startup founded by entrepreneur in late 2020, born from his own aha moment. As an 18-year-old, Mobrem had a chance encounter with Kinko’s founder Paul Orfalea – a brief chat that years later, led him to found Intro, with a mission to democratise access to the world’s best experts.

“In 15 minutes, I learned more about being an entrepreneur than I could have elsewhere. I left our chat feeling inspired, and as I became an entrepreneur, Paul became a lifelong mentor.” - Raad Mobrem

Intro is a marketplace app that lets you book one-on-one video calls with experts for personalised advice.

Experts are not just CEOs or founders, the categories on Intro range widely:

• Home - where you can book time with world-class interior designers, architects, and builders for advice on renovations, styling and construction

• Wellness - where you can speak directly with nutritionists, trainers, and specialists to level up your health

• Career & Business - where you can learn from CEOs, operators, and coaches

• Style & Beauty - where you can get personalised advice with celebrity stylists and makeup artists

• Astrology - where you can discover your future via live readings with astrologers, psychics, and spiritual guides

Using Intro feels like if LinkedIn, Zoom, and Airbnb had a baby. You can browse profiles of thousands of accomplished individuals, complete with bios, areas of expertise, and listed fees. You might see the Reddit cofounder, a Shark Tank investor, a celebrity stylist, or an AD100 interior designer all in one place.

Booking is as easy as picking a time slot and paying through the app. Sessions are offered in 15, 30, 45, or 60-minute increments, and experts set their own rates. For instance, Pilates entrepreneur Sami Clarke starts at $225 for 15 minutes, while Oprah’s favourite designer Nate Berkus charges $900 for 15 minutes.

Here’s what they offer for their 15 minute sessions:

Sami - 15 minute session: $225

• ask three or more questions

• advice on living a healthier lifestyle

• tips and tricks

• how to eat well

Nate - 15 minute session: $900

• ask three or more questions

• advice on decorating one room

• names of favourite vendors & brands

• tips on how to save time and money

Some experts offer personalised plans, such as the $60k a month plan with Nikita Bier (founder who sold two businesses to Discord and Facebook), where you receive 1:1 mentoring to build a viral app.

What makes Intro different?

The model inevitably draws comparisons to Cameo or MasterClass, but Intro occupies its own corner of the internet. Cameo commoditised access to celebrities via the birthday shoutout whilst MasterClass turned expertise into pre-recorded videos. If MasterClass is a lecture, Intro is office hours. It’s live and personal.

Key things that make Intro so great:

1. Celebrity cap table

   1. Intro’s backers look more like a Vanity Fair Oscars party than a startup round sheet. Andreessen Horowitz led the $10M seed, joined by Alexis Ohanian, CAA founder Michael Ovitz, Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon, 23andMe’s Anne Wojcicki, Kevin Durant, Tiffany Haddish, and more.

   2. This means in-built distribution. When your investors are also users, you inherit their audiences, credibility, and media pull, keeping your CAC low

   3. Clearly, they have a LinkedIn template for experts to plug and post to their network, reducing friction for easy distribution

2. Scarcity value + breadth across categories

   1. Intro sits in a sweet spot: high prices and big names give it scarcity value, but the breadth (VCs, interior designers, astrologers) makes it relevant across categories

   2. Someone might join for career advice and later get hooked on booking fun calls like a horoscope reading or skincare consultation. LTV of your customers is designed to grow with use - a very strong signal IMO

3. Timing and slick UX

   1. Intro launched in a world where people are used to paying for advice through a screen. COVID normalised Zoom therapy, Telehealth and online tutoring. Its mobile-first UX (reminders, countdown clocks, even giftable sessions) means Intro is front of mind for users, meaning stronger repeat rates (already ~45%)

Should we have to pay for access

The rise of Intro forces an uncomfortable question: what is the value of expertise and who gets access to it?

Intro’s mission is ostensibly democratisation.

For a startup founder in Nebraska or a designer in Bali, being able to hop on a call with a Silicon Valley VC or a Hollywood stylist is revolutionary.

As CEO Raad Mobrem frames it:

“If you have the luxury of living in Silicon Valley… that’s amazing. But a lot of people don’t.”

But the irony is obvious. This access isn’t free - a 30-minute chat with an A-list investor can cost $2,000+. That’s hardly accessible to the scrappy entrepreneur with maxed-out credit cards. Does Intro expand networks or create a velvet rope around mentorship? Probably both. It opens doors, but only for those who can pay the cover charge.

And to that I say - that’s capitalism baby!

The way I see it, Intro is specifically focused on helping users solve problems. You pay for a session with an expert because you have a problem you think they know how to solve.

What happens after the call is entirely up to you - maybe you hit it off, maybe you meet again outside the app. That’s great! You used Intro to help you access that expert, someone who would never answer a cold DM, and then used that first conversation to launchpad into a real life relationship.

In that sense, Intro doesn’t kill meritocracy so much as expose it. Access has always been gated - now at least the exchange is explicit: time for money. The price tag itself becomes the filter, a shorthand for seriousness (or at least disposable income).

“When someone is willing to spend money or have skin in the game to have a conversation… it shows they actually care.” - Alex Lieberman, cofounder of Morning Brew

The next question I ask is whether a 15-minute call can really be worth $500? For some, yes. Roughly 45% of users return for another session, a repeat rate that signals stickiness. And I get the appeal. Imagine the dopamine hit of jumping from a call with the American Airlines chairman one day to the founder of Drybar the next. Access itself can feel addictive.

So, is Intro elitist? Maybe. But it’s also honest, and I sort of love it. Unlike the old “pay-it-forward” mythos, where mentorship quietly clustered around insiders, Intro makes the transaction explicit. In doing so, it turns access to experts into what it’s always been in culture: a luxury good.

Of course, none of this means the old playbook is necessarily dead. Cold DMs, networking at events, or hustling your way into the right room still open doors and is very important when creating long-term relationships. But that route takes time. Where Intro shines is in solving for immediacy: you’ve got a specific problem or burning question, and for 15 minutes you can buy clarity straight from someone who’s been there before.

How Intro makes money

Intro takes a 10% cut from the expert if the customer booked via a direct link to the expert’s page, 30% cut if the client found the consultant via Intro’s website directory, or 50% cut if the booking was made via a social media ad.

Key metrics:

• 30,000 sessions completed as of mid-2024, with projections to triple by year-end

• 20,000+ businesses using Intro

• 15,000+ five star reviews and a 45% repeat rate

• 1,200 experts across tech, wellness, design, with earnings potential of $500k a year

• 14,000+ people on the waitlist to become and expert on the platform

• Customers range from early stage startups to the CEOs, C-suite, and employees of large enterprise companies like Google, Meta, and more.

Intro has some great traction, testing just how high people will pay for knowledge and taking a healthy chuck of every transaction.

If I were Head of Growth at Intro, this is what I would focus on:

1. Cement Intro into culture

Intro already benefits from the network effects and borrowed distribution of their experts and cap table.

But to really cement themselves into culture (which all good consumer apps MUST do), I think they could use some guerrilla marketing tactics. In consumer tech, perception is distribution. Bumble is a great example: Bumble put up signs all over university campuses that said things like “No Texting, No Snapchat, No Bumble, No Facebook.”

Then, college girls/guys wearing Bumble T-shirts would enter large lecture halls late (10-15 minutes after class begins), making a big commotion. The goal was to catch attention, make people wonder “What is Bumble?”, spark word-of-mouth, and prompt students to look it up / download it - cementing Bumble in campus culture. This ties directly to the Rule of 7, a marketing principle suggesting a potential customer must encounter a brand’s message at least seven times before making a purchase decision.

So, how can Intro manipulate culture and get in front of people?

Well - you need some really famous people involved.

Imagine this: Elon Musk opens a single Intro slot for $1. Or Mark Zuckerberg does a 10-minute call with the first person who gets through from a waiting list. The mechanics are simple but the impact is disproportionate. Intro gets flooded with users on the waitlist, whilst simultaneously generating a media cycle for free. If the site crashes, lean into it. Or maybe you could sneakily engineer it to happen anyways… in consumer internet history, demand crashing the system has always been proof of product-market fit.

The outcome is threefold: Intro pulls in users at scale without paid spend; those users stick around to explore the long-tail of experts once they’re inside; and most importantly, Intro becomes the latest brand at the top of everyones’ lips.

2. Collab with Lectures on Tap (Office Hours?)

Right now, Intro is bound by a Zoom window. But the fastest-growing consumer brands create omnichannel resonance (we’ve seen this with Glossier, Redbull and countless Rhode pop-ups way before Sephora announcement). If I were head of growth, I’d partner with Lectures on Tap to turn Intro experts into headline acts.

Lectures on Tap is an event series where professors and experts give thought-provoking lectures inside of bars across NYC, LA, SF, Boston and Chicago. You check in, grab a drink, listen to a 40-minute talk, and then debate it with strangers until midnight.

How this would play out:

• Sponsor or co-host events where Intro experts headline

• Give attendees discount codes to book 1:1 sessions after the event

• Create an after-event Slack/Whatsapp group so conversations continue beyond the bar

Conversion rates skyrocket once you’ve had a great offline experience. Someone who’s been in a room with a world-class designer is much more likely to book the expert for a follow-up session later.

More importantly, it reframes what Intro is selling. It’s no longer just time with experts, one on one in a zoom vortex, it’s membership and access to a community of ambitious, curious people. That social stickiness is critical in reducing churn. An app framed as a tool is only as valuable as the next call you need to book. A brand framed as a community is harder to leave behind.

3. B2B play

There’s a reason everyone is so obsessed with B2B SaaS sales.

B2B SaaS combines predictable recurring revenue, high margins, and sticky “land-and-expand” customer dynamics, meaning investors see it as the most reliable way to compound growth while building defensible, globally scalable businesses.

Intro should stop thinking of itself as DTC (direct-to-consumer). If I was head of growth, I would embed Intro inside the institutions that manufacture ambitious people at scale.

Accelerators are the obvious play. If YC, Techstars, or Antler bundled Intro credits into their founder packages, Intro instantly acquires a captive audience of founders who desperately need tactical advice. The accelerators foot the bill, but the users stick long after Demo Day. That’s recurring, high-intent usage baked into the lifecycle of entrepreneurship. This also benefits experts, giving them the opportunity to not only earn some cash, but also exposure to many interesting founders who they may like to invest in personally.

The same logic applies to corporate upskilling. Consulting firms, banks, law firms, even government departments already spend millions on training budgets. Intro undercuts on cost, overdelivers on actually useful advice, and suddenly employees are bragging, “We brought in a Spotify PM for our offsite via Intro.” As a plus, users might like it so much they use it outside of work, on their own dime. Think remodelling their kitchen, nutritional help or even gifting your “woo woo” mother in law a live tarot reading.

By becoming institutional infrastructure, Intro gets SaaS-like predictability layered on top of consumer virality.

The rise of the Expert Economy underscores a truth of the modern world: access is the new aspirational product. Just as we pay for VIP experiences or exclusive content, we’re now paying for access to minds and networks.

My opinion is that Intro is simply formalising something that’s always existed informally. Ambitious people have always sought out mentors and experts for advice; now it’s just more efficient, albeit more transactional.

For now, one thing is certain – the next time someone asks, “Dinner with Jay Z or $500,000 in cash?”, well, there’s an app for that. And plenty of takers for the dinner.

There are two ways to build a consumer internet giant: chase attention or cultivate intention.

Instagram and TikTok pull you in with dopamine hits and infinite scrolls. Pinterest shows you your dream life, then helps you plan it. It’s not a social network, nor a pure utility like Google Search. It’s something in between: a tool you open in planning mode, with a content layer that feels like you.

Pinterest makes us fluent in the visual language of dreams, imagination, and creativity. It’s an intimate look at the future you. That’s why it’s amassed 578 million monthly active users, US$4 billion in annualised revenue, and a rare position in advertising where ads don’t interrupt the experience - they form part of it.

This deep dive explores:

• How a failed shopping app inspired Pinterest

• Why Pinterest deliberately lagged monetisation - and why it’s now its biggest advantage

• How they make money

• The non-obvious reasons Pinterest wins (and why they’re hard to copy)

• And, finally, what I’d do if I were Head of Growth at Pinterest.

Let’s get started.

Before there was Pinterest, there was Tote (2008–2010)

Like many great businesses, the first product failed.

In 2009, after a short stint at Google, Ben Silbermann teamed up with his college friend Paul Sciarra to build Tote, an app where users could shop, save, find deals, receive price drop notifications, and read about the latest fashion trends.

To bring Tote to life, Ben and Paul manually scraped websites, entered product SKUs, hand-coded catalogue images, and optimistically hoped users would embrace shopping on tiny 3.5” iPhone screens.

It was a perfectly logical idea… in 2025. But this was 2008. Shopping on your phone wasn’t a thing and no one was conditioned to that behaviour yet.

The other issue was that Apple’s App Store infrastructure wasn’t built for the pace of cloud-based app development. Ben and Paul would ship a new version of Tote before Apple had even finished reviewing the previous one. Apple simply couldn’t keep up with how fast Tote and the broader app ecosystem was evolving.

The thesis for Tote was right, but the timing was wrong.

Using Tote’s data as a starting point, they began hacking together a prototype for something new. As they iterated, they kept uncovering more about how people actually shopped. They found that users were screenshotting products and saving them for later. This insight would become the seed for the Pinterest we all know and love today.

Subscribe now

The Pinterest Pivot (2010–2012)

Around this time, Ben met Evan Sharp, an architecture grad student whose UX vision would end up shaping Pinterest in a pivotal way. The three teamed up, closed Tote, and doubled down on their shared vision: creating a place for people to organise their inspiration.

They launched Pinterest as an invite-only beta in 2010.

Instead of chasing tech bros or media insiders (who are often the perfect early adopters because they’re quick to try new products and spread the word), it caught fire with bloggers, teachers, moms, and brides-to-be - people who weren’t just scrolling boards but acting on them: redecorating rooms, cooking recipes, starting DIY projects. Ben had imagined Pinterest as a place to collect and organise ideas, but he hadn’t foreseen how much of that inspiration would spill into real life or how quickly people would share those results at scale.

In 2011, they launched the first Pinterest app on Apple’s App Store. Pinterest’s user base began compounding like crazy - 40–50% month-over-month. A few months later, TIME magazine featured Pinterest in a “50 Best Websites” round-up, and by December 2011, Pinterest was among the ten largest social media services in the world, attracting more than 11 million unique visitors per week. This growth led TechCrunch to declare Pinterest Best New Startup of 2011.

One of those early organic fans was Shana Fisher, then Head of M&A at IAC. IAC is a massive holding company that owns brands like People, InStyle, and previously Match Group (our Hinge article dives into them briefly).

She’d stumbled across Pinterest and fell in love, cold-emailing the team and asking to invest. They were stunned.

Pinterest was still in private beta (i.e. invites and referrals only) and they would be for the next two years.

Shana came on board, then introduced Kevin Hartz (Eventbrite co-founder and prolific angel in Airbnb) and Scott Belsky (Behance founder). Pinterest found itself in a rare and enviable position as a startup - investors were begging to give them money.

By May 2011, Bessemer Venture Partners, a legacy VC firm with early bets on Shopify, LinkedIn, and Yelp, led a $10M Series A at 17¢ a share. The user count hit 1M - still invite-only. By August 2011, Andreessen Horowitz, one of Silicon Valley’s most influential venture capital firms, swooped in with a $27M Series B, valuing Pinterest at $200M - up from $40M just three months earlier.

And again, less than a year after the Series B, in May 2012, Rakuten, the Japanese e-commerce giant, invested $100M at a $1.5B valuation.

Most founders in this position would have funnelled the new capital into aggressive user acquisition and paid marketing. Pinterest chose a different path: slow the external push and focus on investing and building out their team.

They hired world-class operators - Tim Kendall, an early Amazon employee was hired to eventually build the whole ads business and become president of Pinterest. They bring in Barry Schnitt, who was running marketing and communications at Facebook, and Don Fall, who was running operations at Facebook. They deliberately invested in female engineers, ensuring the team reflected its user base far more than the industry norm. This set Pinterest up with a foundational layer of expertise that comes through in later years.

And through all this? The crazy valuations, the hiring spree, the compounding user base - not a cent of revenue. Pinterest was even publicly leaning into the fact they weren’t monetising yet. In an era when Zuckerberg’s “move fast and break things” was gospel, Silbermann’s line at conferences was consistent: “We’ll monetise when we can do it thoughtfully, in a way that’s right for our users.”

It was patience bordering on defiance, a deliberate refusal to cash in early, and a bet that protecting the user experience now would compound into a much bigger payoff later.

Deliberate Growth, Delayed Monetisation (2012–2019)

In 2014, after four years of no revenue, Pinterest launched Promoted Pins.

The ad format was seamless - indistinguishable from organic pins except for a small “Promoted” tag - and perfectly aligned with user intent.

This period drew out some key realisations, mainly that Pinterest wasn’t a universal, all-day-everyday utility like Facebook. It was a time-and-place tool. People came when they were planning - a kitchen renovation, a wedding, a holiday wardrobe. That was the trade-off: smaller total addressable market, but the purchase intent per session is among the highest in consumer internet - and that’s a harder moat to breach than sheer scale.

And the monetisation engine proved it.

The IPO, COVID and today (2019 - 2025)

Pinterest IPO’d on the 18th April 2019 priced at $19 per share and closed on day one up 28%, rewarding existing shareholders.

Even with a smaller audience than the big social media companies, Pinterest sat in a lucrative spot in the commerce flow: selling the moment where inspiration turns into action.

During COVID-19, Pinterest exploded. Everyone was stuck at home, with a lot of time of their hands. Pinterest became the mood board for the at‑home, DIY renaissance. Monthly active users (MAUs) spiked to the high 400Ms by early 2021.

In 2022, founder Ben Silbermann moved to Executive Chairman; Bill Ready (ex‑Google Commerce/Payments) took over as CEO.

Bill reframed Pinterest as a commerce engine, a place that guides ready-to-buy shoppers straight to brands, while protecting the “positive intent” mindset that keeps its ads effective.

The results:

• Revenue climbed from US$3.65 billion in 2024 to an annualised run-rate of ~US$4 billion (LTM 2Q25)

  • Q2 2025 revenue hit US$998 million, up 17% YoY

  • This quarter marked the 12th consecutive quarter of growth since the middle of 2022

• Monthly Active Users (MAUs) rose from 553 million in 2024 to 578 million by Q2 2025

  • That’s 25 million more users in six months, with international markets driving the bulk of new sign-ups

  • Whilst US and Canada outpace the ARPU of the global users, it’s a positive sign that Europe ARPU is up 26% YoY, and Rest of World ARPU is up 44% YoY

  • The real revenue inflection point will come when international ad yields catch up to US levels, without needing to add a single new user

    

• Shopping ad growth is outpacing overall revenue growth

  • In Q2 2025, ad impressions grew 55%. Integrations with Amazon Ads and Google Ads continue to bring more in-stock, shoppable listings into Pinterest’s ecosystem, boosting advertiser ROI and click-to-buy activity

  • This is a strong signal that Bill’s plans are working, and that commerce could become Pinterest’s profit centre in the next 3–5 years

How does Pinterest make money?

Pinterest earns revenue from advertising.

Brands pay to promote Pins so they appear in front of users who are actively planning- a mindset that sits somewhere between Google’s “ready to buy” intent and Instagram’s passive scrolling. This makes Pinterest ads both high-converting and emotionally resonant.

Revenue = Ad Impressions × Revenue Per Ad

Put simply, to grow revenue, Pinterest must increase the number of ads it can serve and make each ad slot more valuable to advertisers.

Pinterest is executing a three-dimensional growth strategy: scale (users), yield (ad monetisation), and breadth (international expansion).

How do you increase the number of ad impressions?

1. increase the number of active users - this could be new geographies or new demographics (like men)

2. get users to visit more often and stay longer by showing them more personalised and engaging content

3. more users + more sessions = more monetisable supply

How do you increase the revenue per ad?

1. win more advertiser budgets - sophisticated performance marketers now allocate 5–10% of budgets to Pinterest as ROAS improves

2. improve ROAS by: better ad targeting so brands get higher click-through and conversion rates, allowing Pinterest to charge more

3. move closer to the transaction with shoppable features and retail partnerships to prove direct sales impact and justify higher ad prices

4. launch new premium ad formats (AR Try-On, video ads, collages) that can command higher prices

Non obvious reasons why Pinterest wins:

It’s the only platform for planning your dream life

Pinterest wins because it’s the only platform built to help you plan your dream life. It’s aspirational. Where else can you find that? As Ben Silbermann puts it:

“There are a lot of really valuable services that are always pushing you to communicate with other people. But there are relatively few services that are about helping you be the person you want to be and fulfilling your ambitions… I always describe Facebook and Twitter to some extent as ‘them time’… Pinterest, for a lot of users, is ‘me time.’ What do I want my future to be? Who am I? What are the things I want to do?”

Pinterest isn’t in the attention game; it’s in the ambition game - and it dominates that market completely.

Differentiated supply

Much of Pinterest’s content is user generated - photos people have taken and uploaded themselves, often tied to personal projects, tastes, or inspirations.

It’s like a global Instagram profile. That matters because the hardest thing to replicate in any platform is supply that doesn’t exist anywhere else. Features can be cloned, but when supply is commoditised, the value proposition flattens. Pinterest’s edge is that its catalogue of Pins is both vast and distinctive, and grows every day without Pinterest having to create it themselves.

This isn’t just about having unique content, it’s about having a self-renewing moat. Every Pin added strengthens the catalogue without costing Pinterest a cent, making its discovery experience harder to replicate and its ad inventory naturally more “native.”

Pinterest is global, with massive runway for monetisation outside the US

80% of users live outside the US, yet international markets make up just 20% of revenue. That is a massive opportunity for monetisation. Given Pinterest has already invested in building the infrastructure behind the platform and acquiring the user, every incremental dollar earned in new geographies drops almost entirely to the bottom line.

Evergreen content

The average Pin has a half-life of 13 months - meaning it’s still driving saves a year after posting. Many Pins keep resurfacing in search and feeds for years. Longer half-life means lower acquisition cost per engagement - you’re monetising the same content for years. In ad tech, that’s rare and ridiculously profitable.

A high-value audience

Two-thirds of Pinterest users are women - and women control the majority of household spending. Advertisers don’t just like this demographic; they build campaigns around it. Pinterest offers direct access.

Ads that feel like part of the experience

Because users arrive in planning mode, ads are received as part of the experience, not an interruption. Pinterest’s value lies in timing - users show up seeking inspiration, and brands that meet them in that moment can turn ideas into action. For advertisers, it’s less about pushing products and more about aligning with someone’s vision.

That’s why Pinterest is pulling off a rare feat in ad tech: serving more ads while growing engagement. Normally, higher ad load clutters the experience and drives people away. But when an ad for the exact kitchen tile you’ve been pinning shows up, it feels like an upgrade, not an intrusion.

It’s also why Pinterest has been so deliberate and slow about monetising. The company knows its moat depends on the platform still feeling positive and useful, not extractive. Protecting that intent-driven experience is what keeps people coming back, and what makes the ads work in the first place.

Aging down, not out

Over 50% of Pinterest’s users are Gen Z. Most platforms age up - their original audience sticks around while younger cohorts defect elsewhere. Think about how Facebook is filled with our Mums and Dads. Pinterest is doing the reverse.

Gen Z has lower spending power today, but enormous lifetime value once they hit peak earning years - and if they build the habit now, they’re locked in for decades. Very few platforms escape demographic gravity; Pinterest is one of them.

High-intent sessions

More than 50% of users open Pinterest with a shopping objective tied to a specific life event - a wedding, a move, a holiday, a new hobby. That’s purchase intent baked into the use case.

Personalisation that sticks

The more you pin, the better Pinterest gets at predicting what you want - something that’s notoriously hard to rebuild from scratch. That feedback loop has driven a 60% increase in saves per user, with inclusivity tweaks (skin tone ranges, body type filters) making recommendations feel more relevant and human.

Cultural forecast engine

Pinterest Predicts is a unique IP asset that turns billions of intent signals into trend forecasts brands can act on. Unlike other platforms that struggle to monetise their cultural influence (looking at you, Meta Ray-Bans), Pinterest has used these insights to help brands shape ad strategies and launch physical products, like the Emma Chamberlain coffee blend. It’s no longer just predicting culture, but rather packaging and selling it in a way no other social platform has managed to pull off.

If I was the Head of Growth for Pinterest, here are the things I would be focusing on:

Micro-ambassadors in habitual spaces in new geographies

Library assistants, baristas, pilates instructors.

Stay with me - I know it’s niche. I was thinking about the places I visit every week on a habitual basis. For me, it’s the coffee shop, my pilates studio.

Places where routines turn into relationships. The person on the other side - the barista who remembers your order, the instructor who greets you by name - holds an outsized level of trust and influence over a loyal, repeating audience.

If I was running growth at Pinterest, I would turn these “everyday hosts” into micro-ambassadors, running hyper-local campaigns that feel native to their space. A barista could curate a board of the café’s seasonal recipes, interiors, and playlist, shared via a QR code on every takeaway cup. A pilates instructor could make boards for “Sweat-proof makeup,” “Cute gym sets,” or “Class essentials” that members scan after class.

The genius is in the density of the interactions. You’re creating small, high-frequency loops where inspiration meets an existing relationship. The circle of influence is tiny but incredibly sticky - and when multiplied across hundreds or thousands of hosts, it becomes a quiet growth engine that feels personal, not programmatic.

In new geographies, the model doubles as cultural translation. Local hosts create boards in their own language, shaped by local tastes, introducing Pinterest in a way that feels native rather than imported. You have to meet users where they are - what works in New York won’t work in Seoul. Done well, it accelerates adoption in under-penetrated markets where top-down marketing fails, driving more sessions, more ad impressions, and higher buying intent, which in turn lifts CPMs and speeds monetisation.

Expand into print

Print is BACK baby.

Pinterest is basically already a magazine. If I was leading growth at Pinterest, I would run a quarterly issue that is the definitive guide to what’s trending, what tastemakers are wearing, and which restaurants, destinations, and experiences are up and coming. Each edition could be crowd-curated: part trend forecasting, part editorial with the authority of Vogue but the democratic taste of the internet.

Distribution could live in concept stores, hotel lobbies, and boutique bookshops - the kind of places people discover IRL inspiration.

This could bring in top of funnel acquisition, reaching audiences who may not be active Pinners but are aligned with the brand’s aspirational lifestyle, as well as open a new premium ad inventory in print, increasing ARPU without increasing ad load in-app.

A Pinterest magazine becomes THE place for cultural authority.

Open a Pinterest IRL third space in NYC

Imagine a flagship Pinterest space in NYC that feels like a blend of gallery, bookstore, café, and co-working hub - a third space designed for discovery.

A place that is completely free.

The concept plays into an idea I’m bullish on: big brands investing in spaces that “don’t make sense” on a P&L - at least not directly.

Step into an Apple Store, you can feel the simple, clean design seeping out of the walls. You know what a MacBook feels like before you’ve even touched it. It’s a sensory insight into the brand’s world.

Pinterest should tap into this, becoming a destination for visitors, and a regular haunt for locals. This would be a place to bring the brand to life, literally.

Walls could be projection-mapped to display live boards; each week, a different theme takes over the space (“Dream Kitchens Week,” “70s Revival Week,” etc.).

Pinterest could offer in-person workshops - from floristry to furniture restoration - all linked back to live Pinterest boards for ongoing inspiration. Every object in the room could be scanned, pinned, and purchased.

It also gives Pinterest ample opportunity to explore more product based collaborations - like the Emma Chamberlain collab. The cafe could stock exclusively Pinterest x Chamberlain Coffee beans.

I personally would love to see a Dairy Boy x Pinterest collaboration brought to life here, a space where you can literally buy into the next big trend. Think the fisherman aesthetic Dairy Boy pioneered, brought full circle: they create and spark the trend on Pinterest, then sell the physical pieces in-store. It’s aspiration meeting action, all under one roof.

Integration with Shopping Apps

If I was head of Pinterest, I would build an integration that lets users export their Pinterest boards directly into shopping apps like Locker or ShopMy.

Using AI to scrape the data, Locker/ShopMy could pull in all the images from a “Wardrobe” board, identify the exact products or close visual matches, and make them instantly shoppable.

For these shopping apps, this instantly injects a massive supply of high-quality, taste-driven images that aren’t just product, giving new users a ready-made reason to engage, and accelerating its taste graph by training LLMs on each user’s style preferences.

For Pinterest, the shopping integration solves for one area it’s historically struggled to own - the purchase moment - without changing what makes Pinterest work. Users still collect and curate ideas, but can now send those ideas straight into the shopping app’s commerce layer to find, match, and buy the products.

That single bridge keeps users in Pinterest’s ecosystem longer, gives them a richer reason to revisit boards, and turns inspiration into measurable purchase behaviour. More sessions mean more ad impressions; purchase-linked boards mean stronger commercial signals advertisers can target with higher confidence. Higher click-through and conversion rates justify higher CPMs, proving sales impact without bloating the ad load.

Instead of losing users to other platforms when they’re ready to buy, Pinterest stays in the value chain - and gets credit, data, and revenue for the transactions it inspires.

The only question is - who gets the commission revenue for driving the sale? That would come down to commercial negotiations - whether it’s a revenue share, fixed fee, or another structure - and ultimately hinge on which side extracts the most value.

Do shopping apps give up margin in exchange for Pinterest’s user base and a flood of non-product images? Or does Pinterest give up revenue in order to finally solve - and capture - its long-standing challenge of owning the purchase moment?

Pinterest is where you dream. It’s where you first meet your future self. And it has no real competition.

It has built a monopoly on the internet’s planning moment, owning the visual language of dreams, imagination, and creativity. Pinning is an intimate dialogue with the future you, and no other platform speaks that language as fluently.

Peter Thiel likes to say, “Competition is for losers … if you get a creative monopoly for inventing something new, it’s a sign you’ve created something really valuable.” Pinterest has done exactly that.

In a market obsessed with chasing attention, Pinterest has spent two decades patiently building a platform that rewards intention. That’s why it doesn’t need to beat Meta or Google to win. It just needs to keep doing what it’s always done: make the future one Pin away.

Got a brand you want decoded? Comment below.

“OMG - love your shoes. Where are they from?”

We’ve all experienced this moment. From one girl to another, we’re constantly sharing and recommending the things we love - hotel links, lip oils, jeans that actually fit.

So what if every time you recommended something - you got paid for it?

That question has obsessed me for years.

Before we launched Rolodex, I was working on a startup called Vetted - a social shopping tool designed to show you what your friends were actually buying. The insight was simple: our friends influence more of our purchases than any influencer ever will. So why hasn’t anyone built a tool for that?

The truth is, the vast majority of affiliate infrastructure has been built around creators - people with audiences, content strategies, and conversion metrics. But for every affiliate cheque going to a mega-influencer, there are thousands of recommendations that actually move product - happening in DMs, on the street, in girls bathrooms. These people aren’t “creators” but they’re quietly driving an enormous amount of spending.

That was the core idea behind Vetted: to create a platform that captured these recommendations from people in your social network.

I hit pause on the build for Vetted because it was going to cost a lot of money to get right - but the idea never left me.

And then I came across Locker - solving the exact same problem but just 5 years ahead in the build, with US$3.5m in funding and a growing user base.

The Background

Founded by Kristine Locker, Locker positions itself as a wishlist platform.

The idea is deceptively simple. You can save products from across the internet into curated collections. You can revisit those lists at any time. You can track when prices drop or when stock is running low.

Most importantly, when someone else clicks your saved link and purchases that item, you earn a portion of the sale.

💡 Locker democratises affiliate marketing

You don’t need a following, a platform, or a curated storefront. You just need taste - and a few friends who trust it.

What makes this especially compelling is that it’s arriving at a moment when consumer behaviour is already shifting. While influencer content still drives top-of-funnel discovery, trust is becoming more selective. The recommendation from a friend hits differently.

If Alix Earle tells me to buy something, in all likelihood, I probably won’t.

But when my bestfriend has a cool new top on, I always ask her for where it's from.

When I think about the things I buy, 95% are recommendations or things I see on friends.

For all its power, word-of-mouth remains one of the most underleveraged and underbuilt parts of the consumer ecosystem. It’s informal and fragmented. It lives in DMs, in screenshots, in passing conversations that platforms can’t see and brands can’t measure. There’s no clear infrastructure to support it, no central place where that influence gets captured, tracked, or rewarded. You can spend hours researching a hotel, send the link to a friend, and when they book the exact trip using your recommendation, the upside goes entirely to the platform, not the person who made the decision easier.

Locker solves for this exact problem. It treats those moments of influence between friends as valuable, and then builds the system that finally allows you to be compensated for it.

What makes Locker different?

Most affiliate platforms like LTK or ShopMy are built for influencers, helping them monetise their recommendations to their audience.

Locker rewrites that playbook. It’s not for influencers; it’s for you and your friends.

This is great for two reasons:

1. The consumer market is exponentially larger than the creator economy.

For every influencer, there are thousands of everyday consumers making recommendations daily.

• There are 300 million creators globally, but only 4.2 million make a full-time income from it.

• In contrast, there are 5 billion internet users, and 2 billion online shoppers.

• That means less than 0.1% of online users are monetising their influence - even though word-of-mouth drives 20% to 50% of all purchase decisions.

If even 1–3% of everyday consumers start saving and sharing via Locker, it could unlock an entirely new economic layer - the monetisation of casual, relationship-based influence. That’s a market 10 - 100x the size of what LTK and ShopMy are playing in.

2. People don’t buy based on ads. They buy based on people they trust.

This is great because it monetises something that’s already happening - without needing people to change their behaviour. That opens up a non-competitive, blue ocean market: monetising private, untracked peer influence. More importantly, it creates defensibility:

• Network effects: the more friends use Locker, the more valuable it becomes.

• Taste graphs: the more you save and follow, the smarter it gets about what you want and who you trust.

• Switching cost: once your taste and social feed is embedded, it’s hard to leave.

It’s contrarian to the traditional influencer business model, which is exactly why it will win.

How Locker Makes Money

Locker monetises through affiliate commissions.

When a user saves a product from one of Locker’s retail partners and later clicks through to purchase it, Locker earns a commission on that sale. The purchase doesn’t need to happen immediately - the intent is already captured through cookies which stores and tracks information so you finally do purchase, the retailer knows where that purchase came from.

Locker works with major affiliate networks including:

• Rakuten

• Commission Junction (CJ)

• Amazon Associates

If you have ever used ShopBack or Honey, Locker is the exact same premise.

Except on top of getting cash back, you also get a cut of the commission anytime you inspire friends to make a purchase as well.

Locker is playing the volume game.

Say you buy a belt from Reformation for $100 via Locker.

For that transaction, there is:

→ $10 affiliate commission (10% commission paid from Reformation)

→ Locker keeps $7 (70%)

→ $3 goes to the user (30%)

But if your friend buys via your link, you get the entire $10 commission. (This is my guess as this information isn't public).

For Locker, growth is from network effects. What are network effects?

Growth must come from:

1. High volume of purchases

2. High frequency of sharing (virality)

3. Growing user base

4. Larger order values sold through the platform (otherwise known as GMV or gross market value)

Subscribe now

If I were Head of Growth at Locker... here’s what I would be focusing on:

1. Make it social - without making it a social network

The opportunity isn’t to turn Locker into a new social platform. It’s to make the existing behaviour - browsing, saving, checking out - just a little more visible to the people who care.

Right now, Locker functions beautifully as a personal tool. It’s where you go to build a wishlist, organise your taste, and come back to buy items when the timing’s right. But if I were leading growth, I’d find ways to surface small moments of activity - not as content, but as context.

Imagine seeing a simple update: Ella added those vintage zebra print Manolo’s to her birthday wishlist. Or: Lucy just checked out that St. Agni bag you were eyeing.

The moment you let someone see that a friend saved the same bag, or checked out the same sneakers, or is building a wishlist for a holiday you’ve been planning - it creates a sense of momentum. That shared activity doesn’t just validate purchases, it speeds up decision-making.

And that’s what shifts Locker from a static list into a living, evolving feed of what people are actually paying attention to. A space you don’t just open when you’re ready to purchase, but one you check in on regularly - to see what’s new, what’s trending in your circle, what people you trust are quietly circling too.

When you see what your friends are saving and buying, a few important things happen:

1. You Trust the Product More

   • Seeing someone you know save or buy the same thing makes it feel like a smart, validated choice

   • “If she wants it too, it must be good.”

   • Higher trust = higher conversion rate. More people follow through with purchases, which directly increases revenue

2. You Decide Faster

   • It removes hesitation. Instead of thinking about it for days, you just go for it.

   • “I was on the fence but now I’m buying it.”

   • Shorter decision windows = faster GMV turnover. Users don’t churn while thinking. They buy.

3. It Feels Fun and Social

   • Shopping becomes something you’re doing with your friends, not alone. Like a group chat, but with taste.

   • “We’re building our wardrobes together.”

   • A social layer creates habit and emotional stickiness. This drives daily active users and retention - the backbone of any network-effect business.

4. You Keep Coming Back

   • Every time you open the app, it feels alive, full of things your friends are actually doing and wanting.

   • “Locker feels like my world, not just a store.”

   • Increased frequency of use = more opportunities to drive GMV, referrals, and brand integrations. The platform becomes part of daily life.

2. Make the data useful for the consumer

Right now, Locker knows a lot about what you want but it hasn’t yet shown you what that means. If I were head of growth, I’d turn the app’s backend into a personalised insights layer.

Users should be able to:

• See what categories they spend the most in (beauty vs. fashion vs. home)

• Track what items they keep saving but never buy

• Get a “most added to locker” list across their network

• Know when prices drop on wishlist items - or if a friend finally bought the thing they’d been eyeing too

This turns Locker into more than a shopping tool - it becomes a taste tracker and purchase intelligence tool.

Because if you’re already collecting user-level data around preferences, timing, and behaviour, the unlock is mirroring it back in a way that feels personal and useful.

Even smarter?

Let users opt into quarterly locker reports - like a Spotify Wrapped for your wants:

• “You saved 46 items this month.”

• “Your most-wanted brand is Toteme.”

• “You spent 40% less on skincare this quarter.”

• “You waited on average 24 days before purchasing an item this quarter”

Make sure the shareable assets are fit for your audience!

Postcards, magazine tears, receipts, shopping tags - these are just some of the ways Locker could present data that is instagrammable. As consumers, we love data, The more consumers see themselves in the data, the more likely they are to stay.

3. Incorporate content - turn Locker into a cultural layer

Right now, Locker is focused on products. But the next evolution? Add context.

If I were head of growth, I’d expand the platform beyond shopping and start layering in editorial-style content from people users already trust: friends, influencers, fashion editors, cultural commentators, even brands themselves. Think how the fashion and lifestyle gals are using Subtack right now (favourites include , , , and ).

• Mini blog posts from creators or friends: “5 things I packed for Paris”

• Trend breakdowns: “Why everyone’s saving ballet flats again”

• Fashion POVs from designers or brand founders

• Gift guides: “Save vs. Splurge” edits, “What’s in my locker this month”

• Trip archives: city guides based on what users saved while travelling

It means that all your links AND content are stored in one place. This would:

• Increase time spent in-app

• Encourage deeper social discovery

• Attract content-driven users who don’t just want to shop, but understand what’s worth wanting

In an era where everyone’s overwhelmed by choice, platforms that filter, contextualise and personalise content will win.

4. Make it a place to find your people through taste

If I were head of growth, I’d make Locker more than a tool - I’d make it a network.

Right now, you can follow friends. But what if you could find strangers who shop like you do?

The ones saving the same Toteme knit, the same Celine boots, the same obscure $40 retinol from a Parisian pharmacy.

Let users:

• Discover others with similar lockers - “70% overlap with yours”

• Follow people based on shared aesthetic tags - “Quiet luxury under $250” or “Hot girl functional”

• Join locker circles - interest-based micro-communities like “Coastal Grandma Interiors” or “Skincare Maximalists”

• See trending items within their style graph, not the whole app

• Build friend groups from locker overlap - where taste becomes the common ground

Taste is a form of identity. So why not build relationships around it?

This is why the substack group chat function is so good! You can follow your favourite fashion and style influencers, and you get access to a whole group of strangers who inevitably overlap in taste. Check out these recommendations in Ilana’s chat!! People are dying for them. Locker - you need to do something about this.

5. One Last Thing

I always underestimate the power of social media - but looking at @wantlocker’s Instagram, I can already think of a few ways to spice it up.

Carousels, videos, interviews, office BTS - there are plenty of content ideas out there that are very engaging. If you have seen the Sheer Luxe socials, you will know how much people love to create parasocial relationships not only with the founder, but also the team.

I love the “Day In My Life” content you have been posting - I would lean into this (especially on TikTok) so we get a sneak peak into the different roles at a startup and what working there looks like! It’s personal, relatable, and builds trust fast.

or are great for collage / moodboard inspiration. They don’t just show you the clothes - their collages tell you the story about who is wearing them as well.

I would highly recommend you check out Cathy’s tiktok - @cathykaruga_ for some major inspiration on commentary behind the outfits as well.

Key Takeaways

Locker benefits from strong network effects: the more users curate, save, and follow, the more valuable both the data and the network become.

Their moat is (1) capturing a large market of consumers by democratising traditional influencer affiliate models, and (2) rewarding people for things they already do, everyday.

When you don’t have to change people’s behaviours, you already have a massive unfair advantage.

Over time, users aren’t just saving products - they’re building a personalised network that reflects who they are and what they want. That social and emotional entanglement is hard to replicate, and even harder to walk away from.

There have been two major transitions in mating in the last four million years.

The first was in the agricultural revolution, when we became less migratory and more settled, leading to the establishment of marriage.

The second was with the rise of the Internet.

Today, we’re diving into Hinge - the dating app that was “designed to be deleted”… and somehow ended up the #1 dating app in Australia, UK, Canada, and the Nordics.

Hinge is a rare consumer subscription business where users leaving is the goal. And somehow, that made it Match Group’s fastest-growing product with US$550m in revenue and users paying 79% more compared to Tinder.

In this article, we unpack the full arc:

• How a founder’s breakup turned into a US$550m revenue generating business

• Why Hinge blew up after being pulled from the App Store

• What Match Group saw in Hinge (and how it fits their master plan)

• How Hinge turns churn into growth

• The revenue model

• Misaligned incentives between shareholders and users

• Non obvious insights

• And: what I would do if I was Head of Growth

It’s a case study in timing, product intuition, and turning a counterintuitive promise into a competitive moat. Let’s get started.

Origins (2011-2015)

Hinge was born out of heartbreak. Founder Justin McLeod had just gone through a breakup with his college girlfriend, Kate, and the experience left him thinking about modern dating and how it could be better.

In 2011, while finishing his MBA at Harvard Business School, he started working on an app called Secret Agent Cupid - a prototype that connected users through mutual Facebook friends (inspired by how people naturally meet in real life).

The focus was on finding people who are already in your social network.

The “Designed to Be Deleted” Rebrand (2016)

Nancy Jo Sales’ 2015 Vanity Fair article, “Tinder and the Dawn of the Dating Apocalypse,” exposed how apps like Tinder and Hinge were fuelling a culture of casual hookups, gamified swiping, and emotional detachment - particularly among young men in urban settings.

“With these dating apps, you’re always sort of prowling. You could talk to two or three girls at a bar and pick the best one, or you can swipe a couple hundred people a day - the sample size is so much larger.”

The backlash was sharp enough to spark a reset: Hinge’s founder Justin McLeod cited the piece as a catalyst for taking Hinge off the app store entirely and rebuilding Hinge 2.0.

They distilled the problem with the current dating app landscape:

• Users were swiping a lot - but only 15% of matches were turning into actual conversations.

• Hinge was the best for relationships, but it wasn’t enough. On a 1–10 (hook-up to relationship) scale, Hinge was considered the most relationship-oriented app at a 7. When asked what they were looking for, 70% of users wanted something even more serious than Hinge.

Hinge relaunched with a clear promise: “the dating app designed to be deleted.”

Instead of casual matches, Hinge rebuilt around meaningful conversations:

• Limited daily likes: encouraging thoughtful engagement.

• Profile prompts: making matches more personal.

The new app, crucially, required all users to pay US$7 per month on the logic that it would attract serious daters only. It also was their first attempt at making money.

This was shortly reversed after Hinge realised they rely on network effects to grow: the more users, the better the experience. Charging at the entry point shrank the user pool, hurting matches and growth.

Nevertheless, it was a radical positioning shift - one that bet the company’s future on a counterintuitive idea: that the best way to grow was to help people leave. And it worked.

Match Group Acquisition (2018-2019)

Match Group bought a 51% stake in Hinge in June 2018, gaining the right to acquire the rest within a year. The deal gave Hinge access to Match’s resources, marketing budgets and growth playbooks, helping it scale internationally.

Hinge’s downloads promptly exploded and Match quickly exercised its option, owning 100% of Hinge by Q1 2019. Under Match, Hinge finally began to make money.

It was a smart portfolio play: Hinge could capture the “relationship-oriented” demographic, while Tinder dominated the casual dating scene. For investors worried about cannibalisation, the two apps serve different types of dating intent.

Dating is not one market, it’s a funnel of shifting intent. People move from curiousity → casual dating → committed relationships, constantly.

Tinder is the top of the funnel. It’s fast, gamified, and built for volume. Hinge is mid-to-bottom funnel; it’s more intentional and designed for people looking for relationships.

By owning both, Match maximises lifetime value across the funnel. If a user churns from Tinder to Hinge, Match doesn’t lose them - it upgrades them (especially given the Revenue Per Payer is higher for Hinge), meaning the switch is financially net-positive for Match.

Match doesn’t need each app to win individually. It needs the ecosystem to retain users longer than a single-product competitor could.

Hyper-Growth Under Match (2020-2025)

Match let Hinge keep its identity but poured resources into marketing.

• Revenue leapt from US$8 million in 2018 to US$550 million in 2024

  • Hinge is the fastest growing segment at Match Group. In 2024, their revenue grew 39% vs Tinder, who grew just 1%

• Paying users reached 1.53 million out of roughly 30 million total users by 2024 (5.1% conversion rate)

  • Importantly, paying users grew 23% in 2024 vs Tinder who declined 7% in paying users in 2024

• Importantly, Revenue per Payer (RPP) for Hinge was US$29.94 vs Tinder’s RPP of US$16.68 (a 79% premium)

  • Revenue per payer is the average monthly revenue earned from a Payer

💡 People are willing to pay a lot more for love than hookups

Hinge is emerging as Match Group’s growth engine, driven by a premium product strategy and positioning around meaningful relationships.

Wanna know something cute?

Eight years after Justin McLeod (Hinge founder) and his college girlfriend broke up, she was living abroad and engaged to a man she met on the trading floor of Goldman Sachs.

Justin sent Kate an email asking if they could meet. He showed up two days later at her doorstep. They sat down for coffee, and by the end of the weekend, Kate called off her wedding with just two months to go.

They have now been married for six years.

What’s Next (2026-2027)

Justin McLeod believes the next frontier is AI-assisted date planning and profile coaching, cutting “choice overload”.

How AI is already helping:

• Providing warm, personalised introductions

• Understanding users on a deeper level

• Helping users start conversations (i.e. relationship coaching)

There is a clear pathway to US$1 billion of revenue in 2027 for Hinge.

How does Hinge Make Money?

Hinge uses a freemium model.

This means users can swipe, like, and chat for free, but if you want more matches, better curation, and premium features, you better pay up.

Subscriptions:

• Hinge+ (A$46.60/month) – unlocks unlimited likes, more filters

• HingeX (A$66.30/month) – adds “most compatible” curation

• Roses (A$4.99 each or in bundles) – sent to top-ranked profiles

Revenue = Paying Users × Revenue Per Payer

Put simply, to grow revenue, you must convert more users to paying users and extract more value from each payer.

How do you increase the number of paying users?

1. increase the number of users by expanding to new geographies or targeting new demographics

2. make paying feel essential, not optional, by limiting likes and access to matches

How do you increase the revenue per paying user?

1. increase the price of your subscriptions and features (like Roses)

2. increase price discrimination via geography, gender, age or relationship intent. $15/month might be a splurge in Brazil, but a steal in NYC

Misaligned incentives between shareholders and users?

Critics question whether a product “designed to be deleted” can stay true to that promise under a public company structure incentivised to maximise shareholder returns.

Well, let’s look at it from first principles: what makes a good business?

1. Solves a real problem people care about ✅

2. Makes money consistently (strong margins, repeat customers) ✅

3. Builds an edge that keeps competitors out (brand, tech, network, etc.) ✅

So, let’s look at Hinge.

People love love. Dating apps solve for this.

Hinge makes money in an unusual way by turning churn into its competitive advantage.

This inversion - where success equals self-deletion - only works because:

• Ever-renewing demand: roughly 1.5 billion singles globally are aging into, out of, and back into dating each year. Fresh cohorts offset departed lovebirds.

• Upfront monetisation: Hinge is free to join, but its premium tiers capture value early when early enthusiasm meets friction (limited likes, blurred admirers, paywalled filters). That front-loaded cash flow means investors actually cheer churn, as long as acquisition costs stay low.

“Hinge users tend to engage deeply over shorter time periods… conversion tends to happen early in the experience.” - Match Group Q3 2022 Earnings Call

And here’s the kicker:

• Success stories = free marketing: every deleted account becomes word-of-mouth advertising, lowering customer acquisition costs and lifting margins.

Wall Street - unclench yourself. The business model inherently works to maximise shareholder value.

By monetising users upfront, constantly replenishing the funnel with new singles, and turning every deleted-for-love account into free advertising, the model converts happy endings into higher margins and sustainable, shareholder-friendly growth.

Its business model flips the retention playbook: users leaving = brand building.

Non Obvious Insights

1. For Hinge, churn is how they grow. Success = deletion and deletion = free marketing. There are not many subscription business models where you are optimising for your customers to leave. Fertility trackers might be a rare example.

2. Match doesn’t just own dating apps, they own different stages of dating intent.

3. Hinge has more pricing power because it’s selling an outcome that people want (relationships) and place higher value on vs casual hookups.

Subscribe now

If I was the Head of Growth for Hinge, here are the things I would be focusing on:

IRL / omni-channel presence

There’s a big opportunity to keep daters engaged online but also meet them halfway by giving them more reasons to show up offline.

If I was head of growth at Hinge, I would organise hyperlocal events in big cities - I’m thinking trendy venues hosting invite-only parties, book clubs at buzzy cafes, puppy yoga sessions in chic loft studios.

You make this cool (not cringe) by partnering with trendy local venues, creators, tastemakers to host the event. just wrote an article for Vogue Business titled “From sauna socials to run clubs: Are community event leaders the new influencers?” - very fitting.

Let them set the vibe and rebrand the intent. It’s not “a singles night.” It’s an invite-only social event with hot, fun, smart, funny people in your area.

If the goal is to convert more users to paying users, you make the events free to premium subscribers, paid for everyone else - monetising FOMO while translating digital matches into real-world chemistry. People are more willing to pay for a subscription if they can get real life value out of it.

If the goal is to get more users, entry to the event is simple: download Hinge and create a profile. It might be hard to find pockets of users who have not downloaded Hinge yet - but if you tried hard enough, you could do it.

You double down on untapped niches (e.g. newly single 30-somethings, international students, even oldies who want a new lease on life) and partner with local communities where Hinge hasn’t yet become the default. Think uni clubs, boutique gyms, coworking spaces, niche festivals.

Hinge Dinner Parties

Another idea would be an event where each person invites one Hinge match. Location would be a buzzy new restaurant, with big group dining tables. Hinge supplies food, playlist, conversation cards. I would add a photo booth because they are always very fun and flirty. Gives matches a fun bonding activity, but also, if your match sucks, you have plenty of other people at the table to chat to instead!

Again - I would offer this to paying users only. Free users can buy a ticket to come.

What this drives:

• Shareable moments: These bring lapsed users back to the app but also brings new users who want to meet their person in person

• Engagement: meeting face-to-face in a fun, low-pressure group setting sparks more in-app follow-ups and keeps users messaging and swiping longer

Speed Dating

Each table has a new prompt inspired from the Hinge profile building, something fun to start a conversation. At the end of the speed dating round, participants select their top 3 connections on the Hinge app - if there’s a match, they both get a “Date Credit” (e.g., $20 toward a restaurant or coffee). This gamifies the experience whilst also rewarding genuine sparks.

What this drives:

• Engagement: the fun prompts break the ice immediately, so people are laughing and swapping stories from the start

• Rewards connection: picking your top three forces a bit of thought (“Who really clicked?”) instead of mindless small talk. That means more genuine matches.

• Keeps people coming back: the promise of a “Date Credit” makes you want to constantly check the app afterward (“Did my pick match me?”)

Double Dating

Gen Z daters are turning solo accounts into a team sport: two single friends run one Hinge account and look for other duos to go on double dates with (this is technically against the Hinge rules right now).

If I was at Hinge, I would lean into this idea and legitimise the trend into an official feature: two friends link their profiles to find other duos - or singles open to a double date.

From a business standpoint, it expands surface area: one subscription powers two users, two match funnels, and double the word-of-mouth. Friends who might not pay for Hinge solo are more likely to split the cost if it unlocks exclusive double-date access. The feature is social by design - more fun, more viral, and more culturally aligned with how Gen Z actually dates.

It also takes away the cringe. When you’re with a friend, nothing’s embarrassing. It’s like walking into a pole - mortifying alone, hilarious together. Double dating lowers the stakes, raises the vibe, and keeps people engaged longer.

Hinge built a business on the idea that less time on the app could be more valuable - for users and shareholders alike. The tension between finding love and maximising returns is what makes Hinge so fascinating as a case study.

If I were at Hinge, I wouldn’t chase mass downloads or pile on more premium features. I’d stay ruthlessly focused on helping people connect - faster, deeper, and ideally, offline.

Because if every deleted account is a growth engine, then the smartest thing Hinge can do is build a product worth leaving behind.

Real love stories make better marketing than any billboard ever could.

Got a brand you want decoded? Comment below.

There’s a quiet kind of genius in making the impossible feel effortless. For nearly a decade, Gab Waller has been sourcing the “sold out,” tracking down the untrackable, and delivering fashion’s most elusive pieces.

A driving force behind her growth is a fundamental shift in the way we as consumers shop.

The things we want to buy find us. A friend’s vacation, a stylist’s story, an influencer’s bag in the background of a GRWM. We know we want that Pucci dress just seen on Audrey Peters for our Euro Summer vacation. The problem is, so does everyone else.

So if everyone is looking for the same thing, it tends to sell out pretty quickly. That’s when FOMO kicks in and access becomes the ultimate flex - and it’s pretty crazy just how much people are willing to pay for it.

TikTok is full of people bragging about how they got the sold out Row Margaux, or the viral Alaia mesh ballet flats. Kendall Jenner is papped on the street in a fresh off the runway Bottega fit that hasn’t even hit the stores yet. People are literally “stalking” a bag.

The people who can provide access to in demand, hard to find pieces - the sourcers, the stylists, curators - are becoming as powerful as the brands themselves. They’re no longer just middlemen between the brand and the consumer - they’re the new arbiters of access, taste, and what’s cool.

Which means? More sourcing.

After 7 years, Gab has found some real pain points in the industry. Behind every item she sources, the sheer logistics of documenting, tracking, invoicing and recording payments makes it so much more time consuming. She receives 100+ requests and DMs a day, but is only able to fulfil about 30% of the requests that come in. No off-the-shelf tool could match the specificity, speed, or scale Gab needs to meet her client’s demands.

Her team currently juggles up to six different platforms, including Instagram DMs, Asana, Excel, WhatsApp, Xero, and Monday.com. Because none of these things talk to each other, it’s inevitable that things will slip through the cracks.

So how is she fixing the problems with the current operating model whilst also scaling for the shift in how we shop?

Meet SourcedBy: a single platform that unifies sourcing, logistics, invoicing, and client communication - designed specifically for people in fashion.

Gab is leveraging her years of experience in the luxury sourcing market to build a tech company that solves all her problems, enabling her to scale and respond to 100% of inbounds, not just 30%.

The platform will onboard freelance shoppers and sourcers all over the world for a one-time fee of $100, giving them access to a universal dashboard complete with client requests. Sourcers make a commission for every item they successfully find.

The beta version of their website went live one week ago, check it out: SourcedBy Website. They’ve also just made some great hires: Alisha Kumar as COO and Scott Davis as CTO.

Gab Waller’s June 2025 Hot List

If I was the Head of Growth for SourcedBy, here are the things I would be focusing on:

1. Become a Full-Stack Sourcing Firm

Let’s say you believe LLMs and AI can now automate a lot of the work behind sourcing. There are two ways to act on that.

One: you build a tool. A sleek, efficient backend that handles admin, invoicing, logistics, tracking, and sell it to the sourcers who need it. From the outside, that looks like what SourcedBy is currently doing.

Two: you build a company. Instead of enabling sourcers, you become the sourcing firm. Staff it with AI agents and compete with existing sources. You own the interface, the service, and the transaction.

Gab Waller and SourcedBy could reimagine what a digitally native, full-stack AI sourcing firm looks like:

• AI agents do the heavy lifting - from sourcing, tracking inventory and pricing, to generating invoices and handling logistics

• A small team of high EQ, well-connected people lead client relationships. They aren’t sourcers - they’re relationship architects. Tastemakers. Industry insiders. Their value isn’t in finding the item, it’s in knowing what the customer wants before they do.

It’s faster. It’s more scalable. It’s the difference between renting tools to the system… and rebuilding the system entirely.

Yes, this model replaces sourcers as we traditionally know them. But it’s not about cutting people out. It’s about putting them where they create the most value. Think of it like what happened in the travel industry: when online booking platforms took over the mechanics of searching flights and hotels, great agents didn’t disappear, they evolved. The best ones became luxury travel concierges, focusing on white-glove service, not busywork.

2. Leverage marketing to make SourcedBy go viral from day one

Sourcedby benefits from the psychology of sold-out. This shouldn’t just power the product, it should also be used to power the growth loop too.

Gab and her team could do this by:

• Build waitlists around items, not just access

  • Create public waitlists for high-demand items, where you can move up by referring others or by becoming a VIP client or sourcer

• Allow influencers or stylists to create sourcing storefronts with their favourite items of the season - a real, on the ground look of what might be trending in 3 months time

• Add a sourcing signature to every item - make the end product very instagrammable. Could be a custom QR tag on the packaging that shows where the item came from and it’s back story

3. Build Campaigns Around Iconic Finds

A fun idea I had was each season, SourcedBy curates its most iconic, impossible, or unbelievable finds and tells the story behind them.

Example: The Milan Edit

“This season’s most iconic find? A vintage Fendi Baguette pulled from the wardrobe of a 78-year-old former Vogue Italia editor. Sourced by one of our Milan-based freelancers in under 48 hours, wrapped in silk, and shipped to LA for a client’s 30th birthday.”

Other examples: The Paris Apartment Drop, The Tokyo Vault, The New York Closet Cleanout

Sourcedby could also collab with celebrities / taste makers / fashion insiders looking to do closet clean outs.

Take Chloe Sevigny’s recent NYC closet sale.

Sevigny told another shopper, who nabbed a brandless sweater, “Oh this is the first sweater that I wore when I started flirting with my husband.”

People want to hear the stories behind the clothes. Not just what it is, but where it’s been, who wore it, and why it mattered. There’s also something very cool about wearing a dress and saying: “I got it from the SourcedBy x Chloe Sevigny closet sale”.

4. White-Labeling SourcedBy’s tech stack and infrastructure

What SourcedBy is building isn’t just a luxury solution. You could do this for any industry, especially one dominated by slow-moving incumbents. Instead of selling to the dinosaurs, you could make them extinct.

There are thousands of sectors that rely on bespoke fulfillment, high-value requests, or fractured tools. The common denominator? A human receives a request… then juggles spreadsheets, Slack threads, Google Drive folders, and invoices just to make it happen.

SourcedBy is building a better backend for that chaos.

Imagine white-labelling this to industries like:

• Interior design – where sourcing furniture, lighting, rugs, and finishes is still a manual, disjointed process

• Events and weddings – high-stakes, high-touch planning where logistics and sourcing are everything

• Corporate gifting and brand partnerships – where large organisations need premium, personalised products sourced at scale

• Auction houses - where clients often request rare, high-value items, and advisors rely on fragmented tools to manage consignments, private sales, sourcing, authentication, and delivery

Each of these industries shares the same DNA:

• High-value requests

• Emotionally-driven purchases

• Manual, fragmented backend systems

• Clients who know what they want but don’t want to search for it

5. Productise the network

The real power play is this: as SourcedBy gets better at reading and tracking data, it learns:

• What people are asking for (demand signals)

• Where those items live (supply mapping)

• Who gets them first (access relationships)

• How pricing moves (market dynamics)

That data becomes a valuable product in itself. A real-time pulse on taste, scarcity, and spending patterns. Suddenly, you’re not just fulfilling desire and demand. You’re forecasting it… and I don’t need to tell you how powerful that is.

Let me set the scene.

It’s 2023, and Succession just dropped the phrase of the week, “She’s brought a ludicrously capacious bag. What’s even in there? Flat shoes for the subway? Her lunch pail? Greg, it’s monstrous. It’s gargantuan. You could take it camping. You could slide it across the floor after a bank job.”

The timing is perfect. Brands like The Row, Toteme and Khaite are gaining ground as fashion’s favourite trio against a back drop of quiet luxury, with tastemakers like Sofia Richie, Jennifer Lawrence and Kendall Jenner offering free press every time they get papped in their pieces.

Each has carved its own niche within the broader aesthetic: The Row finds beauty in minimalism and form, with a focus on tailoring (its name is a reference to London’s famous tailoring destination, Savile Row). Flow and comfort is essential to the customer. It’s clients seem to experience no price sensitivity at all.

Khaite is slightly more sexy and structured, with a play on volume and contrast -oversized shoulders, cinched waists, sculptural knits. There’s a bit more adventure and fun in their pieces, whilst still maintaining the quality and quiet luxury element their customers are looking for.

Toteme leans into Scandinavian simplicity and captures the true essence of an elevated capsule wardrobe. Their pieces maintain a cohesion that allows them to be mixed, matched, and re-worn endlessly - creating a sense of effortless polish without ever feeling overdone.

The numbers behind quiet luxury

Last year, The Row quietly raised late-stage funding from a cohort of ultra-high-net-worth individuals and fashion insiders: the Wertheimer family (owners of Chanel), Françoise Bettencourt Meyers (L’Oréal heiress), and venture firms like Imaginary Ventures (co-founded by Net-A-Porter’s Natalie Massenet) and Saint Dominique Capital (backed by Moda Operandi’s Lauren Santo Domingo).

At the time, the business was doing $250m-$300m of annual revenue, $60m of operating profit and was valued at $1bn. Growth is 20-30% year on year (pretty incredible for a brand founded in 2006).

So what is so special about The Row, that they can charge $1000 for a white cotton t-shirt?

Mystery in world building

The Row breaks free from the modern playbook of brand marketing - no social media, no crazy marketing, no celebrity gifting. They have mastered the power of mystery.

If you’re not familiar with The Row’s approach, consider this: their first-ever ad was in Vogue’s 125th anniversary issue. Two stark, white pages. “Happy 125th Birthday” written in smaller font than the brand’s name. It feels almost Steve Jobs-esque in its simplicity of design. And it perfectly encapsulates the brands ethos of secrecy.

Prior to The Row’s Autumn/Winter 2024 collection in Paris, guests were emailed a request: “We kindly ask that you refrain from capturing or sharing any content during your experience.” In place of phones, guests were given Japanese notepads and a pen to take handwritten notes.

What's more exclusive than experience? The Olsen twins have built a brand centered around the concept of exclusivity and luxury becoming synonymous, with mystique as a moat.

In the words of Mary Kate Olsen, “The Row is always The Row and always has been The Row.”

The Row does not gift. It’s worn by people in the industry. The people with the coolest style we all desperately want to emulate. This creates natural status signalling, so that when Sofia Richie or Jennifer Lawrence is spotted in The Row, it doesn’t feel like marketing. They paid for it, just like any other customer. That kind of authenticity only strengthens the brand’s power.

Quality as the proof of price

Quality is the non-negotiable foundation. The Row begins with impeccable materials - Japanese denim, Italian cashmere, handmade leather - and layers in tailoring precision and construction detail that most customers will never see, but deeply feel.

This kind of quality performs two critical business functions:

1. It creates irrational price tolerance. When a garment feels like no other, customers stop comparing it to other garments. Price becomes relative not to product category, but to experience. This decouples The Row from traditional value perception and anchors it in emotion and trust.

2. It enables long-term brand equity. Consistent excellence compounds. When every touchpoint reinforces quality, over time it trains the customer to buy sight unseen - a foundational advantage in DTC luxury, where physical access is limited.

Pricing as a signal

The Row uses pricing as a tool to reinforce its status as a luxury brand. With quality inherent to the brand, it’s cost base is likely high, but its markups more than compensate. My guess is gross margins are likely 70% (LVMH operates with GMs of ~67%). This means for the $1000 t-shirt, it would cost $300 to make and The Row takes home the rest.

In luxury, the point of sale is a transaction sure - but it’s also a moment of storytelling. The experience communicates value as much as the product itself. Salespeople are advisors, and every part of the process is designed to reaffirm the customer’s decision to pay a premium, not to question it.

This is why The Row chooses to not discount. Mass-market retailers use promotions to move stock, but in luxury, price reductions dilute the luxury status. A discounted product signals overproduction or waning demand, both of which break the illusion of scarcity and desirability.

The Row controls pricing by controlling and limiting their supply. They release small, considered runs of product that often sell out quickly. Pre-orders and waitlists are used to manage demand - not clear inventory. By keeping scarcity high and availability low, they maintain both brand mystique and pricing power.

The high price tag becomes self-reinforcing, signalling craftsmanship, exclusivity, and taste.

Retail scarcity and Direct To Consumer channels

And, despite its cult following, the brand operates just five retail stores globally and is stocked in only 270 department stores and multi-brand boutiques. In comparison, Louis Vuitton operates over 460 stores across 65 countries worldwide.

The world of luxury demands in-person experiences and sensory engagement to drive purchases. A glass of champagne upon arrival, access to the private shop floor, branded desserts. People line for hours for the chance to look, touch, smell their designer goods.

The Row defies that norm. Its customers are comfortable to spend $4,000 on a handbag online, sight unseen, because the brand has built a reputation of design and quality as the key point of difference.

The Row’s physical retail locations are an extension of that promise. Their first store in Los Angeles is set inside a mid-century Californian home, dissolving the boundaries between retail, gallery, and private residence. The design deliberately breaks with traditional store formats. Open spaces and a visible pool invite natural light and movement. Glass doors open to the outdoors, allowing in the scent of fresh air and the feeling of place - not just product.

The obsession and high aesthetic dissent that is driving the brand are obvious. Everything makes sense. It's a synergy: the environment and the items for sale mutually benefit and gain value from this coexistence. Every customer touchpoint reinforces luxury positioning.

The Row’s Top Selling SKUs

1. Soft Margaux 10 Bag

2. Medium N/S Park Tote

3. Soft Margaux 15 Bag

4. Large N/S Park Tote

5. Soft Margaux 17 Bag

Fantastic unit economics

Because of all of this, The Row operates with exceptional fundamentals:

• High Average Order Value (AOV): With ready-to-wear pieces starting above $1,000 and coats and bags reaching several thousand dollars, The Row naturally commands higher AOVs than a typical fashion direct-to-consumer brand. This ensures that each customer relationship begins on a highly profitable footing, instantly covering the cost of goods and contributing significantly to gross margin from the very first purchase.

• Low Customer Acquisition Cost (CAC): While a typical brand might spend $50 to acquire a customer who generates $150 in revenue, The Row spends next to nothing to acquire a customer who generates $4,000. The Row benefits from brand mystique, organic word-of-mouth, and editorial endorsement. Its minimal marketing spend paired with high-value customers creates a rare luxury retail scenario - low CAC and high ROI per customer.

• High Lifetime Value (LTV): The Row’s clientele, driven by quality rather than trend, transforms that initial transaction into a long-term relationship.

  • Strong Revenue from Repeat Customers: The first purchase serves as a proof of quality. Trust is established, leading to second and third purchases. Crucially, each of these subsequent sales comes with a near-zero incremental acquisition cost, meaning the profit margin on these sales is even higher than the first.

  • Repeat Customers Spending More Over Time: This is where the LTV explodes. The journey doesn't just involve repeat purchases of similar items; it's an expansion across categories. A customer who starts with a $1,000 knit trusts the brand enough to later invest in a $4,000 coat, and eventually a $6,000 handbag. The LTV doesn’t just grow; it compounds, turning a single acquired customer into a reliable, multi-year revenue stream of ever-increasing value.

The Row vs Louis Vuitton

Let’s compare to Louis Vuitton. Louis Vuitton is an industrial luxury powerhouse, designed for global accessibility, powered by logistics and brand recognition. The Row monetizes brand discretion. Both are extremely profitable - but for opposite reasons.

• Gross margins: LV operates with gross margins around 67%. Their scale gives them significant cost advantages in sourcing, manufacturing, and distribution.

• High AOV: LV’s AOV is high due to $3,000+ handbags and $10,000+ ready-to-wear, but volume is massive - LV serves millions of customers annually. LV optimises for high AOV at scale; The Row optimises for high AOV per client.

• High CAC: While Louis Vuitton benefits from immense brand recognition and heritage, they also invest significantly in marketing, advertising, and retail presence.

  

• High LTV: Louis Vuitton undoubtedly has a very high LTV. Their customers are known for loyalty, collecting multiple pieces, and often buying across categories (handbags, ready-to-wear, shoes, accessories, jewelry, watches). The strong resale value of their bags also encourages repeat purchases and reinforces the investment aspect of their products.

Takeaways

With best-in-class margins, a loyal cult-like customer base that are insensitive to price, and category-defining product discipline, The Row is building something far more enduring: a luxury business with real business fundamentals.

And for the founders reading this - in a world obsessed with building in public, going viral, and moving fast - there’s something instructive about a company that’s grown quietly, on its own terms, with no hashtags, no hype, and no need to explain itself.