🌶 Hot take: The mandate that CPG founders MUST build to $100M+ in sales to be an attractive M&A candidate for a strategic is misleading. For *many* this thinking can drive the wrong behavior. Behaviors that we saw in the 2021 ZIRP environment. Even if strategics are buying bigger and less often, great outcomes can and are occurring for highly profitable businesses that don’t cross $100M. 🧠 Logic: CPG founders are often anchored on a common long-term KPI: reaching $100M in sales. Even if this is what investors are underwriting, it’s the wrong way to think about what CPG scale means. I spent ~5 years within the finance/strategy organizations of PepsiCo, Danone, and AB InBev. No one is sitting around with a radar detector for brands that reach a specific sales threshold. Strategics split their organizations into sectors and subsectors (categories and subcategories) typically based off geography and product category. 1/ Big CPGs aim to build strategic portfolios (organically and inorganically) within their subsectors of focus that are constantly evolving to meet consumer needs 2/ Big CPGs are trying to drive organic top / bottom line growth by executing an optimal resource allocation strategy BUT they are also competing for MARKET SHARE. When they assess inorganic acceleration opportunities for their portfolios (aka M&A/JVs), they look for emerging or “emerged” brands in subcategories of interest that are: 1️⃣ Sizable enough to drive a MATERIAL MARKET SHARE gain or deceleration of MARKET SHARE loss immediately or in the future. 2️⃣ Profitable/cash-flow generative enough to be accretive or in line with an internal profitability/cash flow benchmark. Ideally the target is highly incremental to the CPG’s existing portfolio of brands with room for further growth in a variety of distribution channels. What defines material market share for an emerging brand? In my opinion anywhere between 0.5-2%+ (no right answer). ESPECIALLY IN PERSONAL CARE in which we’ve seen some brands recently bought for an est. >5x revenue (K18 Hair, Dr. Barbara Sturm), clipping $50-$75M with great margins could equate to a $300M+ exit (the “average successful exit” in CPG). In the $110B soft drinks space (Statista), crossing $100M (just 0.1% share) might not be enough (Oli/Poppi) Main point: build a profitable business that captures material market share of your category, not necessarily a $100M+ business… BUT hopefully, you find yourself doing BOTH 🚀 And one watch out for founders (hopefully not new news): If you’re a later stage company that is on track to achieve a share position in your category that would position you as an “attractive” M&A target for a strategic be extremely vigilant of the terms surrounding any new growth capital. Waiting too long to sell can be a painful mistake but even more painful is when your new PE partner mandates a pathway to 3x MOIC to approve a liquidation event and you’re far from leaping that hurdle.
Totally agree with this POV.
Great points - having a GREAT product is the most impt -
This is the first time - in some time - that the current market dynamic has been clearly articulated, thanks Daniel. Also, fair to say than may sub $100M brands, with impressive growth rates, continue to be not profitable - we see it every quarter. Especially if they could not execute pricing initiatives in 2002 or very early 2023.
This is great, thank you
has to be one of the best-stated posts on CPG exits I've ever read
“…with room for further growth in a variety of distribution channels.” I like this point.
Good insight- worth reading
🔥🔥
Super insightful post Daniel, thank you!
Founder at Rootspring Ventures
2moThankfully most early-stage founders I speak with are not obsessing over $100M+ in revenues. Going from 0 to $30-50M with solid growth, great margins, and profitability is still a home run in many instances.