Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Beim Laden dieses Videos ist ein Problem aufgetreten. Dies könnte an einem vorübergehenden Netzwerkproblem liegen oder das Video ist möglicherweise nicht verfügbar.

Walmart's genius private label strategy literally KILLED name brands... By doing the exact OPPOSITE of what everyone said you should do. In April 2024, they launched Bettergoods - a "cheap" store brand. But instead of targeting broke customers, they went after RICH ones. 28% of U.S. households bought it... in one year. $500 million in sales. 40% came back for more. It's now the fastest-growing private label brand in America. This is the most insane private label play in retail history... The Old Playbook (that everyone follows): - Private labels = cheaper version of name brands - Target price-conscious shoppers - Make it look "good enough" - Compete on cost alone Great Value, Kirkland, Equate - they all did this. And it worked. For the bottom 80% of customers. But Walmart saw something nobody else did. The Problem With Traditional Private Labels: High-income shoppers won't touch them. They associate store brands with "lower quality." Even when the product is IDENTICAL, the perception kills sales. So Walmart asked a different question: "What if we made a private label that high-income people actually WANT?" The Bettergoods Strategy: - Most items under $5 (same as Great Value) - But packaging looks like a $15 boutique product - "Chef-inspired" flavors - Trend-forward ingredients (oat milk ice cream, hot honey seasoning, plant-based everything) - Totally unique products - NOT knock-offs of name brands And here's the genius part: They're selling to TWO completely different customers with the SAME product. Low-income shoppers: "I'm treating myself without breaking the bank" High-income shoppers: "This is premium quality at an amazing price" The numbers prove it worked: High-income households are 20% MORE likely to buy Bettergoods than Great Value. Low-income households are 34% more likely to buy Bettergoods than other premium brands. They captured BOTH ends of the market. With the same $3.44 pint of ice cream. Why This Killed Name Brands: Before Bettergoods, high-income Walmart shoppers bought Ben & Jerry's, Häagen-Dazs, Talenti. Now they buy Bettergoods. Same quality. Half the price. Trendier flavors. The name brands lost their premium positioning overnight. Because Walmart proved you can have: - Affordable prices - Premium ingredients - Unique flavors - Beautiful packaging All at once. The Execution: - 300+ products in Year 1 - Bronze-cut pasta from Italy for $1.97 - Creamy Corn Jalapeño Chowder for under $4 - Plant-based oat milk ice cream that "you won't believe is plant-based" - Hot Honey Seasoning under $3 78% plan to repurchase. 46% say it's better value than other brands. 37% say it's healthier. 34% say higher-quality ingredients. Walmart didn't just launch a product... They repositioned an entire category. What I Learned From This: Stop assuming "premium" means "expensive." Your competitors think they have to choose: - Cheap OR high-quality - Mass market OR exclusive - Accessible OR aspirational Bettergoods proved you can be ALL of it. The framework: 1. Find the assumption everyone makes about your category 2. Do the opposite 3. Package it so both markets see what they want 4. Make the product legitimately good I've seen many companies go cheap to win on price. Or premium to win on quality. Walmart said fuck that and won on BOTH. By making a $3 product feel like $15. And now this isn't just working for Walmart. Target launched Dealworthy (same strategy, different execution). Second-fastest growing private label over the past year. The era of "cheap = low quality" is dead. Smart brands are premiumizing their low-cost offers. Dumb brands are still trying to be the "affordable alternative." What are you?show more

Ricardo

30,803 subscribers

932,767 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

Nachrichten & Politik Finanzen

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

🇨🇳 Chinese brands seem to be replacing Western brands in China Just like Chinese-owned Luckin Coffee replacing American-owned Starbucks in my tweet below You see it with lots of other shops too Here's Maia, a Lululemon/Alo Yoga clone, but with sizes specifically for Asian women, which the Western brands are, well, too Western to be able to niche in to Then they also make them a bit cheaper than the Western brands but with same or higher quality And many to most Chinese customers will just switch over to the Chinese brand You have to think on a geopolitical level what this means, we can put all the tarrifs we want on Chinese products, but they'll do the same back to us, and meanwhile one of the biggest markets for Western brands with 1.4 billion people is lost to us when we get too expensive / low quality for them Again these are not cheap rip offs, it's real brands with quality materials that they're switching over to The same with GPUs of course, we can ban China from using ASML chip making machines, but they'll just develop their own and by then we've lost them at customers I don't have a dog in this fight but it's very interesting to see the macro economics and politics actively happening on the ground!

@levelsio

1,210,995 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

Amazon just got caught running a secret price manipulation operation with Levi's, Home Depot, Walmart, and many more. Every time you "comparison shopped" online, you were looking at prices that were already rigged. Here's what happened: Amazon would monitor prices on Walmart, Target, Best Buy, Home Depot, and Chewy in real time. The second a competitor listed a product cheaper than Amazon, they'd contact the brand directly and tell them to "fix it." And the exact emails are now PUBLIC. Amazon sent Levi's links to two Walmart listings with the subject line "styles of concern." They basically said the prices on Walmart are too low and we have a problem. The next day, Levi's responded: "I talked to Walmart and they have partnered with us to take Easy Khaki Classic fit back up to ladder SPP price, $29.99 immediately." Levi's literally called Walmart and told them to raise the price. Because Amazon told Levi's to make the call. Walmart complied. Then Amazon matched the HIGHER price. Both retailers ended up charging more. The customer paid extra. Nobody competed. Same playbook with Hanes: Amazon sent them links showing Target and Walmart prices were lower. Hanes confirmed they "reached out to Target and Walmart to have the prices increased." Target increased the prices. Walmart increased the prices. Amazon kept their margins. But it gets even worse... Amazon told Allergan (the company that makes eye drops) that their product was "suppressed" on Amazon because it was cheaper on another site. Allergan responded: "Walmart got their price back up to $16.99." Amazon then unsuppressed the listing. They did this with pet treats on Chewy. Furniture on Home Depot. Products across dozens of categories spanning YEARS. The mechanism is simple but terrifying: If you're a brand and you sell cheaper on Walmart than on Amazon, Amazon suppresses your product, removes you from the Buy Box, buries you in search results, and effectively makes you invisible to 300 million customers. Brands can't afford that. So they call Walmart and Target and say "raise your prices or we'll lose our Amazon listings." Walmart and Target comply because they need the brand's products. Amazon captures 40 cents of every dollar spent online in America. That gives them the leverage to set prices across THE ENTIRE internet. Not just their own platform. So turns out, you were never comparison shopping. You were looking at a coordinated price floor set by Amazon through backroom phone calls between brands and their competitors. "Amazon is working to make your life more unaffordable." 3 separate antitrust trials are now scheduled for 2027. The FTC has its own case. 18 states plus the DOJ are piling on. This is literally happening during the WORST affordability crisis in a generation. Groceries up 25% since 2020. Housing unaffordable. Wages flat. And the largest ecommerce company on Earth has been secretly coordinating with brands to make sure you can't find a cheaper price ANYWHERE. "Competition" in retail is just a fantasy.

Ricardo

2,926,824 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

Amazon just got caught running a secret price manipulation operation with Levi's, Home Depot, Walmart, and many more. Every time you "comparison shopped" online, you were looking at prices that were already rigged. Here's what happened: Amazon would monitor prices on Walmart, Target, Best Buy, Home Depot, and Chewy in real time. The second a competitor listed a product cheaper than Amazon, they'd contact the brand directly and tell them to "fix it." And the exact emails are now PUBLIC. Amazon sent Levi's links to two Walmart listings with the subject line "styles of concern." They basically said the prices on Walmart are too low and we have a problem. The next day, Levi's responded: "I talked to Walmart and they have partnered with us to take Easy Khaki Classic fit back up to ladder SPP price, $29.99 immediately." Levi's literally called Walmart and told them to raise the price. Because Amazon told Levi's to make the call. Walmart complied. Then Amazon matched the HIGHER price. Both retailers ended up charging more. The customer paid extra. Nobody competed. Same playbook with Hanes: Amazon sent them links showing Target and Walmart prices were lower. Hanes confirmed they "reached out to Target and Walmart to have the prices increased." Target increased the prices. Walmart increased the prices. Amazon kept their margins. But it gets even worse... Amazon told Allergan (the company that makes eye drops) that their product was "suppressed" on Amazon because it was cheaper on another site. Allergan responded: "Walmart got their price back up to $16.99." Amazon then unsuppressed the listing. They did this with pet treats on Chewy. Furniture on Home Depot. Products across dozens of categories spanning YEARS. The mechanism is simple but terrifying: If you're a brand and you sell cheaper on Walmart than on Amazon, Amazon suppresses your product, removes you from the Buy Box, buries you in search results, and effectively makes you invisible to 300 million customers. Brands can't afford that. So they call Walmart and Target and say "raise your prices or we'll lose our Amazon listings." Walmart and Target comply because they need the brand's products. Amazon captures 40 cents of every dollar spent online in America. That gives them the leverage to set prices across THE ENTIRE internet. Not just their own platform. So turns out, you were never comparison shopping. You were looking at a coordinated price floor set by Amazon through backroom phone calls between brands and their competitors. "Amazon is working to make your life more unaffordable." 3 separate antitrust trials are now scheduled for 2027. The FTC has its own case. 18 states plus the DOJ are piling on. This is literally happening during the WORST affordability crisis in a generation. Groceries up 25% since 2020. Housing unaffordable. Wages flat. And the largest ecommerce company on Earth has been secretly coordinating with brands to make sure you can't find a cheaper price ANYWHERE. "Competition" in retail is just a fantasy.

redpillbot

50,691 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

This dad went to four different stores — Walmart, Target, Aldi, and Dollar General — and bought the absolute cheapest bread, peanut butter, and jelly he could find at each one. He did it because he’s tired of the judgmental comments that roll in every time he shares a grocery haul or simple recipe: “Walmart????” “Nothing there is fresh food.” “This is unhealthy.” “All processed junk.” The results? Walmart came in cheapest at just $5.28, Target was $5.57, Aldi $5.89, and surprisingly Dollar General was the most expensive at $6.10. I wonder if a lot of people don't realize that many Great Value brand items at Walmart are actually made by the same manufacturers behind popular name-brand products — like their sandwich bread from Sara Lee. And this is actually true for most if not all major stores — their store-brand items are often made by the same companies that produce the name brands right next to them on the shelf. It really shows that choosing budget-friendly options doesn’t mean settling for less quality. But the bigger message is this, we don’t always know what someone else is dealing with — their budget, their location, their transportation, or what’s even available within miles of home. For some families, that corner store or budget brand is the only realistic option. Are you someone who reaches for the store-brand versions to stretch your budget, or are you more of a name-brand-only shopper?

End3of6Days9 (Helen) 🇺🇸

99,258 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Chamath: AI Will Kill Brands, Only Abundance Wins The brands that bring abundance will win big. Chamath Palihapitiya: “ If I had to bet, I'm going to bet that brands go to zero.” @jason: “Really?” Chamath: “When you can make things that are as good or better, and you can make them in a cheaper, faster, better way, people want that abundance more than they want an affiliation to a brand. The perfect example is actually what Tesla did to BMW. This is a fundamentally cheaper, faster, better product. Yes, it's got a great brand, but nobody's going to pay a premium for these products. The reason why Y has outsold everything else is because the Model Y is priced better and it's superior on every operational dimension of comparison. Maybe the right word is abundance. The brands that bring abundance, that bring more to the table than their competitors, and they're able to bring more at the same unit cost or less, capture share. That's probably true.”

The All-In Podcast

99,558 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

Brian Tracy on his million-dollar sales lesson: "People don't care what your product is. They don't care about you. They don't care about your company. They don't even care what the product is." What do they care about? "The only thing people care about is what this product or service does for them." Brian explains that what customers really want is a change, an improvement, or a result in their life. "15% of buying behavior is determined by the past. 85% of buying behavior is determined by the anticipated future. What is going to happen as a result of me buying?" He illustrates this with a powerful analogy: "If you are selling a tour to the Canary Islands, spend 90% of your time talking about the destination and only 10% talking about the plane that you fly to the Canary Islands in." The problem? Most salespeople do the opposite. "Customers only buy improvement. The reason they buy is that they feel that the quality and quantity of the improvement will be greater than the cost and the trouble of using it." Sell the life they want, not the thing you made.

Brian Tracy on his million-dollar sales lesson: "People don't care what your product is. They don't care about you. They don't care about your company. They don't even care what the product is." What do they care about? "The only thing people care about is what this product or service does for them." Brian explains that what customers really want is a change, an improvement, or a result in their life. "15% of buying behavior is determined by the past. 85% of buying behavior is determined by the anticipated future. What is going to happen as a result of me buying?" He illustrates this with a powerful analogy: "If you are selling a tour to the Canary Islands, spend 90% of your time talking about the destination and only 10% talking about the plane that you fly to the Canary Islands in." The problem? Most salespeople do the opposite. "Customers only buy improvement. The reason they buy is that they feel that the quality and quantity of the improvement will be greater than the cost and the trouble of using it." Sell the life they want, not the thing you made.

Big Brain Business

124,260 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

This should make every American furious If you go to the UK to buy diapers for your baby, they are about 10x cheaper than in America A 60 pack of diapers only cost £1.69, which is $2.28 in US money I looked into why this is and it’s exactly what you’d expect - Europe has more private-label supermarket brands dominating, keeping margins low. The US is dominated by only a couple brands that are arguably monopolies with much higher profit margins - Diapers are zero-rated for sales tax in the UK, saving roughly 20% - US has “less price competition”…. This is code for monopolies run the industry Because of this in America we regularly pay about 8-10x the price for diapers as opposed to the UK This just shows how bad we are being robbed blind and how cheap these really are to make

This should make every American furious If you go to the UK to buy diapers for your baby, they are about 10x cheaper than in America A 60 pack of diapers only cost £1.69, which is $2.28 in US money I looked into why this is and it’s exactly what you’d expect - Europe has more private-label supermarket brands dominating, keeping margins low. The US is dominated by only a couple brands that are arguably monopolies with much higher profit margins - Diapers are zero-rated for sales tax in the UK, saving roughly 20% - US has “less price competition”…. This is code for monopolies run the industry Because of this in America we regularly pay about 8-10x the price for diapers as opposed to the UK This just shows how bad we are being robbed blind and how cheap these really are to make

Wall Street Apes

120,051 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

I Actually Want the Crypto Market to Crash, Here’s Why Everyone is praying for crypto to pump. I'm hoping for the exact opposite, and here's why. People are waiting for the CLARITY Act to pass and the Fed to cut rates so crypto explodes. I want it delayed. Keep the market down a little longer. Here's why that sounds crazy but isn't. When the market is down is exactly when you get to accumulate at cheap prices. You don't walk into a store hoping the price is high. If you want a quality product, you want it cheap. Assets are no different. But in investing people flip it. They want their bags expensive while they're still trying to buy more. That's trading with your emotions, way too attached to your portfolio. If you truly believed in your investments, you'd want what I want: more money into cheaper assets. That's how this actually works, not the other way around. Flip your perspective and you make money. Stay emotional, blame everyone else, and you stay exactly where you are. Follow for more.

I Actually Want the Crypto Market to Crash, Here’s Why Everyone is praying for crypto to pump. I'm hoping for the exact opposite, and here's why. People are waiting for the CLARITY Act to pass and the Fed to cut rates so crypto explodes. I want it delayed. Keep the market down a little longer. Here's why that sounds crazy but isn't. When the market is down is exactly when you get to accumulate at cheap prices. You don't walk into a store hoping the price is high. If you want a quality product, you want it cheap. Assets are no different. But in investing people flip it. They want their bags expensive while they're still trying to buy more. That's trading with your emotions, way too attached to your portfolio. If you truly believed in your investments, you'd want what I want: more money into cheaper assets. That's how this actually works, not the other way around. Flip your perspective and you make money. Stay emotional, blame everyone else, and you stay exactly where you are. Follow for more.

Alexander Lorenzo

13,602 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Marc Andreessen: “I’m always urging founders to raise prices, raise prices, raise prices.” “We spend a lot of time working with our companies on pricing,” a16z co-founder Marc Andreessen explains. “It’s really this magical art and science that a lot of companies don’t take seriously enough.” Marc continues: “A core principle of pricing is that you don’t want to price by cost if you can avoid it. You want to price by value. Especially when you’re selling to businesses, you want to price as a percentage of the business value you’re creating.” He gives the example of building an AI that can do the job of a programmer, a lawyer, or a radiologist: “Can you price by value and get a percentage of what otherwise would’ve literally been a person? Or equivalently can you price by marginal productivity? If you can take a human doctor and make them much more productive because you give them AI, can you price as a percentage of the productivity uplift?” Marc argues that high prices are under-appreciated by founders: “The naive view on pricing is the lower the pricing, the better it is for the customer. The more sophisticated way of looking at it is that higher prices are often good for the customer because the higher price means the vendor can make the product better, faster. Companies with higher prices and higher margins can actually invest more in R&D and make the product better. Most people who buy things aren’t just looking for the cheapest price. They want something that’s going to work really well.” Marc also emphasizes this point in an interview in Elad Gil’s High Growth Handbook: “What I hear from companies is, ‘Oh, we have an awesome moat, and we’re still going to price our product cheap, because we think that’s somehow going to maximize our business.’ I’m always urging founders to raise prices, raise prices, raise prices. I’m always urging founders to raise prices, raise prices, raise prices. First of all, raising prices is a great way to flesh out whether you actually do have a moat. If you do have a moat, the customers will still buy, because they have to. The definition of a moat is the ability to charge more. And so number one, it’s just a good way to flesh out that topic and really expose it to sunlight. And then number two, companies that charge more can better fund both their distribution efforts and their ongoing R&D efforts. Charging more is a key lever to be able to grow. And the companies that charge more therefore tend to grow faster. That’s counterintuitive to a lot of engineers. A lot of engineers think there’s a one-dimensional relationship between price and value. They have this mental model of commerce like they’re selling rice or something. It’s like, “My product is magical and nobody can replicate it, and I need to price it like it’s a commodity.” No, you don’t. In fact, quite the opposite. If you price it high, then you can fund a much more expensive sales and marketing effort, which means you’re much more likely to win the market, which means you’re much more likely to be able afford to do all the R&D and acquisitions you’re going to want to do. And so we always try to snap people into a two-dimensional mindset, where higher prices equals faster growth.” Source: a16z (Jan 2026)

Marc Andreessen: “I’m always urging founders to raise prices, raise prices, raise prices.” “We spend a lot of time working with our companies on pricing,” a16z co-founder Marc Andreessen explains. “It’s really this magical art and science that a lot of companies don’t take seriously enough.” Marc continues: “A core principle of pricing is that you don’t want to price by cost if you can avoid it. You want to price by value. Especially when you’re selling to businesses, you want to price as a percentage of the business value you’re creating.” He gives the example of building an AI that can do the job of a programmer, a lawyer, or a radiologist: “Can you price by value and get a percentage of what otherwise would’ve literally been a person? Or equivalently can you price by marginal productivity? If you can take a human doctor and make them much more productive because you give them AI, can you price as a percentage of the productivity uplift?” Marc argues that high prices are under-appreciated by founders: “The naive view on pricing is the lower the pricing, the better it is for the customer. The more sophisticated way of looking at it is that higher prices are often good for the customer because the higher price means the vendor can make the product better, faster. Companies with higher prices and higher margins can actually invest more in R&D and make the product better. Most people who buy things aren’t just looking for the cheapest price. They want something that’s going to work really well.” Marc also emphasizes this point in an interview in Elad Gil’s High Growth Handbook: “What I hear from companies is, ‘Oh, we have an awesome moat, and we’re still going to price our product cheap, because we think that’s somehow going to maximize our business.’ I’m always urging founders to raise prices, raise prices, raise prices. I’m always urging founders to raise prices, raise prices, raise prices. First of all, raising prices is a great way to flesh out whether you actually do have a moat. If you do have a moat, the customers will still buy, because they have to. The definition of a moat is the ability to charge more. And so number one, it’s just a good way to flesh out that topic and really expose it to sunlight. And then number two, companies that charge more can better fund both their distribution efforts and their ongoing R&D efforts. Charging more is a key lever to be able to grow. And the companies that charge more therefore tend to grow faster. That’s counterintuitive to a lot of engineers. A lot of engineers think there’s a one-dimensional relationship between price and value. They have this mental model of commerce like they’re selling rice or something. It’s like, “My product is magical and nobody can replicate it, and I need to price it like it’s a commodity.” No, you don’t. In fact, quite the opposite. If you price it high, then you can fund a much more expensive sales and marketing effort, which means you’re much more likely to win the market, which means you’re much more likely to be able afford to do all the R&D and acquisitions you’re going to want to do. And so we always try to snap people into a two-dimensional mindset, where higher prices equals faster growth.” Source: a16z (Jan 2026)

Startup Archive

166,639 Aufrufe • vor 26 Tagen

Marc Andreessen: “I’m always urging founders to raise prices, raise prices, raise prices.” “We spend a lot of time working with our companies on pricing,” a16z co-founder Marc Andreessen explains. “It’s really this magical art and science that a lot of companies don’t take seriously enough.” Marc continues: “A core principle of pricing is that you don’t want to price by cost if you can avoid it. You want to price by value. Especially when you’re selling to businesses, you want to price as a percentage of the business value you’re creating.” He gives the example of building an AI that can do the job of a programmer, a lawyer, or a radiologist: “Can you price by value and get a percentage of what otherwise would’ve literally been a person? Or equivalently can you price by marginal productivity? If you can take a human doctor and make them much more productive because you give them AI, can you price as a percentage of the productivity uplift?” Marc argues that high prices are under-appreciated by founders: “The naive view on pricing is the lower the pricing, the better it is for the customer. The more sophisticated way of looking at it is that higher prices are often good for the customer because the higher price means the vendor can make the product better, faster. Companies with higher prices and higher margins can actually invest more in R&D and make the product better. Most people who buy things aren’t just looking for the cheapest price. They want something that’s going to work really well.” Marc also emphasizes this point in an interview in Elad Gil’s High Growth Handbook: “What I hear from companies is, ‘Oh, we have an awesome moat, and we’re still going to price our product cheap, because we think that’s somehow going to maximize our business.’ I’m always urging founders to raise prices, raise prices, raise prices. I’m always urging founders to raise prices, raise prices, raise prices. First of all, raising prices is a great way to flesh out whether you actually do have a moat. If you do have a moat, the customers will still buy, because they have to. The definition of a moat is the ability to charge more. And so number one, it’s just a good way to flesh out that topic and really expose it to sunlight. And then number two, companies that charge more can better fund both their distribution efforts and their ongoing R&D efforts. Charging more is a key lever to be able to grow. And the companies that charge more therefore tend to grow faster. That’s counterintuitive to a lot of engineers. A lot of engineers think there’s a one-dimensional relationship between price and value. They have this mental model of commerce like they’re selling rice or something. It’s like, “My product is magical and nobody can replicate it, and I need to price it like it’s a commodity.” No, you don’t. In fact, quite the opposite. If you price it high, then you can fund a much more expensive sales and marketing effort, which means you’re much more likely to win the market, which means you’re much more likely to be able afford to do all the R&D and acquisitions you’re going to want to do. And so we always try to snap people into a two-dimensional mindset, where higher prices equals faster growth.” Video source: a16z (2026)

Marc Andreessen: “I’m always urging founders to raise prices, raise prices, raise prices.” “We spend a lot of time working with our companies on pricing,” a16z co-founder Marc Andreessen explains. “It’s really this magical art and science that a lot of companies don’t take seriously enough.” Marc continues: “A core principle of pricing is that you don’t want to price by cost if you can avoid it. You want to price by value. Especially when you’re selling to businesses, you want to price as a percentage of the business value you’re creating.” He gives the example of building an AI that can do the job of a programmer, a lawyer, or a radiologist: “Can you price by value and get a percentage of what otherwise would’ve literally been a person? Or equivalently can you price by marginal productivity? If you can take a human doctor and make them much more productive because you give them AI, can you price as a percentage of the productivity uplift?” Marc argues that high prices are under-appreciated by founders: “The naive view on pricing is the lower the pricing, the better it is for the customer. The more sophisticated way of looking at it is that higher prices are often good for the customer because the higher price means the vendor can make the product better, faster. Companies with higher prices and higher margins can actually invest more in R&D and make the product better. Most people who buy things aren’t just looking for the cheapest price. They want something that’s going to work really well.” Marc also emphasizes this point in an interview in Elad Gil’s High Growth Handbook: “What I hear from companies is, ‘Oh, we have an awesome moat, and we’re still going to price our product cheap, because we think that’s somehow going to maximize our business.’ I’m always urging founders to raise prices, raise prices, raise prices. I’m always urging founders to raise prices, raise prices, raise prices. First of all, raising prices is a great way to flesh out whether you actually do have a moat. If you do have a moat, the customers will still buy, because they have to. The definition of a moat is the ability to charge more. And so number one, it’s just a good way to flesh out that topic and really expose it to sunlight. And then number two, companies that charge more can better fund both their distribution efforts and their ongoing R&D efforts. Charging more is a key lever to be able to grow. And the companies that charge more therefore tend to grow faster. That’s counterintuitive to a lot of engineers. A lot of engineers think there’s a one-dimensional relationship between price and value. They have this mental model of commerce like they’re selling rice or something. It’s like, “My product is magical and nobody can replicate it, and I need to price it like it’s a commodity.” No, you don’t. In fact, quite the opposite. If you price it high, then you can fund a much more expensive sales and marketing effort, which means you’re much more likely to win the market, which means you’re much more likely to be able afford to do all the R&D and acquisitions you’re going to want to do. And so we always try to snap people into a two-dimensional mindset, where higher prices equals faster growth.” Video source: a16z (2026)

Startup Archive

422,892 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

SHOULD GOVERNMENT BE ALLOWED TO TAKE PRIVATE PROPERTY? “People are waking up to the fact that the asset seizure tax is an elimination of private property rights, that fundamentally what you're saying [is] that private property now becomes public property. Because as soon as you give the government the right to collect your post-tax assets through a legislative vote, you are basically saying that you no longer have private property — because at any point in the future the government can vote to say I'm going to take your private property — which is different than an income tax. [An income tax] is when you earn something that you didn't have before, and they take a percentage of your earnings (of your income). The statement now is after you've made your income (it's now your private property) — they can come and take it. And so that is a distinction that has never existed in the United States. And I will make the retort right now to property tax, because people always say to me: ‘what about property tax?’ A property tax is a service fee on a particular, specific asset. The money that is collected provides services for that asset to make it more valuable. So you get roads, infrastructure, policing, fire, schools… All the stuff that comes with property tax makes that property [more valuable]. And you have the option at any point you want to sell that property and stop paying that property tax. You have the option at any point to downgrade your property and get a cheaper property and pay [a lower tax]. And here's the other important point about property tax: it’s uniform. Uniform means that everyone pays the same percentage, the same property tax rate in a county. This asset seizure tax that's being proposed is a demographic tax — meaning that the state or the legislature defines a specific group of individuals (in this case, they're saying anyone with a net worth over a billion dollars) and then they can go and take assets from only that group. That is nonuniform taxation. It means that for the first time we're saying based on the demographics of a person meaning whatever you want to use to define that person (in this case their wealth) — you are going to be treated differently. And that is different than an income tax, because remember when you have graduated income tax rates (and you say high earners get taxed more) — what you're taxing is the earnings, not the individual. You're not looking through to the individual to determine whether or not they're wealthy. All you're doing is looking at the independent earnings amount that's coming in. And so a uniformity clause is supposed to protect people from being demographically discriminated against. And you may roll your hand and be like: ‘Oh, who cares about the billionaires? Eat the rich. That's great.’ But fundamentally, you're giving the government, the legislature, the ability to in the future take any demographic definition they want and go in and take any percentage they want of after-tax property from you. That is why this is so troubling.” david friedberg The All-In Podcast

SHOULD GOVERNMENT BE ALLOWED TO TAKE PRIVATE PROPERTY? “People are waking up to the fact that the asset seizure tax is an elimination of private property rights, that fundamentally what you're saying [is] that private property now becomes public property. Because as soon as you give the government the right to collect your post-tax assets through a legislative vote, you are basically saying that you no longer have private property — because at any point in the future the government can vote to say I'm going to take your private property — which is different than an income tax. [An income tax] is when you earn something that you didn't have before, and they take a percentage of your earnings (of your income). The statement now is after you've made your income (it's now your private property) — they can come and take it. And so that is a distinction that has never existed in the United States. And I will make the retort right now to property tax, because people always say to me: ‘what about property tax?’ A property tax is a service fee on a particular, specific asset. The money that is collected provides services for that asset to make it more valuable. So you get roads, infrastructure, policing, fire, schools… All the stuff that comes with property tax makes that property [more valuable]. And you have the option at any point you want to sell that property and stop paying that property tax. You have the option at any point to downgrade your property and get a cheaper property and pay [a lower tax]. And here's the other important point about property tax: it’s uniform. Uniform means that everyone pays the same percentage, the same property tax rate in a county. This asset seizure tax that's being proposed is a demographic tax — meaning that the state or the legislature defines a specific group of individuals (in this case, they're saying anyone with a net worth over a billion dollars) and then they can go and take assets from only that group. That is nonuniform taxation. It means that for the first time we're saying based on the demographics of a person meaning whatever you want to use to define that person (in this case their wealth) — you are going to be treated differently. And that is different than an income tax, because remember when you have graduated income tax rates (and you say high earners get taxed more) — what you're taxing is the earnings, not the individual. You're not looking through to the individual to determine whether or not they're wealthy. All you're doing is looking at the independent earnings amount that's coming in. And so a uniformity clause is supposed to protect people from being demographically discriminated against. And you may roll your hand and be like: ‘Oh, who cares about the billionaires? Eat the rich. That's great.’ But fundamentally, you're giving the government, the legislature, the ability to in the future take any demographic definition they want and go in and take any percentage they want of after-tax property from you. That is why this is so troubling.” david friedberg The All-In Podcast

Ron Pragides 

258,567 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

Walmart exposed AGAIN for shorting their product weights, this time with their Great Value bacon If you take unopened packages of their bacon and place them directly on the scale, all 3 are short but it doesn’t stop there If you cut open the packages and weigh each one of them on the scale, they are all short about 2-3 strips of bacon in weight “So we're talking about 3 strips of bacon, which means every seven to eight packages short equals a free 100% profit package” You can do the math and tell that at scale this ends up being a massive profit for Walmart It’s intentional I actually did the math on this: Walmart sells about 8–12 million packs of bacon per month. If they short about 3 pieces per pack, or about 2.5 ounces This means Walmart makes an extra estimated $8 million per month This is just one product….

Walmart exposed AGAIN for shorting their product weights, this time with their Great Value bacon If you take unopened packages of their bacon and place them directly on the scale, all 3 are short but it doesn’t stop there If you cut open the packages and weigh each one of them on the scale, they are all short about 2-3 strips of bacon in weight “So we're talking about 3 strips of bacon, which means every seven to eight packages short equals a free 100% profit package” You can do the math and tell that at scale this ends up being a massive profit for Walmart It’s intentional I actually did the math on this: Walmart sells about 8–12 million packs of bacon per month. If they short about 3 pieces per pack, or about 2.5 ounces This means Walmart makes an extra estimated $8 million per month This is just one product….

Wall Street Apes

385,512 Aufrufe • vor 16 Tagen

Marc Andreessen explains the 3 Necessities for Start-up Success: "The general criteria for a successful high-tech startup, in my view, you see different sort of rules of thumb from different people. But the three big things you always come back to are, is there a big market? And by the way, that comes in two parts. Is there a big existing market that you think you can go after and sort of displace incumbents or do you believe there will be a new market that will be big? So big market. Is there a fundamental technology or economic change that causes you to basically justify having a new company? And that's really important. And the way I always think about that is, is there a 10X change happening in the technology landscape? Is something 10X faster or 10X cheaper or 10X better? And if it's not 10X, we as both VCs and entrepreneurs, we really have to ask ourselves like, is it really worth doing? Because it's really hard. I mean, it's really hard to start new companies. new companies generally shouldn't exist. Existing companies are usually pretty good at what they do. And so for a new company to exist, it not only has to like come in and go into business and bring a product to market, but it has to bring a product to market that's so much better than what already exists that it punches through the sort of status quo. And most customers in most markets are pretty happy buying from the current suppliers and so there has to be a real kind of edge on the thing and we look for that in either a technology change, usually a technology change or an economic change. which are often the same thing. And then the third is team. Is the team outstanding? And if you think about this as an entrepreneur, it becomes a question of the founding team. Some companies are solo founders and they can work, but generally most of us, like myself, we're human beings, we're mortal. You want to have a founding team of complementary skill sets. And so you want to have at least one super strong technologist, quite possibly more than one. Some of the best startups are actually more than one founding technologist and then it often helps to have somebody who's like a product or who's a market or sales person or has a sort of really good understanding of business on the team, certainly helps a lot. And so we sort of look at market, product, and team. And the reality is you need all three. I would say, interestingly, if you're going to compromise as an investor, if we're going to compromise on one of those, it would actually be the product. And the reason I say that is because a great market is a lot easier to make up for with iterative product execution than a poor market. Because the problem with a poor market, a small market, is even if you do a great job on the product, there just aren't that many customers. It's hard to ever get big."

Marc Andreessen explains the 3 Necessities for Start-up Success: "The general criteria for a successful high-tech startup, in my view, you see different sort of rules of thumb from different people. But the three big things you always come back to are, is there a big market? And by the way, that comes in two parts. Is there a big existing market that you think you can go after and sort of displace incumbents or do you believe there will be a new market that will be big? So big market. Is there a fundamental technology or economic change that causes you to basically justify having a new company? And that's really important. And the way I always think about that is, is there a 10X change happening in the technology landscape? Is something 10X faster or 10X cheaper or 10X better? And if it's not 10X, we as both VCs and entrepreneurs, we really have to ask ourselves like, is it really worth doing? Because it's really hard. I mean, it's really hard to start new companies. new companies generally shouldn't exist. Existing companies are usually pretty good at what they do. And so for a new company to exist, it not only has to like come in and go into business and bring a product to market, but it has to bring a product to market that's so much better than what already exists that it punches through the sort of status quo. And most customers in most markets are pretty happy buying from the current suppliers and so there has to be a real kind of edge on the thing and we look for that in either a technology change, usually a technology change or an economic change. which are often the same thing. And then the third is team. Is the team outstanding? And if you think about this as an entrepreneur, it becomes a question of the founding team. Some companies are solo founders and they can work, but generally most of us, like myself, we're human beings, we're mortal. You want to have a founding team of complementary skill sets. And so you want to have at least one super strong technologist, quite possibly more than one. Some of the best startups are actually more than one founding technologist and then it often helps to have somebody who's like a product or who's a market or sales person or has a sort of really good understanding of business on the team, certainly helps a lot. And so we sort of look at market, product, and team. And the reality is you need all three. I would say, interestingly, if you're going to compromise as an investor, if we're going to compromise on one of those, it would actually be the product. And the reason I say that is because a great market is a lot easier to make up for with iterative product execution than a poor market. Because the problem with a poor market, a small market, is even if you do a great job on the product, there just aren't that many customers. It's hard to ever get big."

Founder Mode

39,005 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

"Make it cheaper." If you've been in manufacturing, you've heard those words 1000s of times. That's how a lot of products are made. - Take something good - Remove features - Reduce quality - Hope nobody notices We decided to do the EXACT OPPOSITE. Instead of asking how cheap we could make it, we asked: "How GREAT can we make it?" We blindly invested in moulds. We made it better in every way we could. It was a big risk. We had no idea if customers would pay for it. But we believed something simple: Indians deserve great products too. Then we met the founders of CÜRAA: Raj Shamani, Sanjyotkeer & Neeraj Kumawat. And from the first conversation, it felt different. Most brands ask manufacturers how much cost they can remove. Cüraa asked how much value we could ADD. That changed everything. Today, that hand mixer is live. The most premium hand mixer Made in Bharat. Premium because nobody involved wanted to compromise. When more brands & manufacturers are willing to take bets on quality, India starts building products that matter. Want to buy? Link in the first comment.

"Make it cheaper." If you've been in manufacturing, you've heard those words 1000s of times. That's how a lot of products are made. - Take something good - Remove features - Reduce quality - Hope nobody notices We decided to do the EXACT OPPOSITE. Instead of asking how cheap we could make it, we asked: "How GREAT can we make it?" We blindly invested in moulds. We made it better in every way we could. It was a big risk. We had no idea if customers would pay for it. But we believed something simple: Indians deserve great products too. Then we met the founders of CÜRAA: Raj Shamani, Sanjyotkeer & Neeraj Kumawat. And from the first conversation, it felt different. Most brands ask manufacturers how much cost they can remove. Cüraa asked how much value we could ADD. That changed everything. Today, that hand mixer is live. The most premium hand mixer Made in Bharat. Premium because nobody involved wanted to compromise. When more brands & manufacturers are willing to take bets on quality, India starts building products that matter. Want to buy? Link in the first comment.

Prakash Dadlani

14,646 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

🚨 AMERICANS ARE JUST NOW REALIZING THEIR “ICE CREAM” ISN’T EVEN LEGALLY ICE CREAM ANYMORE "Does anybody know what's happened to Breyers ice cream...that it's no longer ice cream?" A couple posted a viral video after buying a tub of what they thought was normal ice cream only to discover the packaging never uses the words ice cream anywhere. Instead, the label says “Frozen Dairy Dessert.” Why? Because years ago, companies quietly changed their recipes: • Less cream • More air • More gums & stabilizers • Cheaper fillers • Ingredients that no longer meet FDA standards to legally call it ice cream The wife says she bought this thinking she was being “moderately healthy,” until she noticed something insane: “NOWHERE on here does it say ice cream.” “It literally says frozen dairy dessert." “This was the ice cream of my childhood…now it tastes TERRIBLE." She opens the container and immediately freaks out: “First of all… what is this texture?” “It tastes metallic.” “It’s forming a FILM inside my mouth." “This is NOT ice cream.” Her husband jumps in: “This used to be the PREMIUM ice cream of the bourgeoisie.” She stops him, but keeps inspecting the tub: “They made it LOOK like ice cream… the fancy label, the ‘Rainforest Alliance’ leaf… the Grade A milk logo… but WHAT am I actually eating here?” “Because it’s definitely not ice cream.” People across the internet are now checking their own tubs and realizing the same thing - half the brands in their freezer aren’t even allowed to be called real ice cream. Did you know companies legally reclassified this stuff… or have you been eating ‘frozen dairy dessert’ without realizing it?

HustleBitch

4,295,751 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

From Eric Vishria on how the top AI founders are building products completely opposite of the SaaS era: "One of the things that is really different in the AI world versus the SaaS world, is that in the SaaS world, over and over again, you had people who really understood the customer. And the problem. And then they understood a domain. They understood what the technology was more or less capable of. But it wasn't a real question of if you could build something or not. For example, take Salesforce, Workday, and ServiceNow. CRM existed before Salesforce. HR management existed before Workday. Same thing with ServiceNow. So in every case, Salesforce followed Siebel. Workday followed Peoplesoft. ServiceNow followed Peregrine and Remedy, and others. So they were just kind of, cloud SaaS versions of the prior generation product. They just understood the customers. They understood the problem. And they were just like, here's a better version. And that evolved a little bit over time in SaaS land. But that's what it is. And so product development in that way was done by people who really understood the customer and the problems. And then just took advantage of the next wave. And this is almost diametrically opposite of product development in the AI era. When I look at the teams that are having the most success today, they have intimate knowledge of the models. They are right on the frontier of understanding which models are better at what, and why, and when. And what they're going to be good at and what they're not going to be good at. And what they're spending their time on, is figuring out how do I apply this capability of this model to this domain or to this user. So they're actually working inside out or technology out, versus customer problem in. And of course, they understand the customer problem. And a lot of times they have firsthand knowledge of it. But they're really close to the metal and capability, and they're applying it. And I think this is a really different way to develop products than in SaaS. I started my career as a product manager a long time ago, and it's almost the complete opposite of everything you learned. "Listen to the customer, understand it, then bring it back to the engineering and product teams." If you did that right now, ask a bunch of customers what they want out of AI, and you brought it back, for the most part, it may not be possible today with today's technology. Whereas the teams that are winning right now really understand the technology and are applying it out. And so I think this reversal matters. I think it's a big difference in terms of how companies are getting built. And maybe even the types of entrepreneurs that will be successful. I'm not sure. You're seeing some real change there. Look at the Bret Taylor's at Sierra. That's a super, super technical founder who really gets it. Brett and Clay really get it. You look at Michael and his co-founders at Cursor. They're super technical founders and they get it. They all really understand what these things can and can't do. And that's a pretty different dynamic relative to the way the best SaaS companies got built." Link in bio for the full conversation going deep on the current class of startups going from zero to $100m+ in ARR within 12 months.

From Eric Vishria on how the top AI founders are building products completely opposite of the SaaS era: "One of the things that is really different in the AI world versus the SaaS world, is that in the SaaS world, over and over again, you had people who really understood the customer. And the problem. And then they understood a domain. They understood what the technology was more or less capable of. But it wasn't a real question of if you could build something or not. For example, take Salesforce, Workday, and ServiceNow. CRM existed before Salesforce. HR management existed before Workday. Same thing with ServiceNow. So in every case, Salesforce followed Siebel. Workday followed Peoplesoft. ServiceNow followed Peregrine and Remedy, and others. So they were just kind of, cloud SaaS versions of the prior generation product. They just understood the customers. They understood the problem. And they were just like, here's a better version. And that evolved a little bit over time in SaaS land. But that's what it is. And so product development in that way was done by people who really understood the customer and the problems. And then just took advantage of the next wave. And this is almost diametrically opposite of product development in the AI era. When I look at the teams that are having the most success today, they have intimate knowledge of the models. They are right on the frontier of understanding which models are better at what, and why, and when. And what they're going to be good at and what they're not going to be good at. And what they're spending their time on, is figuring out how do I apply this capability of this model to this domain or to this user. So they're actually working inside out or technology out, versus customer problem in. And of course, they understand the customer problem. And a lot of times they have firsthand knowledge of it. But they're really close to the metal and capability, and they're applying it. And I think this is a really different way to develop products than in SaaS. I started my career as a product manager a long time ago, and it's almost the complete opposite of everything you learned. "Listen to the customer, understand it, then bring it back to the engineering and product teams." If you did that right now, ask a bunch of customers what they want out of AI, and you brought it back, for the most part, it may not be possible today with today's technology. Whereas the teams that are winning right now really understand the technology and are applying it out. And so I think this reversal matters. I think it's a big difference in terms of how companies are getting built. And maybe even the types of entrepreneurs that will be successful. I'm not sure. You're seeing some real change there. Look at the Bret Taylor's at Sierra. That's a super, super technical founder who really gets it. Brett and Clay really get it. You look at Michael and his co-founders at Cursor. They're super technical founders and they get it. They all really understand what these things can and can't do. And that's a pretty different dynamic relative to the way the best SaaS companies got built." Link in bio for the full conversation going deep on the current class of startups going from zero to $100m+ in ARR within 12 months.

The Peel

209,752 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Walmart is selling you an unprofitable TV that watches everything you do and reports it back to their $6.4 billion advertising machine. And the TV literally won't turn on until you give them permission. This is one of the most sophisticated consumer surveillance operations in history and 150 million people walk into their stores every single week with no idea it's happening. Here's the full story: In December 2024, Walmart bought Vizio for $2.3 billion. Everyone assumed it was about selling more TVs. But it had nothing to do with TVs. Vizio's TV hardware business was actually LOSING money, posting a $6.7 million loss in its final quarter as an independent company. The advertising division made $115.8 million in profit that same quarter. Walmart bought 19 million living rooms - not a TV company. In March 2026, Walmart flipped the switch. Every new Vizio TV now requires a mandatory Walmart account before you can access any smart features. No account, no streaming apps. Without signing in, your TV is useless. The moment you create that account, something called Automatic Content Recognition activates. ACR runs silently in the background, taking screenshots of everything displayed on your screen and comparing them against a database to identify exactly what you're watching, second by second, across 700 TV networks and over 100 streaming apps. It knows what you watched, when you watched it, how long you watched it, and what you did afterward. Now here's the part that makes this genuinely unprecedented in the history of retail: Walmart ALREADY knows what 150 million Americans buy every week. They know your grocery habits, your clothing preferences, your pharmacy purchases, your financial behavior through Walmart Pay, and your location data from the app. But what they couldn't see was the 4 to 6 hours a day Americans spend staring at their television screens. By connecting your Walmart account to your Vizio TV, they've closed that loop. They can now prove that you saw a 30 second ad for gardening soil Sunday night and bought that exact brand at Walmart Monday morning. L'Oréal is already signed on as a launch partner for this kind of targeting. The math on this is just insane: Walmart Connect, their advertising arm, generated $6.4 billion last year with 46% year-over-year growth. Advertising runs at 70 to 90% profit margins compared to traditional retail's 3 to 4%. Their CFO admitted that ads and membership fees already account for one-third of Walmart's total operating income. The advertising business is now more important to Walmart's bottom line than entire product categories in their stores. And they're just getting started. Analysts calculated that Walmart's ad revenue currently represents only 1% of total sales. Amazon's ad business runs at 8% of sales. The gap between where Walmart is and where Amazon is represents roughly $50 billion in untapped advertising revenue. The Vizio deal is the bridge to get there. This is WHY they're selling certain TVs at a loss. When you break down the $2.3 billion acquisition across 19 million households, Walmart paid $121 per living room. A lifetime of behavioral viewing data from a household that also shops at Walmart is worth infinitely more than that. The cheap TV is a trojan horse. Vizio has already been fined $2.2 million by the FTC for secretly collecting viewing data on 11 million TVs without consent. The Texas Attorney General sued them for "spying on Texans." Walmart bought them anyway and made the surveillance MANDATORY. The company that built its empire promising everyday low prices is becoming the most powerful advertising platform in the world, and the TV in your living room is the entry point. What do you think?

Ricardo

426,706 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

🚨 MAN WALKS INTO WALMART AND EXPOSES THE DIGITAL PRICE TAG SCAM — THIS IS HOW THEY'RE MAKING MILLIONS MORE OFF YOU A shopper films inside Walmart… and shows every price tag quietly replaced with digital screens. Not paper. Not fixed. They can change instantly. • Prices shift throughout the day • Go up when it’s busy… drop when it’s slow • Updated across the entire store in seconds • Same item… slightly different price depending on timing • He shows this is happening across almost every shelf Tiny increases… a few cents at a time… across thousands of products. That adds up to millions more, straight from customers who don’t even notice. So the price you see? It might not be what it was earlier. And it might not be what the next person pays. He says this is just the beginning… • Constant price testing • Slow increases over time • Dialing in exactly what people will tolerate Same product. Same shelf. But the price? Always moving. Are you okay with prices changing behind the scenes… or does this feel like something people should be paying attention to?

🚨 MAN WALKS INTO WALMART AND EXPOSES THE DIGITAL PRICE TAG SCAM — THIS IS HOW THEY'RE MAKING MILLIONS MORE OFF YOU A shopper films inside Walmart… and shows every price tag quietly replaced with digital screens. Not paper. Not fixed. They can change instantly. • Prices shift throughout the day • Go up when it’s busy… drop when it’s slow • Updated across the entire store in seconds • Same item… slightly different price depending on timing • He shows this is happening across almost every shelf Tiny increases… a few cents at a time… across thousands of products. That adds up to millions more, straight from customers who don’t even notice. So the price you see? It might not be what it was earlier. And it might not be what the next person pays. He says this is just the beginning… • Constant price testing • Slow increases over time • Dialing in exactly what people will tolerate Same product. Same shelf. But the price? Always moving. Are you okay with prices changing behind the scenes… or does this feel like something people should be paying attention to?

HustleBitch

48,181 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten