Loading...
Answers
MenuHow do the economics behind Rent the Runway and Black Tux work? How would you calculate breakeven turnover and inventory requirements?
This question has no further details.
Answers
Ok, so I'm not an expert in fashion but I know finance.
Here is my take:
These two would be considered "fast fashion" retailers or better yet, e-tailers. Fast fashion simply means that unlike Coach or American Eagle or Levis, these FF retailers don't have to try to predict fashion 6 months in advance risking a big flop and having to heavily discount items that don't sell. FF retailers simply 'scout' runway shows and buy wholesale from these designer labels. A lot of designers would like this because they are essentially getting a guaranteed sale plus added exposure. Another thing is that these FF retailers don't keep their inventory for months at a time, they do so in cycles of weeks. If a designer sells out, chances are they retailer will continue to come back for more designs from them.
They are purchased wholesale, on cash basis account, payable on credit of 30 days or 90 days.
The economics as you state it are a bit more complex that what I care to explain here, but essentially if you were to 'replicate & improve' what I would do is scout and offer purchase orders to designers, just like they do. First order completed as 50/50 paid in full/credit term payable 60 days or so (assuming you already have a store ready to move inventory and not waste those 60 days setting up). Aim to sell all inventory before 60 days and pay balance with revenues. Extend credit term to 90 days at increased inventory, aim to sell by 60 days and keep that cycle going. What this will allow you to do is to always have inventory being paid for by customers before they are due for you essentially having the clients pay for your expansion in inventory. The break even is simple, don't sell for less than what your wholesale amount is.
Typical increase from wholesale commodity goods is 30%, try that margin. If you have to discount "heavily" at 15% or 25% you still get at least 5% safe margin
I recently read a great HBS case study on Rent the Runway, and we've recently completed a tuxedo rental e-commerce site for another competitor of the Black Tux.
The economics of it might look something like this:
Middle-Tier Tux:
Retail price of tuxedo $500
Wholesale cost of tuxedo $215
Cost of tuxedo to online retailer $150 (negotiated)
Revenue per rental $60 (just the tuxedo, not accessories)
Variable cost per rental $20 (shipping, stains, cleaning, etc.)
So if you're paying $150 for the tuxedo, and you rent it out just 4 times, you'll be above break even ($60/rental - $20/rental/fixes = $40 profit / rental, x 4 = $160).
This is a real world example FYI. In terms of inventory requirements, that's going to depend upon your business. Rent the Runway has TONS of dresses. But they started out with a limited supply and grew from there. The Black Tux keeps their selection limited and high quality, which I'm sure helps them manage their inventory easily, run numbers constantly and make sure they are running everything appropriately from an inventory standpoint. I wouldn't be surprised if they had product ready to be added to their distribution at the drop of a hat, especially for busier seasons such as prom or summer (weddings).
I hope that helps. Happy to answer more questions for you.
Black Tux and Rent the Runway operate on a similar business model, offering rental services for high-end clothing and accessories. Let's check the main aspect of their economics:
1)Revenue Model: Both of them generate revenue through rental fees which is a fraction of the item's retail price.
2)Inventory Acquisition: They acquire their inventory through various means.
3)Effective inventory management
To calculate breakeven turnover and inventory requirements, the following points are to be considered:
1)Overhead Costs
2)Rental Fee and Rental Duration
3)Breakeven Turnover Calculation=Total Costs / (Average Rental Fee - Variable Costs per Rental)
4)Cost of Inventory
Related Questions
-
What is a good/average conversion rate % for an e-commerce (marketplace model) for customers who add to cart through to purchase order.
There is quite a bit of information available online about eCommerce conversions rates. According to a ton of sources, average visitor-to-sale conversion rates vary from 1-3%. This does not mean the Furniture conversions will be the same. The bigger problem is that visitor-to-sale conversions are not a good data point to use to measure or tune your eCommerce business. All business have some unique friction factors that will affect your final conversion rate. It's very important to understand each of these factors and how to overcome them. The best way to measure and optimize is to take a conversion funnel approach. Once you have defined your funnel you can optimize each conversion rate to better the total effect. For example: Top of the funnel: - All web site visitors, 100,000 / month First conversion: View a product page, 50% of all visitors Second Conversion: Add to Cart, 10% of people who view products Final Conversion: Complete Checkout, 80% of people who put items in a cart In this example we see that only 10% of people who actually view products put them in to a cart, but 80% of those people purchase. If you can figure out why visitors are not adding items to their cart and fix the issue to increase the conversion rate, revenue should increase significantly because of the high checkout rate. You can use free tools like Google Analytics to give you a wealth of information about your site visitor and their behavior or there are some great paid tools as well.DM
-
VCs: What are some pitch deck pet peeves?
Avoid buzzwords: - every founder thinks their idea is disruptive/revolutionary - every founder says their financial projections are conservative Instead: - explain your validation & customer traction - explain the assumptions underlying your projections Avoid: - focusing extensively on the product/technology rather than on the business - misunderstanding the purpose of financial projections; they exist in a pitch deck to: a) validate the founders understanding of running a business b) provide a sense of magnitude of the opportunity versus the amount of capital requested c) confirm the go-to-market strategy (nothing undermines a pitch faster than financial projections disconnected from the declared go-to-market approach) d) generally discredit you as someone who understands how to build a company; for instance we'll capture 10% of our market, 1% of China, etc. Top down financial projections get big laughs from investors after you leave the room. bonus) don't show 90% profit margins. Ever. Even if you'll actually have them. Ever. Instead: - avoid false precision by rounding all projections to nearest thousands ($000) - include # units / # subscribers / # customers above revenue line; this goes hand-in-hand with building a bottom up revenue model and implicitly reveals assumptions. Investors will determine if you are realistic, conservative, or out of your mind based largely on the customer acquisition numbers and your explanation of how they will be achieved. - highlight your assumptions & milestones on first customers, cash flow break even, and other customer acquisition and expense metrics that are relevant Avoid: - thinking about investor money as your money - approaching the pitch from your mindset (I need money); investors have to be skeptics, so understand their perspective. - bad investors; it's tempting to think that any money is good money. You can't get an investor to leave once they are in without Herculean efforts and costs (and if you're asking for money, you can't afford it). If you're not on the same page with an investor on how to run/grow the business, you'll regret every waking hour. Instead: - it's their money; tell them how you are going to utilize their money to make them more money - you're a founder, a true believer. Your mantra should be "de-risk, de-risk, de-risk". Perception of risk is the #1 reason an investor says no. Many are legitimate, but often enough it's simply a perception that could have been addressed. - beyond the pitch, make the conversation 2-way. Ask questions of the investor (you might learn awesome things or uncover problems) and talk to at least two other founders they invested in more than 6 months ago.JP
-
How much equity should I ask as a C-level executive in a new startup ?
As you may suspect, there really isn't a hard and fast answer. You can review averages to see that a CEO typically becomes a major shareholder in a startup, but your role and renumeration will be based on the perceived value you bring to the organization. You value someone's contribution through equity when you think that they will be able to add long-term benefits, you would prefer that they don't move company part way through the process, and to keep them from being enticed by a better salary (a reason for equity tied to a vesting arrangement). Another reason is when the company doesn't have salary money available but the potential is very strong. In this situation you should be especially diligent in your analysis because you will realize that even the best laid plans sometimes fall completely short. So to get the best mix, you have to be very real about the company's long-term growth potential, your role in achieving it, and the current liquidity necessary to run the operations. It should also be realized that equity needs to be distributed. You cannot distribute 110% and having your cap table recalculated such that your 5% turns into 1% in order to make room for the newly hired head of technology is rather demotivating for the team. Equity should be used to entice a valuable person to join, stay, and contribute. It should not be used in leu of salary that allows an employee to pay their bills. So, like a lot of questions, the answer is really, it depends. Analyzing the true picture of your long-term potential will allow you to more easily determine the correct mix.DH
-
For every success story in Silicon Valley, how many are there that fail?
It all depends on what one decides to be a definition of a "success story." For some entrepreneurs, it might be getting acqui-hired, for some -- a $10M exit, for some -- a $200M exit, and for others -- an IPO. Based on the numbers I have anecdotally heard in conversations over the last decade or so, VCs fund about 1 in 350 ventures they see, and of all of these funded ventures, only about 1 in 10 become really successful (i.e. have a big exit or a successful IPO.) So you are looking at a 1 in 3500 chance of eventual venture success among all of the companies that try to get VC funding. (To put this number in perspective, US VCs invest in about 3000-3500 companies every year.) In addition, there might be a few others (say, maybe another 1-2 in every 10 companies that get VC investments) that get "decent" exits along the way, and hence could be categorized as somewhat successful depending on, again, how one chooses to define what qualifies as a "success story." Finally, there might also be companies that may never need or get around to seeking VC funding. One can, of course, find holes in the simplifying assumptions I have made here, but it doesn't really matter if that number instead is 1 in 1000 or 1 in 10000. The basic point being made here is just that the odds are heavily stacked against new ventures being successful. But that's also one of the distinguishing characteristics of entrepreneurs -- to go ahead and try to bring their idea to life despite the heavy odds. Sources of some of the numbers: http://www.nvca.org/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ven... https://www.pwcmoneytree.com/MTP... http://paulgraham.com/future.html Here are others' calculations of the odds that lead to a similar conclusion: 1.Dear Entrepreneurs: Here's How Bad Your Odds Of Success Are http://www.businessinsider.com/startup-odds-of-success-2013-5 2.Why 99.997% Of Entrepreneurs May Want To Postpone Or Avoid VC -- Even If You Can Get It http://www.forbes.com/sites/dileeprao/2013/07/29/why-99-997-of-entrepreneurs-may-want-to-postpone-or-avoid-vc-even-if-you-can-get-it/MB
-
What is a better title for a startup head....Founder or CEO? Are there any pros/cons to certain titles?
The previous answers given here are great, but I've copied a trick from legendary investor Monish Pabrai that I've used in previous startups that seems to work wonders -- especially if your company does direct B2B sales. Many Founders/ CEOs are hung up on having the Founder/ CEO/ President title. As others have mentioned, those titles have become somewhat devalued in today's world -- especially if you are in a sales meeting with a large organization. Many purchasing agents at large organizations are bombarded by Founders/ CEOs/ Presidents visiting them all day. This conveys the image that a) your company is relatively small (the CEO of GM never personally sells you a car) and b) you are probably the most knowledgeable person in the organization about your product, but once you land the account the client company will mostly be dealing with newly hired second level staff. Monish recommends that Founder/ CEOs hand out a business card that has the title "Head of Sales" or "VP of Sales". By working in the Head of Sales role, and by your ability to speak knowledgeably about the product, you will convey the message that a) every person in the organization is very knowledgeable about the ins and outs of the product (even the sales guys) and b) you will personally be available to answer the client's questions over the long run. I've used this effectively many times myself.VR
the startups.com platform
Copyright © 2025 Startups.com. All rights reserved.