Fluffy Tech Journalism From A VC Firm that Aims To Be Harvard Business Review



Ed. Note: The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed by the contributor do not necessarily reflect the opinions, beliefs, and viewpoints of this publication.   The breadth of the AlleyWatch contributor network is a key strength of AlleyWatch. With the exception of a few writers, tech journalism is usually devoid of fact checking, research, analysis and insight. Online media companies with VC investors often pander to those VCs and hype their portfolio companies. Considering the dearth of insightful writing covering the startup ecosystem, First Round Capital’s blog First Round Review – Actionable Insights for Technology Entrepreneurs seems like a great idea.  First Round Capital Partner Josh Kopelman even boldly said, “In short, our (modest) goal is to build the Harvard Business Review (HBR) for startups”. So I was shocked to find fluffy, promotional writing on First Round Review (FRR).

Last Friday, FRR published an article about Harry’s, a grooming startup, titled, This Startup Cracked a $2.4 Billion Market with Branding — Here’s Their Formula. The definition of cracking a market is generally based on revenue and market share when there is an existing market. If First Round and Harry’s cannot share that information, they should not make outrageous allegations that they cannot back up. The article also discusses Harry’s branding strategy at length, but their analysis is very biased and lacks actionable insight.  (For this article, I reached out to the First Round Review’s Editor Camille Ricketts and Co-Founder/Partner Howard Morgan for comments and some clarity. Ricketts responded with no comment to my request, and Morgan did not respond. Ricketts eventually responded to a direct question I posed to her within the article’s Disqus comments section.)

According to HBR’s guidelines for authors, it has one goal: to be the source of the best new ideas for people creating, leading, and transforming business. All articles are written for senior managers, by experts whose authority comes from careful analysis, study, and experience. By contrast, the FRR article offered branding strategy that included a section on “drawing napkin sketches” and was not written by a marketing or branding expert. Yes, napkin sketches. I’m not kidding. The whole article is an insult to the startup community. Besides being very biased, it lacks insight and offers a very poor branding analysis of Harry’s and understanding of branding in general.

If FRR sincerely wanted to discuss successful startup brands in the grooming/beauty industry in order to educate the startup community, it should take a look at Julep or Memebox. Both of these companies have accomplished more with a fraction of the funding that Harry’s has gotten. Julep has a multi-category product portfolio and has received editorial mentions and multiple product awards for creating very innovative products. To date, Julep has launched over 300 Julep-branded nail colors, cosmetics and skincare products each year. (Compare that to Harry’s two products.) Julep has doubled its revenue each year for the past couple years, and, while it would not reveal exact numbers, the company stated it brought in between $1M and $5M in a Securities and Exchange Commission filing from October 2011. Julep has an impressive distribution deal with Sephora, the leading global beauty retailer, as well as Nordstrom and QVC, which has exponentially expanded its reach in the past two years.

Korean startup Memebox is now an international hit after launching just two years ago. In its first month, Memebox achieved $19,000 in revenue, followed by $54,000 in the second and $180,000 in the third. Despite a minimal marketing and sales presence in the U.S., Memebox has managed to pick up 10,000 customers across the U.S. and joined Y Combinator (YC) to help with its expansion here. During the YC program, Memebox hit $15M/month and is on track book $150M in revenue for 2014. Memebox has only raised $1.3M so far. By contrast, Harry’s, which was founded in October 2011 with $4M in pre-launch funding plus two additional rounds of funding for a total of $136.5M, has not accomplished much, despite their advantages of having access to money and having started nearly three years ago. It only has two products, although it only costs $2M to launch a brand with five SKUs. While FRR may claim to be aiming to be like HBR, its last article was merely a fluffy publicity piece for Harry’s, with no actionable insight.

Rebuttal to the FRR article

The primary problem with the FRR article is the premise: Harry’s is vying against giants like Gillette and Schick for a $2.4 billion market. “Sounds like a moonshot, except for the fact that Harry’s has raised $136.5 million from the tech venture community.” That FRR title states that Harry’s cracked the market by raising lots of money, but the grooming industry is a very tough industry to crack. Even global beauty giant L’Oreal has never cracked the men’s grooming market (either the mass or prestige/luxury sectors), despite having deep pockets, excellent R&D and its own factories. The majority of L’Oreal’s grooming brands, such as L’Oreal Men Expert, Biotherm Homme, Lancôme Homme, and Armani Skincare for Men have always trailed behind Axe, Old Spice, Nivea Men, Lab Series, Clinique Men and Zirh. Biotherm Homme even pulled out of the US market and relaunched years later. The fact that Harry’s got $122.5M in funding to buy a factory is impressive, but extremely odd. Never before has a year-old startup that is not a household name or not market leader that’s achieved major milestones gotten this kind of additional funding to acquire a factory in a leveraged buyout deal. The funding for the acquisition of the factory is merely indicative of their connections to venture capital and private equity folks, nothing more. Owning a factory may improve margins, and access to capital may offer more opportunity to compete, but neither will guarantee success. In the CPG/beauty/grooming sector, the key to success is great branding and product along with business acumen.

The secondary premise of this article doesn’t make sense either: “On top of that, one of its co-founders is Jeffrey Raider, who played the same role at Warby Parker and has experience cracking markets with cool branding.” What was Raider’s role at Warby Parker? That’s not clear, but a quick look at his background on LinkedIn reveals that Raider does not have a branding, product or ecommerce background. Warby Parker is indeed a great brand, but Harry’s Co-Founder Raider did not create the branding. Harry’s other Co-Founder, Andy Katz Mayfield, who was not a part of Warby Parker, does not have a branding, marketing or ecommerce background, either.

The rest of the article explores Harry’s branding. The Harry’s founders decided that there had to be a better way to infuse shaving with an affordable brand. If you consider cost per blade in respect to blade duration, Harry’s is not a more affordable brand. Harry’s razor costs $8 for four blades; Harry’s claims that their razor lasts about six days. Gillette Fusion razor costs $16.40 for four blades; Gillette claims it lasts five weeks. (I shave my legs using Gillette Fusion blades and can attest to its five-week claim.) If you compare shave creams, Harry’s is 3.65 times more expensive than Gillette. (Harry’s Shave Cream is $8 for 3.4 oz. Meanwhile, Gillette Fusion Shave Gel is a bargain by comparison and costs $7.78 for a pack of two 5.9oz. tubes.)

Then the article dives into Harry’s branding and says, “When your goal is to sell an experience, story has to be central to your strategy.” Neither Harry’s nor the article explains what the Harry’s story is. Who is Harry’s? What’s the brand’s tagline and mission? If their mission is value, the above paragraph explains how their value proposition is flawed. The brand doesn’t have a clear, compelling or memorable story. In some instances, their story doesn’t make sense at all: When the company debuted a line of limited edition razor handles, (Director of Digital Products Mathew )Tully and (Design Director Garret) Morin ventured to upstate New York to film a vignette of a man spending a weekend alone on a lake. Why would a man, alone for a week on a lake, bother to shave? This plot line isn’t great for selling razors.


The article then goes on to discuss three things critical to any brand’s success:

1)    Turn customers into advocates.   “What’s memorable becomes a conversation piece.” Unlike the Old Spice campaigns and the first Dollar Shave Club video, there has never been much conversation surrounding the Harry’s vignettes or limited edition razors mentioned in the article.

2)    Stay part of the conversation. “Last year, Harry’s launched National Shave Day on December 1 to much fanfare — riding on the coattails of another cultural facial hair phenomena: Movember.” While it’s great to launch a National Shave Day, Harry’s did not stay part of the Movember conversation at all and merely rode on its coattails for selfish purposes. Movember is more than a cultural hair phenomenon. Its purpose is to raise awareness for men’s health – specifically prostate and testicular cancer. Harry’s could have contributed with social impact to the cause in the same way Estee Lauder has with the Pink Ribbon Foundation and the Breast Cancer Foundation.

3) Emphasize expertise. “Harry’s took two actions that boosted their credibility as shaving savants: They opened their own corner barber shop in Manhattan, and they invested a whopping $100 million to buy their own razor factory in Germany.” The Harry’s Corner Barber Shop does not lend any credibility to Harry’s being a shaving savant. Becca, the receptionist at the Corner Shop told me, “Harry’s razors and products are not used at the Corner Shop since they are not meant for a barber experience. So we use other brands, like Queen Helene and Baxter of California.” Old school barbershops offer hot shaves with straight razors, and Harry’s does not make a straight razor, despite owning a razor factory. Since it does not have a pre-shave oil or after-shave product, Harry’s does not have a full shave offering to in order to offer a unique or complete shaving experience. Harry’s does not have hair care or hair styling products for a unique barber haircut experience, either. What the Corner Shop offers is a very generic barbershop experience, unlike what one would expect to experience at a branded barber shop or salon, like the Art of Shave Barber Shop, Blind Barber, Freeman’s, Martial Vivot, Frederic Fekkai, Bumble & Bumble or Redken. Those salons use their own proprietary products in their services. Unlike the branded salons founded by stylists like Fekkai or Vivot, the founding team of Harry’s has no authority or expertise in the category of shaving, or in the broader category of personal care/beauty/grooming. Before investing in real estate to promote Baxter and Queen Helene, Harry’s should have created a complete shave portfolio and haircare and styling products to use for their services at their Corner Shop.

Next the part of the article discusses Harry’s formula for brand building, which isn’t original. The fact that First Round Review mentions mood boards, swatches, and napkin sketches as part of their brand development strategy is ridiculous. It is clear that Harry’s does not understand global branding, or marketing to an audience beyond Brooklyn hipster types. For the first 10 months, the men featured in their imagery were primarily white Brooklyn hipster men. On the Harry’s Facebook page, people ridiculed the brand and asked,  “Is this razor for white people who all look the same?” After I brought attention to this in a Business Insider article, Harry’s deleted the Facebook status update and picture. Additionally, part of Harry’s brand code includes a Woolley Mammoth that’s more fitting for Crest for Kids than a brand for grown men.  

When you look at the consumer companies that have successfully taken on major competitors by projecting a new type of “cool” — like Warby Parker, or TOM’s Shoes, or Patagonia — it’s clear that branding extends into and shapes the products themselves. Warby, TOM’s and Patagonia all have extensive product portfolios and their products are part of their social impact. Harry’s has only two products. Though Harry’s designed a razor handle, it has not done anything distinctive for its shave cream, which is encased in stock packaging. The Harry’s razor handle comes in multiple colors, but the color options don’t drive more purchases, since a customer only needs one handle. Harry’s Design Director Garrett Morin says, “He (the Harry’s customer) doesn’t want a diamond-plated bathroom. He just wants a good shave.” Well, I don’t think he wants four different colored razor handles, either.

Most marketers will agree that “the stories you tell need to supplement the shopping and purchase experience.” The problem with Harry’s stories and visuals is that Harry’s products are background props instead of being the main focus, so the stories lose impact. My husband thought that the #OwnYourMorning campaign was about enjoying a great breakfast, rather than a good shave. He didn’t notice the razor, since it blended in. The problem with Harry’s is that it has not developed a compelling story or consistent theme. Their stories are generalized and don’t really pertain to the products. Great beauty and fashion brands like NARS and Alexander McQueen usually tie in the stories to a collection and its products. They use elements of the product, such as the product names, packaging, copy, color, and texture, to tell the story. In doing so, they supplement the shopping experience.

Lesson learned: No VC publication should be seen as anything other than portfolio pushing.

Image credit: CC by Lara Cores

About the author: Sindhya Valloppillil

Sindhya is the founder & CEO of HELIX, a new, soon-to-be launched ecommerce men’s grooming & lifestyle brand. Prior to HELIX, Sindhya was the Global Brand Manager at ZIRH Skincare, where she helped lead its successful exit to P&G in 2009. While at ZIRH, she was credited with creating and launching 3 brands,​ award-winning products and best-selling products. She has won many industry awards for her innovative work including the coveted CEW Beauty Award in 2009; it is the highest honor in the industry. Prior to ZIRH, she worked at L’Oreal USA, L Brands & Neutrogena Cosmetics in various roles including Marketing, Global Brand Image, Product Development and Innovations.

​She is also an Adjunct Marketing Professor at Berkeley College and Guest Lecturer at Fashion Institute of Technology. Sindhya graduated with honors from the Global Fashion Management Masters program, a joint program with Fashion Institute of Technology in New York, Institut Francais de la Mode in Paris and Hong Kong Polytechnical Institute. Additionally, she has an undergraduate degree in Fashion Merchandising Management from FIT. Her​ writing about the consumer startup world has been published in Yahoo Finance, ​Business Insider, Business of Fashion, Pando Daily, and AlleyWatch. ​

  • lake shaver

    why shave when alone on a lake? As a man, i get it. Shaving isn’t always just about the utility of it, the ritual itself can be meditative and relaxing. I think this ad was meant to speak to a male audience who get it.

    • Sindhya Valloppillil

      I think that the vast majority of men won’t shave when they’re alone on a lake. If you’re referring to the ritual of the experience, Harry’s is missing half the products like a luxurious shave cream, badger brush, pre-shave oil, and after-shave cream.

      • NoName

        I shave on the weekends, and when i am alone. I don’t know about shaving on a lake but to insinuate that men don’t shave for any other reason than work is false. I would know.

        Your main grouse is with the amount of money said company received and nothing else. This is indicated by you accusing lake shaver of being one of the investors. Your about as competent on the subject matter as the razor shaving company is on advertising.

        • Sindhya Valloppillil

          Of course you don’t have a name or profile. I didn’t say that all men won’t shave on a lake, just that the vast majority of men won’t. Secondly, if a man is looking to have a luxurious, calming shave experience, he cannot experience that with Harry’s since the brand doesn’t have a full shave offering (the brush, pre-shave oil and after-shave).

          I had a lot of issues with the First Round Review article: 1) First Round Capital’s article was ridiculous and lacked facts and support for their claims that Harry’s cracked the market and has great branding, 2) the article offered no insight, 3) Harry’s team has no idea what’s it is doing; the team has no domain expertise, 4) the team is mismanaging its $136.5M and has hit no major milestones considering all the cash it has.

          I have a lot of industry experience. I’ve spent time at L’Oreal, J&J and ZIRH. I’ve had assess to lots of buyers and market research which has informed me of men’s shaving and shopping habits. I’ve also create best selling products and won several product awards. Finally, I helped lead ZIRH’s exit to P&G. I know the beauty/grooming industry very well.

          Why are you ashamed to use your name/real profile for your comments?

          • NoName

            >Why are you ashamed to use your name/real profile for your comments?

            Since the article is neither about you, lake shaver, or me, I will not answer your asinine question.

            The message I am trying to get across your thick skull-is this; if investors did not trust the management decisions of the company in discussion they would not have released funds of such magnitude. So in a sense an impact has already been made on the razor shaving industry/market. Whether or not the industry/market has been “cracked” is just an argument of what your definition is of what it means to crack an industry or market.

            As for your other points-I will wait to see if the investments made by Harry’s team pan out. Is the company’s management incompetent? Or is there some sort of method in what appears to be madness? I believe it’s too early to say.

          • Chirag Garg

            Sindhya, this is yet another brilliant article. I work in PE in the consumer and retail sector so I really enjoy reading all your articles. Your observations are well researched and insightful. NoName, it is very stupid to say that a company has cracked an existing industry without mentioning revenue or market share. Merely launching two products and getting funding don’t constitute cracking an industry. It is both odd and disappointing how Harry’s has not achieved much considering the amount of money it has raised. Harry’s is a far cry from recent superstars brands like Julep that have achieved a lot more with less funding.

            NoName, considering your angry and arrogant attitude, I would guess that you are probably on the Harry’s team or a Harry’s investor. Keep drinking your Kool-Aid.

          • Sindhya Valloppillil

            Thanks, Chirag. I couldn’t agree with you more!

          • Sindhya Valloppillil

            You are just as weak as the brand you’re trying to support. Yet you’re ashamed to be associated to Harry’s publicly here. The best you can do is try to call me asinine? For the amount of money Harry’s has raised, it has NOT accomplished much at all.

            Try and dispute any point I’ve made about Harry’s. You cannot.

          • Sindhya Valloppillil

            It’s interesting how not a single person with a real profile is PUBLICLY defending Harry’s here.

          • David Goldberg

            My profile isn’t real?

  • Rodney Anthony Bell

    Great Article. Very insightful as usual.

    • Sindhya Valloppillil

      Thanks, Rodney!

  • Investor

    “Sindhya is the founder & CEO of HELIX, a new, soon-to-be launched ecommerce men’s grooming & lifestyle brand.”

    Well, color me surprised. Jealousy at its finest.

    • Sindhya Valloppillil

      Of course you don’t have a name. Perhaps you’re an investor in Harry’s. To bad for you.

    • nikhilkal

      Dude, you’re mistaken. She more qualified than many entrepreneurs that get funding. She makes some great points in this article in particular. As a VC, I’ll be the first to admit that we don’t always bet on the right startups. In the consumer ecommerce sector, our bet are probably the worst.

  • Sindhya is a joke

    This is a joke hahahaha, go home and give up.

    • Sindhya Valloppillil

      Yes, indeed. Harry’s is a joke. The Harry’s team should go home and give up.You’re ashamed to be associated with Harry’s, huh? You don’t have a real profile & name.

      • David Goldberg

        Not sure why there is so much anger here. Yes they raised a lot of money, but they are still in early stages. Nobody knows yet whether they will truly be successful or flame out. But to completely dismiss the team and anything they’ve done as incompetent seems overly dramatic. They’ve built up great awareness in a very short period of time, in a very difficult category. Over 100,000 customers, and engaged ones at that. I’m sure there are a lot of inner workings from which decisions are made. Very hard to judge with incomplete information.
        In case my name/profile aren’t posted (I don’t want to get yelled at), my name is David Goldberg, and I am a VC at Corigin. We appreciate building a brand in an antiquated industry, and we welcome talking with anyone who is attempting to do this. My email is dgoldberg@corigin.com.

        • Sindhya Valloppillil

          Hi David, the founders of Harry’s should not have raised $ like that pre-launch or so quickly post launch when they do not have relevant experience in brand building, ecomm or the grooming industry. It’s really not fair at all. There are many better brands out there that have achieved a lot more without that kind of funding. They don’t have impressive distribution. They only have 2 SKUs. Judging by their brand offering, it is very clear they don’t know how to effectively use cash or grow the business. Meanwhile, as a result of investing in founders of Harry’s, their VCs and PE folks see other better founders ( in grooming category such as Ursa Major) as competitive.

          • David Goldberg

            Not really sure what you mean by “they should’t have raise $ like that.” Do you mean to say that they should have turned it down? Or that it’s not a wise investment from VCs? I’m assuming you mean the latter. Also not sure what you mean by “It’s really not fair”. Who made the claim that all funding is fair and just? I actually think there distribution is fine given their early stage (in time, not money). They are in many boutiques, JCrew, while still doing most biz direct. They have more than 2 SKUs (2 handles, creams, blades), and we have no idea how they are using the cash. If they got a great deal on the factory, it will increase margins, and can live on the balance sheet and not hinge on the success of the brand. I have no idea if this is the case or not, my point is that we just don’t know at this point. It’s only been 1 year – perhaps (hopefully) more product lines are in the pipe.
            To claim that they cannot be successful (or an investment was poor) because the 2 co-founders don’t have domain expertise, is naive. First off, by being a co-founder at WP, surely he accumulated some knowledge, whether or not he was the branding lead. More importantly, it’s there job as founders to build out the team, and I assume one of the first hires was a branding person w/ domain expertise. As a VC, one of the qualities I look for in a founding team is to understand what they lack, and make sure they have a plan to fill this gap. Clearly Harry’s early investors got this feeling.

          • Sindhya Valloppillil

            You clearly did not read my article. I addressed all of this. You’re hoping that it will be a great brand. The facts are with the amount of $ that they have gotten they have not achieved much, they don’t know how to use $ (refer to my article) and they only got the $ because of connections not because of traction. Never before has a barely 1 yr old startup that has not hit major milestones gotten that kind of additional funding to buy a factory in an LBO deal. It’s only because of their connections. Then they quietly raised another $10M –> that’s just life supoort since they ran out of the $126.5M. Harry’s investors are just as stupid as the Beachmint investors.

          • David Goldberg


            Let me give some context to what I am about to say. I read every word of this article, and actually read most of what else you’ve published, all today. This is because I appreciate your writing, think you’ve done you’re research, and bring up interesting questions for debate. Now that being said, your tone and attitude come off as completely rude, and you talk down to people. I contributed my thoughts, and I think as a current VC, who founded a fashion-tech biz, have some actual knowledge behind it. I never attached you, or anyone, and didn’t even really defend Harry’s. My main point was, like you, to pose things for people to think about, to show that there is not a ‘correct’ line of thinking in this crazy game. But comments like “You clearly did not read my article”, “why don’t you try to counter anything that I’ve said? I bet you cannot”, and “The team is incompetent,” you come off as someone frustrated they have not been able to get traction/funding like you hoped, and are making excuses.

            As a VC (i can only speak for ourselves), we take many things into account: product, market, traction, team (including domain expertise and start-up experience). Perhaps you should consider your tone and standoffishness (we’ll pretend that’s a word) in reasons you perhaps have not gotten as far with VCs as you think you deserve. (This all being said, I’d be happy to look at ‘either’ of your decks).

          • Josh Segal


            You make no sense.

            Experienced and successful fashion sector entrepreneurs such as Tamara Mellon (Jimmy Choo) can launch with $20MM – so basically you could have funded 7 new companies with a greater chance of success than Harry’s.

            If Harry’s had the same results with a minimal amount of investment, then maybe the company could claim success.

            But, instead, the reason why it won’t provide numbers relating to revenues, profits, ROIs, etc. to show traction is simply because these quantitative outcomes reflect failure, not success.

            Give it up.

  • nikhilkal

    Another great article. Well done!

  • Bob Moran – NJ

    I am subscribed to First Round Review by email and have read many issues. I enjoy it and get useful insights each time.

You are seconds away from signing up for the hottest list in Silicon Alley!

Don't miss any of the stories shaping entrepreneurship. Sign up today.