Jessica Alba's Honest Co. Slashes Its Valuation(axios.com)
axios.com
Jessica Alba's Honest Co. Slashes Its Valuation
https://www.axios.com/jessica-albas-honest-co-slashes-valuation-2493350812.html
76 comments
Whenever some person or company calls themselves "Honest", "Trustworthy", "Wholesome", etc I immediately start thinking that they are going to overcharge me for something. In this case, it seems my heuristic worked well.
A guy I used to work with had a theory about Chinese restaurants, that whenever their name was in the form "Adjective Noun", the noun may be true but the adjective was not.
I think the same applies to all firms.
I think the same applies to all firms.
I get the same thing when someone calls me "friend" the second I meet them.
Have you heard the good news?
I have a similar reaction to any website that calls itself "truth(whatever)", "fact(whatever)", or anything along those lines.
So far, every time I've investigated it, my suspicion has been justified.
Of course, the grandaddy of them all was Pravda.
So far, every time I've investigated it, my suspicion has been justified.
Of course, the grandaddy of them all was Pravda.
And the Don't be evil mantra. We've ended up with a search engine which returns ads in 85% of clickable screen asset and soon may start to mix paid and organic search and we're ready for it.
Someone used to publish a slim English language edition of Pravda in the early 80s. I wish I'd kept some, but it seemed like the cold war was going to last forever back then, I'd never known anything different.
Also the Guardian used to occasionally publish an article selected from a foreign newspaper, not sure if they still do. The North Korean ones were hilarious. Probably still would be. Just goes to show real thoroughgoing, unremitting brutality sometimes does work.
Also the Guardian used to occasionally publish an article selected from a foreign newspaper, not sure if they still do. The North Korean ones were hilarious. Probably still would be. Just goes to show real thoroughgoing, unremitting brutality sometimes does work.
What's your take in the Democratic Party?
Many automatically distrust news sources whose URL include "true", "real", "natural" etc
Have you heard of QuickBasic, TurboTax or Common Lisp?
Quick basic was basic, used the basic language and it was pretty damn quick.
Add "Gourmet" and "Natural" to your list.
I have the same feeling using products that have "Pro", "Ultra" or something alike in their brand name. It usually means the exact opposite.
Is there a dedicated name for such looming mistrust phenomenon? (apart from common sense? :p)
Is there a dedicated name for such looming mistrust phenomenon? (apart from common sense? :p)
Nominative nondeterminism?
It’s a bit passe now, but “artisanal”
Like how a country with 'Democratic' in its name is usually anything but:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/PeoplesRepublicOfTyran...
But yeah, I suspect the reason is that a truly good product (or country) doesn't need to market itself as 'good', whereas a desperate bullshit merchant will resort to such names to get attention.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/PeoplesRepublicOfTyran...
But yeah, I suspect the reason is that a truly good product (or country) doesn't need to market itself as 'good', whereas a desperate bullshit merchant will resort to such names to get attention.
They have the best products, believe me! The greatest.
I think that's generally true for all things in life. Like Chris Rock once said, if you have to go around tell everyone that you have a big d*ck, chances are you don't.
The term honest comes from the ingredients in the diapers being non toxic. It’s possible that the rest of their products are as well. It comes from an experience Jessica Alba had when one of her kids ate part of her diaper when she left her unattended for a moment.
So, they have already raised $220 million, and now need an E round of around $75 million...why do they need the additional capital?
The more interesting piece is how the name 'Jessica Alba' always before the title every time it is mentioned.
Because what would they do without star power?
Note: George Clooney's billion dollar sale of a brand new Tequila company.
And we work hard on algorithms?
Because what would they do without star power?
Note: George Clooney's billion dollar sale of a brand new Tequila company.
And we work hard on algorithms?
> And we work hard on algorithms?
There are mathematicians (and scientists) who work harder than most programmers and are poorer than most programmers.
There are mathematicians (and scientists) who work harder than most programmers and are poorer than most programmers.
Agreed, the amount of effort you put into something has never decided how much you got paid. Only the value you can convince others you bring changes your compensation and that is only loosely coupled to effort put in
It's probably just a rounding error
150000 / year for fresh graduate versus 30000/year for fresh PhD student is not a rounding error.
How to you end up making only 30000/year with a PhD in a subject where graduates make 150k? Even post-doc positions tend to pay more than that. Everybody I know that has a STEM PhD and went into industry earns a lot more than I do.
PhD _student_
If you can bootstrap yourself into being George Clooney you too can sell water with additives to people for megabux.
Or perhaps there's so much loose capital sitting around with no purpose that it's just driving up valuations of companies to ridiculous levels because then folks would just be dumping fake money into questionably valued ventures.
"But you guys make toast, on-demand, in only one city."
"Exactly, toast on-demand!"
Or perhaps there's so much loose capital sitting around with no purpose that it's just driving up valuations of companies to ridiculous levels because then folks would just be dumping fake money into questionably valued ventures.
"But you guys make toast, on-demand, in only one city."
"Exactly, toast on-demand!"
"If you can bootstrap yourself into being George Clooney"
Actors are the truest of commodities. Many can do it, and it's not hard.
When Hollywood 'invests' in an actor, they create the actors Brand, which the actor - then owns.
Once an actor becomes familiar with American/Global audiences, then their Brand is worth a lot.
Surely, it requires some hustle on the part of the actor - but were it not Clooney, it could have been any one of thousands of others. He was more or less 'chosen'.
Think of how many people's very intelligent work goes into creating big films - and that the surpluses mostly go to the person with the easiest job. And FYI - I understand there are such things as 'great actors' who are not commodities.
Alba and Clooney are products created by Hollywood, who just happen to own the 'IP' to their own faces.
At least with athletes ... at least there is a fair amount of credible competition for those who make it to the top.
Actors are the truest of commodities. Many can do it, and it's not hard.
When Hollywood 'invests' in an actor, they create the actors Brand, which the actor - then owns.
Once an actor becomes familiar with American/Global audiences, then their Brand is worth a lot.
Surely, it requires some hustle on the part of the actor - but were it not Clooney, it could have been any one of thousands of others. He was more or less 'chosen'.
Think of how many people's very intelligent work goes into creating big films - and that the surpluses mostly go to the person with the easiest job. And FYI - I understand there are such things as 'great actors' who are not commodities.
Alba and Clooney are products created by Hollywood, who just happen to own the 'IP' to their own faces.
At least with athletes ... at least there is a fair amount of credible competition for those who make it to the top.
> Actors are the truest of commodities. Many can do it, and it's not hard.
That's peak HN for the day.
That's peak HN for the day.
?
There are tons of great actors that you can hire to do something for peanuts. They're such a commodity that tons of talented actors don't even do it full time.
I live across from a 'Community Playhouse' in Montreal. Some of it is terrible, but some of it is magnificent. Almost zero of them are employed in the industry full time. It partly has to do with the fact it's all in French, and that means 'smaller market' - but it could just as easily be in English and the same would apply.
There are tons of great actors that you can hire to do something for peanuts. They're such a commodity that tons of talented actors don't even do it full time.
I live across from a 'Community Playhouse' in Montreal. Some of it is terrible, but some of it is magnificent. Almost zero of them are employed in the industry full time. It partly has to do with the fact it's all in French, and that means 'smaller market' - but it could just as easily be in English and the same would apply.
You're confusing talent and building a brand. The latter is the more difficult bit. If you still question the value of branding consider who built the first apple computers and who ended up becoming the superstar.
His point is that many people are talented actors but only a few get international recognition.
" The latter is the more difficult bit."
I'm not confusing them.
An actors brand is built when they are given roles, by their appearances, which could have just as likely gone to other actors.
Their subsequent 'familiarity/likeability' is what gives them their power.
Not their talent.
The 'supporting' things that actors do to support their brand, like doing junkets - is not hard. Yes, doing 12 hours of interviews for a few days every year can be a little stressful, surely, but all the actor do is people polite and just a big gregarious and that's it.
I'm not confusing them.
An actors brand is built when they are given roles, by their appearances, which could have just as likely gone to other actors.
Their subsequent 'familiarity/likeability' is what gives them their power.
Not their talent.
The 'supporting' things that actors do to support their brand, like doing junkets - is not hard. Yes, doing 12 hours of interviews for a few days every year can be a little stressful, surely, but all the actor do is people polite and just a big gregarious and that's it.
I'm not sure if you're trolling here or not - if you are, bravo, very subtle.
Anyway, in case you're not - top actors are the exact opposite of a commodity. Their careers are about making them unique. Are you really arguing that you can take any movie, replace the actors with any other actor, and it will still do equally well financially? Because if you are, I'm not sure where to go from there, because it's such a preposterous claim.
Anyway, in case you're not - top actors are the exact opposite of a commodity. Their careers are about making them unique. Are you really arguing that you can take any movie, replace the actors with any other actor, and it will still do equally well financially? Because if you are, I'm not sure where to go from there, because it's such a preposterous claim.
There are plenty of good actors, but also vastly more horrid actors. It's true that pay is driven largely by established reputation (“brand”, if you will), but that's because even Hollywood is not very good at identifying actors that will perform adequately, except by “have you demonstrated that you can do it, preferably in a very similar kind of role, and the more evidence of consistency, the better.”
That's not because acting is easy or because there's a surplus of good actors. That's because acting doesn't pay shit unless you're really, really lucky. For a show that takes a dozen people a couple months to prepare and sells maybe a few hundred tickets, the financials are pretty stark.
"because there's a surplus of good actors. "
There is a massive surplus of good actors, which is why there are tons of decent films and plays with great acting wherein the actors are paid little.
Go to a film festival. Most films are not that good actually. Lot's of hiccups in the stories, production etc.. But you'll always see a ton of good acting along with some bad.
And there are tons of decent actors who can't do it full time. My neighbourhood is full of them.
There is a massive surplus of good actors, which is why there are tons of decent films and plays with great acting wherein the actors are paid little.
Go to a film festival. Most films are not that good actually. Lot's of hiccups in the stories, production etc.. But you'll always see a ton of good acting along with some bad.
And there are tons of decent actors who can't do it full time. My neighbourhood is full of them.
I think you're rebutting yourself here, because like you said, "bootstrapping yourself into George Clooney" is equivalent to building George Clooney the brand, which is not trivial.
> Actors are the truest of commodities
Except some get paid exponentially more than others for their supposed commodity. Just like many consumer packaged goods. You’re proving her value with your insult.
Except some get paid exponentially more than others for their supposed commodity. Just like many consumer packaged goods. You’re proving her value with your insult.
"Except some get paid exponentially more than others for their supposed commodity"
They don't get paid for their 'acting'. The acting part is a commodity.
They get paid for their 'appearance' in the same way celebs an get paid a fortune for sponsoring a product, or making an appearance.
For every single role that's played by an A-lister - there are a considerable number of other - great - actors that could have played that role, but the business economics are better with a 'familiar brand'. That's what fills the seats.
'Tom Cruise' fills seats. He gets paid a fortune.
A great actor, equivalent in talent to Tom Cruise - but who is unknown, is paid a normal salary.
I'm surprised so many here haven't seemed to grasp this.
Again: Gol Gadot was paid $200K for Wonder Woman. Considerably less than the secondary male role 'Chris Pine' - who is famous.
Next instalment - she'll be paid millions, and more than Chris Pine (if he were to be in it, but won't obviously, but imagine he could).
By the 'actors are paid for their talent' logic - Gal would have had to increase her 'acting ability' by quite a lot. 'Magically Gal Gadot becomes a better actor than Chris Pine and gets paid more than him'.
Obviously this is not the case.
Gal Gadot is now inexorably tied to the Wonder Woman brand.
She knows she can force the studios to pay her millions, because people want to see her as Wonder Woman (as they already have) - not an unknown quantity. It's it's therefore rational for the studios to pay her millions, and not have to make a huge bet on an unknown. (And FYI - he WW launch was a pretty big gamble - new actress, new brand etc.)
There are quite a number of actresses that they could have chosen to play Wonder Woman. Surely, some a better fit than others, but it's not rocket science, it's a comic book role. It's just a job. Only 'one' can be chosen. That person, if they do their job halfway well (and the other parts of the movie work out) will be paid millions in the future in the case of Hollywood comic-book serial.
Gal is 'the face of Wonder Woman' for at least a while.
They don't get paid for their 'acting'. The acting part is a commodity.
They get paid for their 'appearance' in the same way celebs an get paid a fortune for sponsoring a product, or making an appearance.
For every single role that's played by an A-lister - there are a considerable number of other - great - actors that could have played that role, but the business economics are better with a 'familiar brand'. That's what fills the seats.
'Tom Cruise' fills seats. He gets paid a fortune.
A great actor, equivalent in talent to Tom Cruise - but who is unknown, is paid a normal salary.
I'm surprised so many here haven't seemed to grasp this.
Again: Gol Gadot was paid $200K for Wonder Woman. Considerably less than the secondary male role 'Chris Pine' - who is famous.
Next instalment - she'll be paid millions, and more than Chris Pine (if he were to be in it, but won't obviously, but imagine he could).
By the 'actors are paid for their talent' logic - Gal would have had to increase her 'acting ability' by quite a lot. 'Magically Gal Gadot becomes a better actor than Chris Pine and gets paid more than him'.
Obviously this is not the case.
Gal Gadot is now inexorably tied to the Wonder Woman brand.
She knows she can force the studios to pay her millions, because people want to see her as Wonder Woman (as they already have) - not an unknown quantity. It's it's therefore rational for the studios to pay her millions, and not have to make a huge bet on an unknown. (And FYI - he WW launch was a pretty big gamble - new actress, new brand etc.)
There are quite a number of actresses that they could have chosen to play Wonder Woman. Surely, some a better fit than others, but it's not rocket science, it's a comic book role. It's just a job. Only 'one' can be chosen. That person, if they do their job halfway well (and the other parts of the movie work out) will be paid millions in the future in the case of Hollywood comic-book serial.
Gal is 'the face of Wonder Woman' for at least a while.
Lots of people like to repeat the "$200K" (It was actually $300K) paid to Gal Gadot. But fail to mention that she's also taking a percentage of the profits. That's what most actors are paid when starting a franchise, given that nobody knows if the project will be a success at the box office or not.
his buddy Gerber knows the liquor and entertainment business. built a fortune on it. got friends with a vacation house next to his Canadian one... they too vouch for his knowledge of liquor.
How do you assess that actors are chosen and not rewarded for their skill like athletes?
Gal Godot - a decent actress - was paid $200K for her role as 'Wonder Woman'. Huge film. But she was paid just like any other of the 'talent' on the crew.
But in subsequent versions of 'Wonder Woman' - she will be paid millions.
Has her 'acting ability' magically improved?
No. But 'her face and personae' are now existentially linked to the character 'Wonder Woman'. Audiences want to see that.
So she'll be paid millions.
Are there actors 'better' than Gal Gadot who could play WW? Of course there are. Probably many. So why not pay them $200K instead of paying Gal 'millions'? Because it's not 'talent' that's the issue in the equation.
The #1 deciding factor in the investment of films over $10M is not the script, not the director, not anything else - it's the actors that are involved.
You need to have 'highly recognizable' actors on board (or the budget to do so) otherwise it's not investable - because audiences want to see familiar faces.
Do you honestly think that 'George Clooney' is such an amazing actor, that there aren't 1000 other people 'as good as him' that could have played his roles well?
Of course there are. There are tons of great actors out there. But they're not household names.
So the question is: given that there are tons of actors better than Brad Pitt out there - how does Brad Pitt even get a single role? Because he's the 'living brand' of 'Brad Pitt'. The living brand of 'Brad Pitt' is what audiences want, which was created by putting the actor in previous roles.
Most athletes are paid very commensurately relative to their actual skill, of course, it's easier to be objective in measuring that.
What matters in film is 'the recognizability of the face/personae'.
But in subsequent versions of 'Wonder Woman' - she will be paid millions.
Has her 'acting ability' magically improved?
No. But 'her face and personae' are now existentially linked to the character 'Wonder Woman'. Audiences want to see that.
So she'll be paid millions.
Are there actors 'better' than Gal Gadot who could play WW? Of course there are. Probably many. So why not pay them $200K instead of paying Gal 'millions'? Because it's not 'talent' that's the issue in the equation.
The #1 deciding factor in the investment of films over $10M is not the script, not the director, not anything else - it's the actors that are involved.
You need to have 'highly recognizable' actors on board (or the budget to do so) otherwise it's not investable - because audiences want to see familiar faces.
Do you honestly think that 'George Clooney' is such an amazing actor, that there aren't 1000 other people 'as good as him' that could have played his roles well?
Of course there are. There are tons of great actors out there. But they're not household names.
So the question is: given that there are tons of actors better than Brad Pitt out there - how does Brad Pitt even get a single role? Because he's the 'living brand' of 'Brad Pitt'. The living brand of 'Brad Pitt' is what audiences want, which was created by putting the actor in previous roles.
Most athletes are paid very commensurately relative to their actual skill, of course, it's easier to be objective in measuring that.
What matters in film is 'the recognizability of the face/personae'.
Your understanding is sophomore. You haven't uncovered a secret - this is common knowledge.
What you don't understand is that actor recognition or brand isn't superficial, or unimportant, or a scam, but serves several important functions. Try to figure out what they are - not everyone but you are idiots.
What you don't understand is that actor recognition or brand isn't superficial, or unimportant, or a scam, but serves several important functions. Try to figure out what they are - not everyone but you are idiots.
I never implied that 'people are idiots' - that's your ad-hominem.
I am however surprised that so many people think 'highest paid actors' == 'best actors'.
And yes, 'brand value' of an actor is absolutely 'superficial' to the nature of the film as a work of art - obviously it's incredibly important (the most important thing) to a big movie in terms of a business, which is why they are paid $$, and it's rather obvious from my comments. I don't for a second disagree with the decision to put 'Brad Pitt' in a big film wherein he might not be 'the perfect fit'. But 'Brad Pitt' is a mediocre actor at best.
I am however surprised that so many people think 'highest paid actors' == 'best actors'.
And yes, 'brand value' of an actor is absolutely 'superficial' to the nature of the film as a work of art - obviously it's incredibly important (the most important thing) to a big movie in terms of a business, which is why they are paid $$, and it's rather obvious from my comments. I don't for a second disagree with the decision to put 'Brad Pitt' in a big film wherein he might not be 'the perfect fit'. But 'Brad Pitt' is a mediocre actor at best.
> The #1 deciding factor in the investment of films over $10M is not the script, not the director, not anything else - it's the actors that are involved.
so you're saying actors are not commodities?
> What matters in film is 'the recognizability of the face/personae'.
yes. yes you are.
so you're saying actors are not commodities?
> What matters in film is 'the recognizability of the face/personae'.
yes. yes you are.
"so you're saying actors are not commodities?"
An actor's 'brand value' is not a commodity.
Their 'talent' is.
There are very few 'big name actors' that can fill seats.
There are tons of good actors out there.
Not everyone can act, but frankly, there's a role for everyone, it's not rocket science. Even 'Wayne Gretzky' (I'm betraying my age here)- when he was on SNL - was so wooden, so ridiculous - so absolutely bad at acting - that it was hilarious they basically worked his terribleness into the bits - and voila - magic.
Think about it: what other 'job' can someone get paid a zillion dollars for that in many cases requires zero training? Zero experience?
Many famous actors 'worked hard' and 'studied acting' - but many of them did not. They just got a gig one way or another, showed up, and 'acted into the camera'. Tons of roles are like this. Leading roles in dumb movies, or other ones.
Of course - some roles are inherently hard, and props to the amazing character actors out there - some are geniuses. But skill is not always necessary, depending on.
An actor's 'brand value' is not a commodity.
Their 'talent' is.
There are very few 'big name actors' that can fill seats.
There are tons of good actors out there.
Not everyone can act, but frankly, there's a role for everyone, it's not rocket science. Even 'Wayne Gretzky' (I'm betraying my age here)- when he was on SNL - was so wooden, so ridiculous - so absolutely bad at acting - that it was hilarious they basically worked his terribleness into the bits - and voila - magic.
Think about it: what other 'job' can someone get paid a zillion dollars for that in many cases requires zero training? Zero experience?
Many famous actors 'worked hard' and 'studied acting' - but many of them did not. They just got a gig one way or another, showed up, and 'acted into the camera'. Tons of roles are like this. Leading roles in dumb movies, or other ones.
Of course - some roles are inherently hard, and props to the amazing character actors out there - some are geniuses. But skill is not always necessary, depending on.
Gal was already famous from the Fast & Furious movies.
Personally I would have cast Ronda Rousey as WW but Gal did a fine job and I am looking forwards to the next instalment.
Personally I would have cast Ronda Rousey as WW but Gal did a fine job and I am looking forwards to the next instalment.
I will be perfectly honest, I found this hilarious because I clicked the link without even thinking about it, closed it almost immediately, navigated away, came back, and didn't even remember having clicked on it until seeing it greyed out in the list of topics. Apparently (granted, this is just one data point) they can generate click-through without even requiring conscious involvement on anyone's part.
That's interesting: Does Honest Co. make Honest Tea? Because last time I was looking at Honest Tea (or however it may be spelled), every variety had added sugar. Which is not good: https://www.amazon.com/Case-Against-Sugar-Gary-Taubes/dp/030....
If their sweetened tea is any indication, they may be caught in the uncanny valley where normal people still drink soda and people who've gotten the news about sugar won't drink sweetened drinks. Leaving them with no one.
If their sweetened tea is any indication, they may be caught in the uncanny valley where normal people still drink soda and people who've gotten the news about sugar won't drink sweetened drinks. Leaving them with no one.
I find Starbucks mainly tastes of sugar. Whether it's a plain latte or mocha-choca-pumpkin foo, the saccharine sweetness drowns out everything else.