cool deals i wish i had done


blue bffThese things always happen when you are on vacation.

Just prior to my departure on family vacation, I got a call from a reporter passing along a rumor that Blue Buffalo was going to be acquired.  I hear about non-existent pet food M&A rumors week in and week out.  The past month has been no exception.  Most of it is smoke, without the fire.  My response to the reporter — who has $8 billion to spend? On the plus side, I had the price pegged.  Kudos to her for getting the beat correct.

In reality, there are many large corporations with access to those sorts of funds.  Mars had recently doled out $9 billion for VCA after all, and Nestle has a little over $8 billion in cash on its balance sheet.  Apple has $77 billion of cash on its balance sheet, but they tend to favor in house innovation.  The key point is that major pet consumables acquirors have focused largely on product acquisitions to fill portfolio gaps as opposed to transformational M&A.  After all, Purina could have easily acquired Blue Buffalo for $3 – $4 billion prior to its public offering and the two sides could have avoided a lot of subsequent legal fees (further evidence that lawyers always win). I don’t see any of them coming in with a topping bid — Blue in the hands of General Mills is less formidable than Blue in the hands on a proven competitor.  That said, Blue in the hands of General Mills might make General Mills a more attractive takeout target for Nestle.  After all we are likely going to see more mega food M&A as these players grapple with changing operating dynamics for global food companies.

Food companies buying into the pet space is not unprecedented.  The J.M. Smucker Company acquired Big Heart Brands for nearly $6 billion back in 2015.  When Merrick Pet Food was sold, a major food company was the cover bid when Nestle acquired the business.  That said, I don’t see this as establishing a pattern whereby food companies quickly seek to align themselves with pet food brands in an effort to top one another.  Rather, I expect food companies will be more open to kicking the tires in auction processes but that acquisitions are likely to be focused only on true market leaders, consistent with what we have seen thus far.  That said, major food companies could offer pet food leaders unprecedented valuations, given their propensity to pay 5.0x – 6.0x revenue for the growth associated with disruptive brands (e.g., Rx Bar, Daiya, Krave, Suja, to name a few).

Finally, we have to give Blue Buffalo kudos.  They very effectively ran the business into a highly attractive exit (6.3 x Revenue / 25.5x EBITDA).  Twelve months ago, the company seemed stalled.  Growth was clearly flattening due to performance malaise in PetSmart and Petco, who were both undergoing inventory deleveraging, consistent with what was happening in broader retail, at a time when traffic and transaction metrics in these boxes were sagging.  The launch of their veterinary product line, while conceptually interesting, would have a long lead times in terms of sales – veterinarians seem to enjoy the status quo.  Thus, the jump to FDM, made possible by the weakness in major pet specialty, breathed life into the equity.  The company’s stock climbed 40% during the past six months, despite the fact that the FDM roll-out lagged expectations and sales were highly incentivized through discounts and promotions.  All we can say is well played and congratulations to the Bishop family and the Invus Group.

What will surely follow this acquisition is a public airing of grievances about a brand selling out and trip down memory lane for the industry recalling times where brands had values.  This will not be the last time this record is played.  However, the pet industry has been professionalized over the past 10 years and operates with a profit motive, we should have no expectations that capitalistic intentions will be subjugated in an effort to adhere to historical edicts. Rather mourn the transparency again lost through a publicly traded pet company gone private or having been acquired.

/bryan

Note: This blog is for informational purposes only. The opinions expressed reflect my view as of the publishing date, which are subject to change. While this post utilizes data sources I consider reliable, I cannot guarantee the accuracy of any third party cited herein.

Advertisements

m8bA common refrain in the pet industry is that to predict the future of the consumables category, you need only to look back on the prevailing human trends three years prior. Today, I would argue that this rule-of-thumb applies more broadly, to a cross section of pet industry categories, than previously appreciated. As an example, the rise of ecommerce in the pet industry follows a similar trajectory to a number of human categories that were thought to be “Amazon proof”.  This is why I think pet industry participants should be paying attention to recent funding deals for Freshly, Inc., whose $77 million Series D was led by Nestle, USA, and Chef’d, LLC, whose $17.6 million Series B was led by Campbell Soup Company.

Both Freshly and Chef’d are in the business of delivering fresh food to your door step.  In the case of Freshly, these are fresh prepared meals, which require minimal intervention to get them from the packaging to the plate.  Chef’d delivers personalized meal-kits, which you then prepare at home, in as little as 10 minutes.  As a side note, I’ve never completed a meal kit from any company in under an hour, but maybe that says more about my cooking skills than anything else. Notably Chef’d partners with culinary and media personalities to create menu inspirations.  That said, what these companies deliver is less interesting than who is financing the growth of their business.

Large human food companies have significantly increased their investment activity in emerging food brands over the past 24 months.  Major industry players have set up dedicated investing units to source and evaluate opportunities.  The human food industry has largely outsourced its research and development function to start-ups who are seeking to capitalize on emerging consumer trends.  These companies become investment or acquisition targets if their solution set demonstrates the ability to resonate with a large enough audience and if their production processes can scale.  However, this pattern has, to-date, largely been confined to product companies.  Freshly and Chef’d are direct-to-consumer distribution companies cloaked in a product orientation.

The pet industry has its Freshly and Chef’d corollaries.  Companies like JustFoodForDogs and The Farmer’s Dog, have both recently received major cash infusions from financial players.  There are numerous others competing for this emerging space — Ollie Pet, NomNomNow, PetPlate, to name a few.  Yet, I believe the investment trend illustrated by the Freshly and Chef’d transactions tells us more about the real value of scale direct-to-consumer businesses such as A Place for Rover and Bark & Co., than the potential for fresh food delivery in the pet category, whose future we also think is bright.

What the pet food and products manufacturers have in common with their human counterparts is their core means of distribution are under siege by small retailers who provide better service and/or in-store experience as well as by the internet.  As such, any opportunity to get directly to the end customer is highly coveted, and therefore of great value. Within the pet category, there are a very limited set of players that have proven their ability to directly access a critical mass of pet owners.  Therefore, as large manufacturers look for direct-to-consumer exposure they will be left with a choice of ascribing a very high value to an asset with breadth or taking a calculated risk on an upstart.

What these large strategics are looking for is the ability to build a relationship directly with a consumer that is tied solely to the product or offering, and that exists outside of that buyer’s relationship with any retailer, physical or digital. If they own the customer they can look to monetize him or her in a variety of ways, capturing more the the margin along the way. We believe this trend to be applicable to both product and service providers in the pet category.

The question then becomes what would a tie-up between a Mars/Purina/J.M. Smucker Company and a Rover/Bark & Co. mean for the acquired entity.  Would consumers have the same affinity for their Bark Box if it only included treats from the buyer organization, or is the lack of affiliation that part of the value proposition?  We don’t know the answer to that question, but if we follow the story of Freshly and Chef’d going forward, we may well find out.

/bryan

Note: This blog is for informational purposes only. The opinions expressed reflect my view as of the publishing date, which are subject to change. While this post utilizes data sources I consider reliable, I cannot guarantee the accuracy of any third party cited herein.

 

blue dog 2Over the past five years, interest in the potential and performance of the online channel for pet products has become an increasingly hot topic.  The narrative around pet ecommerce has been fueled, in part, by a change in ownership demographics, but more significantly by the lack of transparent data regarding the size of and growth rate in the channel.  Quite simply, no one knows how much pet food is sold online or how fast the channel is actually growing, and therefore everyone is free to speculate.  The loss of PetSmart as a public reporting entity only further exacerbated this reality.

What we have known for some time is that online is taking share and its growth is a key driver of malaise within major pet specialty.  Whether you source your information from Packaged Facts, IBISWorld, or Euromonitor, all three entities have online pet products sales in the U.S. growing at between 10% – 15%.  Further, according to Packaged Facts 2016 National Pet Owner Survey, 46% of pet owners buy products online, an increase of 5% from 2015. Thus, the intent from a consumer perspective continues to rise.  Additionally, Blue Buffalo, widely believed to be the top selling pet food brand online, CEO Billy Bishop commented, in the company’s most recent earnings call, that the shift to online is occurring much faster than anyone at Blue Buffalo anticipated.  Couple this with the fact that during FY16, Blue Buffalo’s share of sales outside of major pet specialty increased from 33% in Q1 to 41% by Q4 primarily behind the sharp increase in ecommerce.

No entity has been more responsible for shaking up the pet retail world than Chewy.com.  In November 2016, we got our first real glimpse into the organization when a Bloomberg article detailed that the company anticipated that it would generate $880 million in sales for the calendar year.  Further, it projected 70% growth in 2017, bringing the company’s topline to $1.5 billion.  A recent Miami Herald article pushed that number to $2 billion. According to a recent survey by 1010data, Chewy.com has approximately 51% share of the online pet products market including autoship revenues.  This contrasts with Amazon at 35%, also inclusive of autoship.  Chewy also leads in subscription pet food sales at 10.2% versus 7.6% for Amazon.  PetSmart garners 7.9% of the market when you consolidate its own banner (2.2%) with sales of its Pet360 (5.7%) acquisition.  Petco clocks in at 3.1%, while Wal Mart (< 1%) barely registers. Finally, Chewy employs 200 full time portrait artists who churn out 700 oil paintings a week for unsuspecting customers.

Chewy, which has never turned a profit and has been funded by $261 million of equity, raised over five rounds, and $90 million of debt, is in the process of upping the table stakes.  The company recently launched its American Journey house brand of dry kibble.  American Journey, which comes in seven flavors, currently costs $39.99 for a 25-lb. bag before autoship discount.  This is $8 – $10 less than a comparable sized bag of Blue Buffalo on the site.  Notably, American Journey is made by one of Blue Buffalo’s co-packers. Additionally, Chewy launched Tylee’s, their human grade fresh/frozen pet food brand aimed squarely at the increasing band of upstarts seeking to deliver human meal equivalents for your pet. The company is also said to be working on a public offering slated for 2018.

The question of whether Chewy.com can be stopped has been answered. It’s most recent financings ($75 million of equity from BlackRock and $90 million in debt from Wells Fargo) suggest that investors are looking past the profitability profile and instead focusing on the growth history and the potential IPO valuation.  Mutual funds targeting a pre-IPO stake are likely accessible should the company need additional funding. The more intriguing question is whether there is a transaction alternative that might be more attractive to Chewy shareholders than a public offering.  As Chewy.com Chairman Mark Vadon, who co-founded Zulily, can attest, being a public company without earnings is not all that it is cracked up to be.  We rule out an Amazon combination for a myriad of reasons.  This leads us to Petco or PetSmart as the most logical destination.  While somewhat counter-intuitive on the surface, if Chewy.com could extract more value in a combination than an IPO, why not consider it?  Given the weak comps we have been hearing coming out of Petco and PetSmart, a combination with Chewy.com would solve a myriad of problems.  Chewy would gain access to cash flow and hundreds of local warehouses, while Petco or PetSmart would be able to rationalize its store base and gain the pole position in pet omni-channel.  It might not be as far-fetched as we think.

/bryan

Note: This blog is for informational purposes only. The opinions expressed reflect my view as of the publishing date, which are subject to change. While this post utilizes data sources I consider reliable, I cannot guarantee the accuracy of any third party cited herein.

 

 

thAnxiety about ecommerce in the pet industry is not a new phenomenon.  I’ve had it for a while; it seems to come in waves.  Often the “worry” is overcome through the most limited acceptable response from a market participant, just sufficient enough to satisfy my concerns. Most recently, my unease related to the future of Chewy.com, the leading independent ecommerce player in the industry.  My fear was that should Chewy be cut off from the capital markets, it could lead to a meltdown given its operating profile and cash burn, setting the online component of the industry back for a decade, from which it may not recover.  Thankfully, for the moment, my concern has been assuaged with the announcement of the company’s most recent funding, a $75 million investment from investment management firm Blackrock.

Pet ecommerce is a bit of an enigma, wrapped inside a riddle, wrapped inside a conundrum.  The conundrum — the perceived potential for cannibalization of four wall retail revenue — started it all in my opinion (others will quibble here, but to do so would merely be a digression).  For years, Petco and PetSmart buried their head in the sand about the potential for ecommerce in the pet industry. As the dominant retailers in the category, their view was akin to “why promote it, if you don’t want it to happen?”. The number three and four retail players possess a limited to non-existent ecommerce capability set as well.  The riddle was how to get a 25 – 40 lb. bag of dog food to a customer’s door without going broke in the process.  The failures of those who tried to solve the riddle, before the needs of customers were sufficient to want it or the infrastructure was available to make it happen, only served to reinforce the conundrum.  The cost problem has been addressed in a variety of ways ranging from infrastructure partnerships, to rising consumer demand, to subscription services, to more effective cross selling of higher margin products to online consumers.  The enigma remains how much ecommerce is influencing the pet industry and the trajectory of its largest retail players.

Depending on what you believe, online sales of pet products accounts for 6% – 10% of industry sales, or $4 – $6 billion.  Again, depending on your source, online sales for pet products is growing at 12% – 20% and enjoys the highest sales penetration of any home care category in the U.S.  However, the U.S. trails both the UK and China in terms of sales penetration of pet food online.  Of these estimated sales, we now know Chewy.com makes up $880 million of them, according to a Bloomberg article where the notoriously secret company disclosed details of it’s most recent funding, a $75 million equity financing from Blackrock.

To date, Chewy.com has raised $236 million (or $248 million depending on your source) in equity from a variety of institutional investors.  There is no complete data source that can reconcile that number — mapping the who, the when, and the how much.  However, we do know investors have migrated from traditional venture capitalist (Volition Capital and Greenspring Associates) to mutual funds whose investments often are a precursor to an IPO (T. Rowe Price and Blackrock). These fund have been necessary to fuel the company’s hyper growth, which has been driven by aggressive customer acquisition and rock bottom pricing for customers.  You don’t go from $0 to $880 million in online revenue in five years without a significant war chest and a willingness to buy customers at essentially whatever cost is required

However, on the way to becoming a pet industry unicorn, Chewy.com’s world began to morph.  First, Jet.com added the category and began to compete aggressively for customers driving up acquisition costs for all the major players and driving down profits for price matching entities as Jet sought to undercut the market when possible. With Jet’s acquisition by Wal-Mart, this issue may abate over time in the name of its parent company’s earnings and ROI requirements. Second, the major physical retailers began to quietly fight back, threatening punitive action for brands that would not enforce MAP online.  While MAP would be a net positive of Chewy’s margin profile, it would likely have come at the cost of growth, a necessity to access the capital markets.  Finally, was the issue of the most recent election cycle.  As Chewy sought to fund its business it was likely going to be pushed towards foreign markets or an IPO, as a trade sale at an attractive price appears unlikely unless you view the business as a capability acquisition and not a category play. Based on the trade and capital markets forecasts for the incoming political regime, there are concerns about slowing foreign investment in U.S. companies against a back drop of changing trade policies and the potential for the IPO window to close as a result of a market contraction.  While neither of these may come to pass, the concerns are real.  This makes the most recent announcement by Chewy to be welcome news, in my opinion, for all independent pet ecommerce players.

Should the public capital markets continue to be inviting, expect an S-1 sometime in 2017 for Chewy.com.  Further, cross off another of our anticipated transitional events for the pet industry in 2016 – 2017 (see here).

/bryan

Note: This blog is for informational purposes only. The opinions expressed reflect my view as of the publishing date, which are subject to change.  While this post utilizes data sources I consider reliable, I cannot guarantee the accuracy of any third party cited herein.

 

dwarfEarlier this week it was announced that Mars Petcare had acquired Whistle Labs, designer and marketer of activity monitoring and asset tracking solutions for small companion animals.  The deal was valued at $117 million (or $119 million depending on the source of information).  Whistle had raised $25 million in outside capital, including $21 million in two institutional rounds, including a $15 million Series B round in January 2015, led by Nokia Growth Partners.  The Series B also including participation from, among others,  Melo7 Tech Ventures (the equity fund of Carmelo Anthony, NBA superstar) and QueensBridge Venture Partner (the equity fund of Nasir Jones, world famous rapper).  The post-money on the Series B was reported to be $26.65 million, meaning these investors made a ~ 4.5x cash-on-cash return on the sale and triple digit internal rate of return based on the short duration.

When Whistle launched its solution set the market was bifurcated between activity monitoring and asset tracking.  The asset tracking side was being addressed largely by companies that were re-purposing technology that had been deployed in more traditional markets, such as logistics, automobile tracking, or human tracking (yes these do exist).  However, these companies did not necessarily recognize the emotional engagement aspects of the pet space, and did little to build community.  The network costs of these businesses were high, and the user base was small.  Given that the initial hardware purchase was subsidized, these businesses lost money, sometimes large amounts of it.  Further, there was no effective retail channel for this class of products as the major pet specialty retailers were not well situated to sell a $200 device with a monthly subscription attached thereto or explain the value proposition effectively to customers, and therefore the market was slow to emerge. Traditional channels, such as consumer electronics and mobile phone centers, were no more effective at attracting pet owners let alone articulating the purchase rationale.  It did not help that most of these solutions had large form factors and minimal visual appeal.

In contrast, Whistle brought to market an activity tracker with a high level of aesthetic appeal at a much lower cost.  Of significance, gone were the monthly subscriptions.  The problem was the market wanted asset tracking as the linkage between the activity monitor and the benefits use case was just not obvious to pet owners.  In short, there was data but not much to do with it and sharing it was cumbersome.  Much like the early human activity tracking sector, the real value of these devices did not emerge until the ecosystem and community aspect developed. Whistle would use part of its Series B financing to acquire Snaptracs, the Qualcomm based asset tracking solution that it spun out in 2013.  Using their industrial engineering acumen, Whistle combined the two solution sets into a best of breed offering and the business began to accelerate.

About the time of the Series B, Whistle began collaborating with Mars on the use cases of its device.  The challenge became how do you balance the venture capitalists agenda — drive brand, drive sales, drive community — with the Mars agenda around linking the data to wellness outcomes and product sales.  In the end, we believe Mars acquired Whistle to enable its agenda to become central to the future of the business.  Given that the lifetime value of a subscriber was high as the revenue was recurring, shareholder value increased exponentially.

While the acquisition and the prevailing purchase price will certainly give momentum to the connected pet space, the perceived rationale is somewhat vexing to rationalize.  Connected pet solutions that have been funded and launched into the market over the past few years have focused more on emotive connections (remote viewing, remote treating, automated feeding) than wellness outcomes, and here we have an acquisition rationale that we believe is tied more to healthcare outcomes than humanization. That is not to say the deal won’t be effective in catalyzing more investment and further M&A; the return profile will ensure that happens.

This deal very much validates the space, and we have been on record suggesting more large consolidators get into connected pet since 2013, when we marketed the Snaptracs business for sale.  We believe other large players will have to take notice and find avenues to take a position in connected pet. Further, we think the Mars acquisition rationale is specific to them and does not require a pivot by other operators to enhance their focus on wellness.  Mars is unique in that it is the only enterprise that has both veterinary hospitals and branded companion animal consumables, and therefore could view Whistle in a unique way and justify the purchase price as a result. It does help that they are a very large private enterprise and do not have to kowtow to outside shareholders.

One of the key themes we witnessed at the most recent Global Pet Expo was a proliferation of solutions aimed at connecting owners to their pets wherever they were resident at the time — the home, the grooming salon, the daycare or dog walker, the boarding facility. etc.  Expect the Whistle deal to give them all more conviction and attract a host of new entrants seeking to capitalize on the market opportunity. Ultimately, pet owners stand to benefit most.

/bryan

Note: This blog is for informational purposes only. The opinions expressed reflect my view as of the publishing date, which are subject to change.  While this post utilizes data sources I consider reliable, I cannot guarantee the accuracy of any third party cited herein.

 

 

petcoWhen Petco Animal Supplies agreed to be acquired by CVC Capital Partners and the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board for $4.6 billion, the Dow Jones Industrial Average was trading around 17,800.  The market had recovered from the August swoon that turned out to be the worst month for the index in five years. Concerns about a slowdown in China, falling oil prices, and possible rate hikes by the Federal Reserve, sent the index into a tailspin.  Now, a mere 90 days removed from that correction, the Dow stood within three percent of its 2015 high water mark, and little concern was expressed about mega-deals, such as the Petco transaction, getting to close.  Press releases for the deal indicated a closing would happen in 1Q2016.

When the deal was announced, it was also disclosed that the transaction would be supported by $3 billion in acquisition financing, underwritten by Barclays, Citigroup, Royal Bank of Canada, Credit Suisse, Nomura, and Macquarie.  The broad lender support was a function of the company’s strong credit profile and a favorable following with investors after multiple recapitalizations, which is reflected in its trading profile in the secondary loan market.  Further, PetSmart’s acquisition debt had been trading a favorable rates in the secondary market, boosting interest. However, the deal was subject to syndication that would happen in 1Q2016.  While there has been no indication with any issues in closing the deal, there is cause for concern.  When the debt package was originally negotiated, the credits market were choppy,  now they are downright turbulent with bankruptcies accelerating and junk bond issuances declining by over 70% year-over-year.  While these bankruptcies are primarily related to the energy markets and energy dependent segments, they have put a malaise into the large cap buyout credit market as a whole.  Notably, in January, Citigroup tweaked the terms of Petco’s loan package to make it more attractive to potential syndication partners.

I proffer an example of the credit market’s uneasiness in the case of Mills Fleet Farm Group. In 2015, KKR agreed to buy the family owned retailer of rural consumer goods, including pet products, for $1.2 billion. Mills Fleet operates 35 stores in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa and North Dakota.  The deal was set to close in late 2015, before it ran into trouble with its debt package. No sell-side capital markets deck was willing to take the paper, and KKR was forced to sell finance a large portion of the debt package against a backdrop of large retailer earnings misses, which drove up pricing.  The sale of Mills Fleet closed on Leap Day 2016, fitting.

While we may not be able to draw a direct correlation between Mills Fleet and Petco, the deals fall into the same buyout class.  Further, if you look outside of these transactions not many large cap LBOs are closing.  Most of the recent multi-billion deals have involved strategic acquirors.  Ultimately, we expect the Petco transaction to close, but there may be more bumps in the road along the way.

/bryan

Note: This blog is for informational purposes only. The opinions expressed reflect my view as of the publishing date, which are subject to change.  While this post utilizes data sources I consider reliable, I cannot guarantee the accuracy of any third party cited herein.

 

 

beakersHistorically, the discourse around pet food delivered in alternative form factors (fresh/frozen, freeze-dried, dehydrated) has focused on the merits, or lack thereof, associated with feeding your pet raw protein. Lost behind the countless articles delving into the pros and cons of raw, has been the growth in both size and importance of this sub-category, and the value it has created for those who invested early in this category.

According to GfK point-of-sale data from the pet specialty channel for the 12 months ended August 2015, alternative form factor pet food was, in approximate terms, a $175 million market.  Based on these same figures for the prior year period, this represents 50%+ growth for the category.  When you add to this annualized IRI MULO data for fresh/frozen pet food sold in the mass market and apply an adjustment to GfK’s estimate of dehydrated pet food, which we know to be low, and the total market is approaching $750 million, growing at 30% – 35%.  While relative to dry kibble, this market is in fact small, it is meaningful, and in combination with its growth rate, cannot be ignored by the large strategic buyers in the space.

Validation of this notion began to accelerate in 2H2014 when Agrolimen SA, a Spanish privately-held producer of food and other consumer goods, quietly acquired a controlling stake in Nature’s Variety, the market leader in freeze-dried raw pet food, from Catterton Partners.  This was followed closely by the successful initial public offering by Freshpet, Inc. (NASDAQ: FPRT), which currently trades at 2.3x Revenue despite some challenges in the roll-out of their refrigerator program among several large retail accounts.

After a brief fallow period, further validation arrived in the form of Nestle SA’s acquisition of Merrick Pet Care. While Merrick’s market entry into the freeze dried raw space (Backcountry), was nascent, the fact that they had an in-market offering was clearly a benefit to the deal.  Around this same period, Stella & Chewy’s, LLC, a portfolio company of Stripes Group,  and the market leader in freeze-dried raw sold in the independent pet store channel, transitioned into a new 164,000 square-foot facility in Oak Creek, Wisconsin, funded by a debt package sourced by the company in early 2015.  On January 7, 2016, the company announced it had hired a highly seasoned consumer industry executive to run the company and recruited pet industry executive Mark Sapir as Chief Marketing Officer.  Sapir most recently served as VP of Marketing & Innovation at Merrick.  Finally, on January 8, 2016, it was disclosed that WellPet, LLC, a portfolio company of Berwind Corporation, and the owners of the Old Mother Hubbard (which had been previously owned by Catterton) and Eagle Pack Brands, had acquires Sojourner Farms, LLC, doing business as Sojos. Sojos is number two or three player in the dehydrated pet food space.  In addition to providing validation of both the freeze-dried raw and dehydrated solution set, it also provides further evidence that larger players in the consumables space will buy smaller brands, especially if those brands resonate with premium customers who shop independent pet specialty.

So what does this all mean? I believe there are two conclusions that can be drawn. First, that the alternative form factor pet food market is a real sub-category and mid-sized to large players need to pay attention to it, because consumers are buying into the category, and have a response for how to compete within it or counter its proliferation going forward. The category is no longer a novelty, something that market leaders can simply write off or ignore.  Second, it’s going to result in more transactions as strategics buy into the space in an effort to deliver a competitive response. The winners of this coming-of-age will be the entrepreneurs who pioneered the category and the private/growth equity firms that supported them.  With a limited set of properties available, it could send valuations, which have been trending down, back towards the upper end of the historical multiple range.

/bryan

Note: This blog is for informational purposes only. The opinions expressed reflect my view as of the publishing date, which are subject to change.  While this post utilizes data sources I consider reliable, I cannot guarantee the accuracy of any third party cited herein.

 

 

 

 

 

Next Page »