???♀? Can we build a cannabis marketplace that actually benefits its stakeholders?

??♀? Can we build a cannabis marketplace that actually benefits its stakeholders?

First off, subscribe to the Canndid substack here ; more newsletter content, delivered to your inbox each week. ??

Secondly, download the?Jane app ?if you have an iPhone. Do it now. It informs this discussion and I know you’re reading this on your phone while on the toilet. I’ll wait…

???

Since joining Jane in 2018, I’ve had the pleasure of hearing a lot of hot takes about aggregated marketplaces:

  • They’re stealing your data
  • They’re stealing your customers
  • They’ll continue to increase their “take rate,” until they erode your margins entirely
  • They’re bad for your retail business

You know why all of those sentiments have maintained over time?

Because - sometimes - they’re true.

No alt text provided for this image

?? The Origins

Jane launched as a two-sided marketplace, and was still that way when I joined. We sold listings on iheartjane.com, and we charged $1 per transaction. We envisioned a digital platform that would enable customer acquisition and a better reflection of real-time inventory than anyone else.

We found early success on the B2B side, thanks to some sales hustle. We found limited success on the consumer eyeballs front, because we were tiny and no one knew about iheartjane.com. And we didn’t have a lot of money to buy those eyeballs.

We pivoted from there, in-line with retailer preference to own their own digital ecosystem.

Retailers still loved incremental business, to be sure, but their pull away from aggregated websites was heavily informed by early, very negative experiences with some other large cannabis marketplaces (which were were gouging customers for listings and not sharing any data).

We scaled white label (no Jane logo) menus into half of the market, and lots of people followed us. We found incredible success, specifically with enterprise operators (due to lots of things, but especially because of global management, catalog reliance, and insanely-great support). Now, we’re building custom and semi-custom menus on retailer sites; we’re building native, SEO-enriched menus; we’re scaling a media business for brands and retailers to ensure continued growth and success. We’re providing best-in-class conversion and best-in-class, standardized data as a function of our content catalog. And we’ll continue to do that, and we’ll continue to win.

But now - we have an interesting opportunity to service retailers’ lead generation efforts via Jane’s surfaces - and to do it in a way that is transparent, and honest, and - not icky.

?? Why Are Most Marketplaces Icky?

I mentioned some of the shenanigans of large cannabis marketplaces above, but it may be useful to look at a more robust and evolved industry to inform the discussion: let’s look at restaurants.

DoorDash and its constituents exploded over the last decade or so, in-line with consumer adoption of the smartphone. Search for restaurants, look at the menu, order delivery. Simple.

Restaurants were sold on incrementality - and, in large part, it worked. DoorDash brings in more orders. But there’s a fundamental misalignment of incentives between DoorDash and its restaurant partners.

No alt text provided for this image

DoorDash makes money by charging a % of order revenue. They have other revenue streams, which came later, but let’s focus on the big one - this “take rate.”

Restaurants have thin margins. Paying a percentage of each order to DoorDash deteriorates these margins. And when DoorDash needs to make more money to satisfy investors, it’s the easiest lever to pull - which mean the take rates keeps going up.

DoorDash also has a vested interest in keeping watch over customer information - because, ultimately, they make money by marketing to end users and keeping them coming back to the app. They don’t want to share many juicy tidbits around buying habits with restaurant partners, because then restaurant partners may market directly to end users and, subsequently, reduce the number of active users on the platform.

In other words - DoorDash doesn’t exist to be in service of restaurant partners. They exist to maximize traffic on their own platform and capture as much revenue as possible per order.

?? Here’s Something Different

This DoorDash Dynamic (TM) has played out in cannabis as well, primarily because aggregated marketplaces only have one or two surfaces that they care about - their website and their app.

Jane is taking a different approach. We aren’t interest in take rates, and we aren’t interested in keeping your data from you.

If that sounds like bullshit, here’s why:

  1. We’re taking an omnichannel approach

That means we’re agnostic to “order origination point”. If a customer orders on your dispensary website via a Jane menu, great. If they order on a brand website that we power, great. If they order on Leafly, that’s great, too, because a huge chunk of Leafly orders flow through Jane rails (bet you didn’t know that).

And if they order on iheartjane.com or our iOS app - that’s great, too.

All of these orders are equal - they all represent an order being fulfilled by a retail partner. (Ultimately, they represent a consumer getting safe access to cannabis). That means we don’t have to be bashful about letting you keep ownership over your data, because if a retailer wants to leverage their customer trends to slam more traffic into their own site to generate incremental orders - that’s great.

  1. We have diversified revenue streams

Though Jane doesn’t exist to make money, we are a business and we do have revenue goals. But! We have a few ways to do it, all of them 100% aligned with our stakeholder goals: SaaS fees for our retail eComm partners; revenue from on-platform media campaigns for brands; revenue from off-platform media campaigns for retailers. And more coming.

That means we don’t have to gouge retailers. We can be good stewards of the relationship and bask in the mutual growth.

?? Who cares about Jane’s app and marketplace?

No alt text provided for this image

Great question. Here’s who should care:

Retailers:?you’re going to get incremental orders and transparent data.

Brands:?you’re going to get a beautiful page on which to tell your story and direct traffic for programmatic campaigns. With transparent data and phenomenal attribution.

Consumers:?you’re going to learn about cannabis, shop efficiently, and place orders.

This can be done, and done well. Download the?app ?and let me know how we did so far.

James Overby

Business Development, Partnerships, Growth | Startup Advisor

2 年

This is great!

回复
Anne Carpenter

Helping AEC professionals master their craft and create cultures of learning.

2 年

I wish you the best of luck finding that path. To me, cannabis is the antithesis of capitalism, something that can start to heal us (the big us) - and while a healthy company can benefit stakeholders, but introducing shareholders, via a publicly traded company structure, you lose the magic.

Tim Conder

CEO TILT Holdings

2 年

Love this, Brian G.. Exactly the approach we were taking at Blackbird but add outsourced delivery. Another important difference between food and cannabis is the Average Order Value. DoorDash AOV is $32. Cannabis AOV is at least 3x therefore each order has more contribution margin from a dollar standpoint. Retailers should do what is best for themselves strategically, but omnichannel is paramount in an industry that is access constrained.

Andrew N.

Account Executive at The Logic | Accelerating growth through Partnerships and B2B Subscriptions

2 年

Louder for the folks in the back!!

要查看或添加评论,请登录

社区洞察

其他会员也浏览了