36 Ways to Revive an Ecommerce Business

Listeners and readers of “Ecommerce Conversations” know I occasionally depart from interviews to share my experiences owning and operating Beardbrand, the direct-to-consumer brand I launched a decade ago. To date, I’ve addressed hiring, branding, profit-building, priority-setting, exiting, overcoming setbacks, and top business models.

This too is a solo episode, addressing entrepreneurial doldrums, when a business is seemingly stuck in no growth or worse. Certainly that’s the story of Beardbrand over the past couple of years.

So here are 36 ideas to jolt a company forward. Think of this as a checklist for tackling new projects, cutting costs, or simply resetting your focus.

My entire audio dialog is embedded below. The transcript is condensed and edited for clarity.

Operations

Build framework. Implement a clear operating framework, such as EOS — Entrepreneurial Operating System — to guide meetings, goal-setting, and accountability. It keeps everyone aligned and focused.

Define culture. Clarify why your company exists, who you serve, and how. If you haven’t done these things, you can feel lost, really quickly. Boundaries create focus, and focus strengthens customer relationships.

Define mission and core values. Create a memorable mission and concise core values for your team to live by. At Beardbrand, our values are freedom, hunger, and trust — balanced and reinforced through interviews, reviews, and everyday recognition.

Outsource when necessary. Regularly assess what to keep in-house and what to outsource. A smaller, focused team provides flexibility and freedom, while trusted external partners handle the rest.

Improve manufacturing. Continuously evaluate suppliers and get multiple quotes. Choose partners that meet quality, timing, and minimum order quantities, and stay ready for changes in pricing or management.

Implement better shipping. Re-quote carriers such as FedEx, UPS, USPS, and DHL to maintain competitive rates. Review box sizes, packaging, and 3PL processes to optimize costs, minimize errors, and enhance the customer experience.

Mitigating Risk

ADA compliance. Keep your site accessible and up to date with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act to protect customers with disabilities and avoid lawsuits. Maintain a clear process for regular audits to defend your business when necessary.

Terms and privacy. Have a lawyer review your terms and privacy policy instead of relying on boilerplate text. Ensure compliance with privacy laws, including the E.U.’s General Data Protection Regulation and state-specific regulations in jurisdictions such as California and Virginia. Use pop-ups to obtain consent and avoid tracking visitors who decline.

Insurance. Verify that your coverage aligns with revenue and risk. Shop multiple providers each year to confirm you’re getting the best rate and protection.

Pay off debt. Run lean. Keep debt as low as possible so you can scale down if times get tough and borrow only when necessary.

Trademarks. Register your brand name and unique product names. Regularly search for copycats and address violations promptly, ideally with a polite initial approach before escalating to legal action.

Copyrighted photography. Use only images and text you own or license. AI art isn’t always immune to claims, and some creators are aggressive about enforcing their rights. Remind your team that use carries real legal risk.

Product claims. Avoid guaranteed-result language. You can say a product “helps” or “improves appearance,” but words like “cures” or “heals” trigger regulatory oversight.

Two-factor authentication. Enable 2FA for every employee and account to guard against phishing and unauthorized logins.

Secure email. Set up DMARC, SPF, and DKIM to prevent spoofing or impersonation of your domain.

Unused apps. Remove apps you no longer use. Old, unsupported apps can become back doors for hackers or leak your data.

Unused subscriptions. Audit credit cards and recurring charges. Cancel forgotten subscriptions and consider issuing new cards yearly to keep hidden costs and risks low.

Marketing

New customer strategy. Explore new channels. Are you on Amazon, Walmart, Etsy, and eBay? Know where your prospects are shopping, especially if you’re product-focused versus brand-focused.

In-person channels. Consider B2B and niche retailers, from independent pharmacies to mass-market stores. Smaller markets or events, such as marathons or trade shows, can offer stable, untapped opportunities.

Expand your reach. Google and Meta are common, but don’t forget TikTok, Snapchat, Pinterest, X, and YouTube. Other platforms and plugins can amplify reach.

Direct mail. Use direct mail for customers who have unsubscribed from emails. It’s another owned channel to reach potential buyers.

SMS. Similar to email, SMS is a direct and effective means of communication.

Advertising on other platforms. Market on email newsletters, websites, or programmatic TV if your budget allows. Even magazines can offer last-minute ad opportunities.

SEO/GEO. Search engine optimization may feel outdated, but it still matters to drive generative engine optimization. Ensure your site adheres to solid SEO fundamentals, establish a strong public relations presence, and remain active on Reddit, which feeds AI crawlers. Keep your brand visible as user search behavior shifts.

Influencer marketing. Work with micro or mega influencers. Utilize TikTok Shops or user-generated content to expand reach and create authentic content.

Organic social. Build your brand with organic social content. Use it to increase awareness, create authenticity, and enhance your ads.

Global markets. Expand internationally only after significant sales. Start with English-speaking countries, then Europe or China. Consider regulatory and operational costs.

AOV. Increase average order value with bundling, price testing, and shipping thresholds. Promotions and quiet price adjustments can drive higher orders.

Post-purchase upsells. Offer complementary products immediately after purchase to increase revenue per customer.

Category expansion. Launch related products that pair with existing items to encourage multiple purchases.

A/B testing. Optimize and test website layout, marketing copy, promotions, pricing, and more to increase conversion rates.

Repeat orders. Encourage repeat purchases, especially for consumables. For slower-turnover items, target niche buyers, such as developers or bulk purchasers.

Loyalty programs. Be cautious with formal programs — they can backfire. Consider offering informal rewards for milestones, such as gifts after multiple orders.

Post-purchase flow. Ensure emails and communications reach customers, and use small surprises to delight them and create loyalty.

Surprise and delight. Over-deliver on promises. Include small gifts, such as planners or notes, to enhance the customer experience, especially for higher-end products.

Subscriptions. Optimize subscription offerings to keep customers engaged and revenue flowing.

The Best Ecommerce Business Model

In this year’s “Ecommerce Conversations,” I’ve occasionally shared my experiences owning and operating Beardbrand, the direct-to-consumer brand I launched a decade ago. To date, I’ve addressed hiring, branding, profit-building, priority-setting, exiting, and overcoming a million-dollar loss.

In this installment, I share what I believe is the best bootstrapped ecommerce model and why others should consider it.

My entire audio dialog is embedded below. The transcript is condensed and edited for clarity.

Building a D2C brand is hard. Developing and selling products is a grind. A better path is a bootstrapped, sustainable business where you spend less than you make and enjoy the journey.

The purpose is not chasing giant exits or reinventing the world. It’s about building a lifestyle business — likely under a few million in annual revenue — that trades rapid top-line growth for lower stress, profitability, and freedom. It may never go mass market, but it can deliver a great life.

Agile Structure

When building an ecommerce business, aim to keep fixed, internal costs to a minimum. Take inspiration from Will Nitze of IQ Bar, who runs a lean team and outsources marketing, design, video, packaging, operations, and manufacturing. Outsourcing creates flexibility. Vendors that underperform are easily replaced.

In-house manufacturing ties you to equipment, facilities, and local employees. All reduce mobility. With an outsourced model, you can work from anywhere — even Denmark, where I am now — and still receive prototypes and manage operations. A remote setup opens the talent pool worldwide.

There are trade-offs. In-person collaboration can be valuable, but physical offices create obligations. I learned this the hard way with a five-year lease in Austin, Texas, that became unnecessary during Covid, costing us over $100,000 annually.

Local teams and on-site operations may suit folks who prefer a traditional setup. But if freedom matters — to travel, hire globally, pivot quickly — consider outsourcing from the start. I prefer flexibility, partnering with both in-house staff and external providers to keep my business agile.

Smart Niches

An ideal ecommerce product is small, lightweight, and consumable, serving a large audience with an average order value of $75–$125. This price range makes customer acquisition easier and ad testing faster. The challenge: It’s highly competitive, especially in the supplements, beauty, and premium beverage sectors, such as specialty coffee or tea.

Other strong options are non-consumables that share those traits, such as a Ridge pocket knife — easy to ship, high perceived value. Consider untapped luxury niches. Affluent customers value convenience, presentation, and uniqueness far more than price.

For inspiration, visit luxury department stores such as Neiman Marcus and Saks Fifth Avenue. Observe what sells and why someone might pay 10 times more than a viable alternative. Avoid trend-driven categories, such as fashion, which require constant reinvention. Instead, focus on evergreen household goods with a unique twist for a small but willing-to-pay market.

While these niches won’t create billion-dollar companies, they can deliver low-stress, highly profitable businesses — think $750,000 in annual revenue with $250,000 in profit — without the complexity of endless SKUs, large teams, or operational headaches.

Margin Power

It’s possible to build a $750,000 ecommerce business that nets $250,000, but only if you manage gross margins — aim for 90%. For example, sell an item costing $6 for $60. You’ll still retain around 80% after shipping, taxes, and delivery costs. High margins are non-negotiable for a low-stress operation.

Conversely, products with tighter margins attract price-sensitive customers, which leads to increased returns, complaints, and support tickets. Serving customers with disposable income reduces friction because they’re less likely to demand refunds.

At a $115 average sale, $750,000 in annual revenue equates to roughly 6,520 orders — just 18 per day. One person can fulfill this volume, or with minimal help, generating perhaps only a few support tickets per week.

If margins leave $650,000 after cost of goods, and you spend $400,000 on marketing, you’ll retain $250,000 profit. The model works, but launching it — higher-priced products in a niche — requires time and testing. It won’t be easy to stand out, but with the right offer, it’s a manageable, profitable, and less stressful way to run a business.

Trusted Voice

Every high-end ecommerce brand needs a trusted public advocate — someone who can vouch for the quality, experience, and value of the product. It doesn’t have to be a celebrity. It can be the owner, provided she’s willing to be the face of the brand.

The advocate’s role is to build trust, communicate the product’s value, and demonstrate how it improves customers’ lives. Titles alone aren’t enough. An advocate must have influence and sales ability. Without this trust, it’s nearly impossible to command premium prices.

You may need to sell to an audience you’re not part of. That requires shedding your own “value shopper” mindset to learn how target customers buy. Experience their lifestyle, understand why they pay more, and embrace their perspective. This shift in thinking can be the key to unlocking growth.

Creative Edge

Innovation is essential. If you can’t create something unique, this model may not work. Competitors will copy your ideas and undercut your prices. Success requires loyalty and brand affinity, and thus customers who won’t switch to save $30 — or $100.

Luxury beauty brands such as La Mer skincare succeed not only from functional superiority, but also because of their storytelling, perceived exclusivity, and trust. The challenge for like-minded entrepreneurs is to create an experience and narrative so compelling that customers believe no substitute can match it.

In premium markets, even a few thousand loyal customers can sustain a profitable, low-stress business — if your innovation keeps them hooked.

Charts: U.S. Small Business Trends Q3 2025

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce Small Business Index is published quarterly in conjunction with MetLife, the financial services firm, and based on unique online interviews with 760 small business owners and operators. The index captures owners’ views on the “economy, hiring, investment, and other key economic indicators.”

The index is a measure of owners’ sentiment across key topics with 0 = extremely negative, 100 = extremely positive, and 50 = neutral.

For Q2 2025, the index rose to 65.2, up from 62.3 in the previous quarter, reflecting growing optimism around business health and cash flow.

The National Small Business Association, a 65,000-member non-profit advocacy organization unaffiliated with the U.S. government, conducts an annual in-depth survey of small businesses nationwide on the state of their companies.

This year’s survey report (PDF), issued in May, is based on approximately 650 interviews in April 2025 with small business owners in all 50 states and industries. Economic uncertainty is the most significant challenge facing small businesses today, with 59% identifying it as their primary concern.

Despite the uncertainty, roughly 50% of surveyed owners expect their sales to increase this year.

U.S. Bank surveyed 1,000 small business owners with annual revenues of $25 million or less and between two and 99 employees to examine the main macroeconomic challenges they face and their use of digital tools and AI. The survey was carried out from March 14 to April 4, 2025, and published in the bank’s “2025 Small Business Perspective” report (PDF).

Per the survey, U.S. small business owners are adopting new payment options to serve their customers better. Although cash is still the preferred in-store method, other payment options are becoming increasingly popular, with 42% reporting tap-to-pay as a primary method.

Charts: U.S. Manufacturing Trends Q3 2025

U.S. manufacturing activity showed modest improvement in June 2025, according to data released by the Institute for Supply Management (PDF).

The Institute’s Manufacturing Purchasing Managers Index (PMI) derives from monthly survey responses collected from purchasing and supply executives at more than 400 industrial firms. The overall PMI is a weighted composite of five seasonally adjusted indicators: new orders (30%), production (25%), employment (20%), supplier deliveries (15%), and inventories (10%).

The June PMI rose to 49.0, up from 48.5 in May, surpassing forecasts.

Since 1968 the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank in Philadelphia has conducted a monthly survey targeting approximately 250 manufacturers in its district of Delaware, southern New Jersey, and eastern and central Pennsylvania. Respondents report on the business conditions and various aspects of activity at their facilities, such as employment, work hours, new and backlogged orders, shipments, inventory levels, and delivery times.

The July 2025 survey, conducted from the 7th to the 14th, solicited executives’ expectations for changes in operational and labor costs for the current year. Most anticipate rising costs in all expense categories throughout 2025.

The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) is the largest such organization in the United States, representing small and large manufacturers in every sector and in all 50 states.

Trade uncertainties and rising costs are the leading concerns for manufacturers, according to NAM’s Q1 2025 “Manufacturers’ Outlook Survey” (PDF) of approximately 250 firms, released in March.

Moreover, manufacturers are increasingly focusing on digital transformation. NAM introduced a question in March to measure the importance manufacturers are giving to digitally transforming their operations. Over one-third of respondents (36.8%) plan to moderately prioritize digital transformation in the coming year.

5 Predictions for 2025 Holiday Shopping

Could it be that Americans are heading into the holiday shopping season with confidence?

From faster delivery and cross-border buying to small business growth and AI-powered shopping tools, the coming Christmas season promises to be both bold and efficient — or at least that’s what I predict.

Near Instant Gratification

Fast, free delivery has become so common that consumers will pick up or receive at least 35% of orders placed in November and December within 24 hours.

I foresee a couple of factors driving speedy deliveries.

First, Amazon’s infrastructure prioritizes rapid delivery. In urban areas, Amazon delivers approximately 60% of Prime orders the next day. Rural delivery lowers the average, but Fulfillment by Amazon shipments will provide nearly instant shopping gratification.

Second, buy online, pick up in-store purchasing has grown rapidly and could soon represent 10% of U.S. ecommerce sales, according to Capital One Shopping.

Canadian-American Relations

Canadian shoppers are among the most active cross-border consumers worldwide. In a given year, about half of folks north of the border shop with a U.S. ecommerce business.

Photo of a male looking at a laptop with snow in the background

Holiday shopping has become a digital ritual — convenient and quiet.

Despite tariff disputes, I believe these shopping habits are both resilient and beneficial. Canadian buyers are accustomed to shopping at U.S. stores online owing to value and variety. And, the nations have been friends for too long to experience lasting trade disruptions.

With this in mind, expect at least 55% of Canadian shoppers to make at least one holiday purchase from U.S. ecommerce stores in 2025.

Small Business Growth

I expect small, independent online retailers will grow by approximately 10% in 2025, outperforming overall ecommerce performance and reaching roughly $15.5 billion in U.S. holiday revenue.

In comparison, Shopify merchants alone generated about $11.5 billion during the 2024 holiday peak sale period. Etsy sellers added about $2 billion.

The growth should come from small brands that sell craft or U.S.-made products.

AI Shopping

During the peak gift-giving season, at least 50% of North American shoppers will use artificial intelligence for shopping. Consumers will chat, search, seek recommendations, and even make purchases with the help of AI tools.

Last year, fewer than 15% of U.S. shoppers consulted AI for holiday gift giving, reportedly, but much has changed in a year. AI is present in nearly every tool, including Google.

Hence AI product discovery will likely be the top ecommerce traffic source in 2025.

Consumer Confidence

I was pessimistic last year about U.S. holiday ecommerce growth, and it showed in my failed predictions, listed below. If I am going to err this year, it will be on the side of being too optimistic.

The U.S. stock market has performed well of late. For example, the S&P 500 and the Nasdaq Composite index recently hit record highs. The driver for this boom may be trade optimism and solid corporate earnings.

I suspect this enthusiasm will carry over into holiday gift-giving in 2025. The key factor will be whether shoppers believe they can afford to spend.

Last Year’s Predictions

Since 2013 I have predicted ecommerce trends and sales for the coming holiday season. In 2024, I was incorrect in four of my five predictions, making last year’s forecasting my worst yet. Here are the embarrassing specifics.

Mobile commerce will represent 54% of holiday ecommerce sales: correct. Adobe reported that U.S. holiday sales on mobile devices reached $131.5 billion, accounting for 54.4% of the overall online total.

Ecommerce holiday sales grow 5% year-over-year: wrong. I was too pessimistic last year. I wrote that early holiday predictions, including one suggesting 23% growth in 2024, were “too optimistic, given the contentious U.S. election, inflation, and other economic woes.” Most sources put the actual growth at 8.7%.

Email volume grows 25% during the 2024 holiday season: wrong. This one was more difficult to measure, but nonetheless, I likely missed the mark. Global email volume grew about 4.3% year-over-year during the fourth quarter, according to multiple sources.

40% of Gen  Zs use social commerce this holiday season: wrong. Most estimates place the actual number at 32% for Gen Zs (ages 13 to 28), while an estimated 12% of all U.S. consumers shopped social in 2024.

BNPL accounts for 9% of online holiday sales: wrong. About 7.7% of U.S. holiday purchases in November and December 2024 were buy-now, pay-later, representing $18.2 billion, per Adobe.

Facebook ‘Megaphone’ Powers D2C Watch Brand

Nate Lagos is vice president of marketing for Original Grain, a direct-to-consumer watch maker. He relies on Facebook advertising, but not for immediate customer acquisition.

“Platforms such as Facebook are megaphones, not salespeople,” he says.

In our recent conversation, Nate shared his marketing origins, advertising tactics, influencer management, and more.

Our entire audio conversation is embedded below. The transcript is edited for length and clarity.

Eric Bandholz: Give us a quick rundown of who you are and what you do.

Nate Lagos: I’m the vice president of marketing at Original Grain, a watch company that blends wood and steel to create timepieces that guys want to wear. I’ve been here four years, leading growth through product innovation and creative marketing campaigns. Before that, I served as CMO for a couple of smaller ecommerce brands.

The last four years at OG have been exciting, fast-paced, and at times stressful — but extremely rewarding.

My marketing journey started in college. I fell in love with the subject after my first class, but quickly realized school wouldn’t teach me how to thrive in the real world. I had one great professor, but most classes fell short. I began freelancing during my sophomore year, running organic and paid social campaigns for local businesses, and built from there.

I host a twice-weekly podcast called “Tactical & Practical.” Each episode is 10-12 minutes and delves into a single tactic we’re using or a challenge I’m facing. The goal is to create the kind of honest, tactical content I wish I had at my first CMO job at age 24, when I had no idea what I was doing.

Bandholz: How do you approach media buying and ad strategy?

Lagos: I see advertising as a way to amplify great brands, not as a tool to acquire customers directly. Platforms such as Facebook are megaphones, not salespeople. I pour budget into that megaphone because impressions have long-term value, even if they don’t immediately convert.

Nearly all of our ad budget goes to Facebook, primarily for conversion campaigns. Our average order value for new customers is $360. Their buying decisions often take months. So, we don’t obsess over daily customer acquisition costs — we focus on consistent awareness and brand affinity that pays off during key moments, such as the holidays.

Our performance metric is straightforward: If we spend $10,000 promoting a watch and earn $40,000 from it, the ads are effective, regardless of Facebook’s internal metrics. If we only make $11,000, we cut spend, test new creative, or shift messaging.

We typically advertise our top five watches, not our entire catalog. We structure our campaigns by collection, and we measure success both at the individual product level and the collection-level return-on-ad-spend. Meta accounts for 95% of our spend. The rest goes to Google, YouTube, and influencers, which we’d like to grow, though they’re harder to scale and produce content for.

Bandholz: What’s your strategy for changing ad creative on Meta?

Lagos: I’m still figuring that out. Historically, we didn’t launch a large number of ads — typically around 10–15 per week — even as we grew by over 100% last year from an eight-figure base. This year, we’ve ramped that up to 30–40 ads weekly. It’s not because we need more volume to find winners, but because Facebook won’t allocate spend unless we launch more.

The platform tends to push our top-performing ads, which is fine until those ads plateau. Previously, we could introduce new creative into the same ad set, and Facebook would distribute spend. That’s no longer happening. By increasing volume, we’re now seeing new ads spend faster and find winners more quickly.

Our full-time photographer is also our creative inspiration, handling graphic design and brand direction. We hired an operations lead earlier this year. He focuses on Klaviyo and Postscript scheduling and helps out with social and influencer campaigns. So there are three of us on the team.

Most of our messaging angles come from copy I test directly on our site. Once we see what converts there, we repurpose that language into ads.

Bandholz: Thirty pieces of content weekly takes work.

Lagos: Approximately one-third of our content consists of iterations of past winners — duplicate headlines, graphics, and photography styles. If a creative is performing, we replicate it across our top five watches and underperformers we want to push.

For new content, Chris (our creative lead) and I brainstorm weekly using a shared Canva board. I lean toward old-school inspiration — vintage Rolex and cigarette ads — while he pulls modern ecommerce and consumer-focused examples. We compare notes on what we like and dislike, and adapt our messaging and offers to those styles.

We’re intentional with testing. If we’re trying a new visual format, we’ll pair it with a proven offer, headline, and watch. If it flops, we know it’s the visual that didn’t land, not the copy or the product. It helps us stay efficient and avoid confusion when something doesn’t work.

Bandholz: What makes your top product so successful?

Lagos: We launched our top-selling watch two years ago. It’s an automatic skeleton-dial watch, so you see all the inner mechanics. It’s black-plated stainless steel with charred whiskey barrel wood, and that combo crushes. Since then, we’ve launched other watches using similar elements, and many have worked. Our founders do an incredible job designing them.

I’ve learned it’s not the marketing that determines success. We launched this watch with the same email, ad, and strategy as others. So when one sells out and the other doesn’t, no one blames marketing — it’s all about product-market fit.

Keeping this watch in stock has been the real challenge. We launched 400 units in November 2023, and they sold out quickly. We thought it was holiday timing, but it continued to sell — 500 more, then thousands for Father’s Day, and then a massive run in Q4 2024. Eventually, I raised prices and pulled back ads to slow sales.

Bandholz: You mentioned influencers. What’s your strategy?

Lagos: We’re lucky because we’re our own target audience — 35 to 50-year-old guys who drink whiskey and love outdoorsy, rugged stuff. So we’re already fans of the people we end up working with. We also survey our customers about their music and sports preferences to guide our influencer selection.

Our outreach is mostly manual. We send cold direct messages, and I occasionally reach out to agents on LinkedIn. Having big-name partners such as Jack Daniel’s and Taylor Guitars gives us instant credibility. Influencers take us seriously when they see who we work with.

We don’t do affiliate or revenue share. It doesn’t align with our long purchase cycles. Instead, we pay a flat fee for a set number of posts or YouTube inclusions. Instagram collaborations let us repurpose posts as ads. They aren’t high converters but deliver great impression and click costs.

We use codes and links to track YouTube performance and calculate revenue per thousand impressions. Some audiences, such as whiskey content creators, bring $80 RPMs, while lifestyle comedians bring $20. As long as we pay below those amounts, the channel works. We’ve also had success with truck, outdoors, and even music creators, although music has been hit or miss.

Bandholz: Where can people buy your watches and reach out?

Lagos: OriginalGrain.com. I’m on X and LinkedIn. My podcast is Tactical & Practical.

Charts: Outlook of U.S. Institutional Investors 2025

In March and April 2025, Boston Consulting Group surveyed approximately 150 U.S. institutional investors on their outlook for the domestic economy.

In the ensuing report (PDF), BCG reported most investors expect President Trump’s tariff policy to have negative impacts, including higher consumer prices, weaker corporate earnings, declines in stock market performance, and slower growth in gross domestic product. Conversely, many foresee benefits such as increased government revenue and lower interest rates.

According to the survey, investors now expect negative impacts from tariffs to all economic sectors. Manufacturing sectors depend heavily on global supply chains, so higher input costs and retaliatory tariffs could weaken the competitiveness of U.S.-made products and pressure overall performance.

Sixty-seven percent of surveyed investors are holding more cash, suggesting they anticipate increased market volatility or a downturn.

Moreover, investors identify revenue growth and protection as the top priorities for management, while emphasizing the rising importance of financial stability and supply chain resilience.

How to Survive a Million-Dollar Loss

This year I’ve sprinkled occasional “Ecommerce Conversations” episodes with real-life master classes from Beardbrand, my company. To date I’ve addressed hiringbrandingprofit-building, priority-setting, and exiting.

For this installment, I’ll share Beardbrand’s experience of losing nearly $1 million across 2023 and 2024. I’ll recap how we managed to survive our worst years in business while remaining 100% bootstrapped.

It got bad. Our cash levels dropped to where they were in year one, 2014. We were hemorrhaging money.

But we’re still here — still building and still learning. We made it through without outside funding.

Here’s what the future holds for Beardbrand. My entire audio dialog is embedded below. The transcript is condensed and edited for clarity.

Ghosted

A big portion of our loss came from Target. The company had been a seven-figure account for us for years, and we thought the relationship was solid. Every year, we pitched Target our plans. Historically, the staff there provided us with clear feedback — what worked, what didn’t, and where there was room for growth.

In 2023, Target had a sustainability initiative. We revamped our packaging, switching from glass and plastic to aluminum. It’s lighter, more recyclable, and aligns with eco-conscious goals. At the same time, we increased the size of our beard oil packaging from 1 oz. bottles to occupy more shelf space and stand out.

We committed early, produced inventory, and delivered Target’s purchase orders on time. Then silence. Nothing. After years of working with us, the staff ghosted us. No feedback, no responses. Worse, they dropped us and left us with nearly $200,000 of unpaid product.

We erred by giving Target exclusivity, which meant we weren’t selling on Amazon or Walmart. That killed our ability to move leftover inventory quickly when they dropped us. By the time we finally got on Amazon, the products had already aged out. We destroyed a large quantity that had expired.

Reserves

We’ve always run Beardbrand conservatively. That means keeping a decent amount of capital in reserve — not because we’re paranoid, but because you never know when a black swan event might hit. Having that runway lets you make clear, intentional decisions rather than panicking. It gives you time to explore solutions, test channels, and get a better night’s sleep.

Thankfully, during our stronger years, we built up a solid cushion. And that cushion is what kept us afloat during the downturn. We essentially burned through all of it. But we never dipped below zero, which meant we didn’t have to take out high-interest loans, open lines of credit, or bring in outside investors.

We did have conversations just in case. I even considered withdrawing money from my personal savings. But that’s a hard decision when things aren’t going well. When you’re in the middle of the storm, it doesn’t feel like a temporary dip — it feels like a freefall. You start wondering: Is this the bottom, or is there more pain ahead?

Writing another personal check to the business, especially after years of building wealth from it, was not something I wanted to do. And neither did my partners. We were determined to find a way forward that didn’t involve doubling down with personal capital or giving up control.

Pileup

In addition to losing Target, we experienced a series of setbacks. First, the state of Texas audited us. We cooperated fully, waited for the final numbers, and instead got slapped with a tax lien. That lien triggered Brex, our corporate credit card provider, to freeze our account, despite our perfect payment history. Thankfully, American Express stood by us and kept things moving.

Then came an ADA lawsuit, a leaked 100% off coupon code, and a $20,000 air conditioner repair at our barbershop. We also faced regulatory changes that forced us to reformulate key fragrances.

We had internal missteps, such as losing a key growth team member and coasting when we should’ve pushed harder. We focused on profitability, but the business slowly declined.

We simplified our product line to meet a manufacturer’s needs, which, in hindsight, proved to be a mistake. The lesson? Partner with vendors who value your business. You don’t want to be too small to matter, or too big to be managed. That relationship needs to be just right.

We also lowered prices to drive volume, but it backfired. Loyal customers just paid less, and those who thought we were expensive still did. Meanwhile, larger packaging reduced purchase frequency, and killing off beloved fragrances hurt loyalty. Top-line revenue got cut in half.

Furthermore, when your business shrinks, fixed costs such as office leases and payroll can become overwhelming. Our $10,000 per month lease that once felt small became a big deal.

Rebuilding

The good news? Beardbrand is alive. We’ve weathered the storm and slowly started turning things around. It hasn’t been a dramatic rebound — it’s been steady, slow progress. We have focused on improving operations, addressing inventory issues, resolving stock-outs, tightening pricing, and enhancing product quality.

We now have the right fulfillment provider, manufacturing partners, and systems in place. Instead of existential crises, we’re dealing with everyday stuff — shipping issues, ad performance, and the occasional bad product batch. That’s a massive shift. It’s not glamorous, but it’s no longer a matter of survival.

We cut costs aggressively — even eliminating $15 per month software. We reestablished healthy margins. Our customer service, returns, and product quality all depend on having room to breathe financially.

The Target fallout is behind us, the tax lien is resolved, and the ADA plaintiff dropped the bogus lawsuit. My business partner stepped out of day-to-day operations, and some team members transitioned to part-time roles, which helped improve our cash flow. We’ve managed all of this without layoffs. My team is the same one that helped us grow, and they’re still incredibly talented and dedicated.

I’ve also cut my own salary and lived off personal savings to keep things afloat. But I’m optimistic. With the business stabilizing, we can rebuild our savings and start exploring new growth opportunities again.

Momentum

Survival mode means focusing on making it through the day. Some entrepreneurs try to grow their way out of problems. For us, it started with stabilizing operations. We can finally think long-term again.

We’ve begun reinvesting in growth, supporting our paid media and Meta efforts, and expanding our creative team to produce more content and ads. More creative output means more chances to connect with customers and fuel a rebound.

We’re also rethinking channels beyond direct-to-consumer. Target was a strong retail partner for years. Retail as a channel still holds potential — perhaps it’s independent salons, boutique pharmacies, and grocery stores. The goal is to diversify. Beardbrand.com will always be our home base, but we’re a business that sells to people, not just an ecommerce brand.

It’s exciting to think ahead instead of looking back. We’re aiming for 7% profitability this year — that’s breakeven in my book. It provides us with a buffer for unpredictable events, such as lawsuits, audits, and air conditioning failures. The real goal is 17% profit — that’s when we can fund growth, hire employees, and breathe easier. Anything beyond that is the sweet spot where the stress and sacrifice start to feel worth it.

I’m excited again — for the team, for the future, and what we’re building.

Why the US and Europe could lose the race for fusion energy

Fusion energy holds the potential to shift a geopolitical landscape that is currently configured around fossil fuels. Harnessing fusion will deliver the energy resilience, security, and abundance needed for all modern industrial and service sectors. But these benefits will be controlled by the nation that leads in both developing the complex supply chains required and building fusion power plants at scales large enough to drive down economic costs.

The US and other Western countries will have to build strong supply chains across a range of technologies in addition to creating the fundamental technology behind practical fusion power plants. Investing in supply chains and scaling up complex production processes has increasingly been a strength of China’s and a weakness of the West, resulting in the migration of many critical industries from the West to China. With fusion, we run the risk that history will repeat itself. But it does not have to go that way.

The US and Europe were the dominant public funders of fusion energy research and are home to many of the world’s pioneering private fusion efforts. The West has consequently developed many of the basic technologies that will make fusion power work. But in the past five years China’s support of fusion energy has surged, threatening to allow the country to dominate the industry.

The industrial base available to support China’s nascent fusion energy industry could enable it to climb the learning curve much faster and more effectively than the West. Commercialization requires know-how, capabilities, and complementary assets, including supply chains and workforces in adjacent industries. And especially in comparison with China, the US and Europe have significantly under-supported the industrial assets needed for a fusion industry, such as thin-film processing and power electronics.

To compete, the US, allies, and partners must invest more heavily not only in fusion itself—which is already happening—but also in those adjacent technologies that are critical to the fusion industrial base. 

China’s trajectory to dominating fusion and the West’s potential route to competing can be understood by looking at today’s most promising scientific and engineering pathway to achieve grid-relevant fusion energy. That pathway relies on the tokamak, a technology that uses a magnetic field to confine ionized gas—called plasma—and ultimately fuse nuclei. This process releases energy that is converted from heat to electricity. Tokamaks consist of several critical systems, including plasma confinement and heating, fuel production and processing, blankets and heat flux management, and power conversion.

A close look at the adjacent industries needed to build these critical systems clearly shows China’s advantage while also providing a glimpse into the challenges of building a fusion industrial base in the US or Europe. China has leadership in three of these six key industries, and the West is at risk of losing leadership in two more. China’s industrial might in thin-film processing, large metal-alloy structures, and power electronics provides a strong foundation to establish the upstream supply chain for fusion.

The importance of thin-film processing is evident in the plasma confinement system. Tokamaks use strong electromagnets to keep the fusion plasma in place, and the magnetic coils must be made from superconducting materials. Rare-earth barium copper oxide (REBCO) superconductors are the highest-performing materials available in sufficient quantity to be viable for use in fusion.

The REBCO industry, which relies on thin-film processing technologies, currently has low production volumes spanning globally distributed manufacturers. However, as the fusion industry grows, the manufacturing base for REBCO will likely consolidate among the industry players who are able to rapidly take advantage of economies of scale. China is today’s world leader in thin-film, high-volume manufacturing for solar panels and flat-panel displays, with the associated expert workforce, tooling sector, infrastructure, and upstream materials supply chain. Without significant attention and investment on the part of the West, China is well positioned to dominate REBCO thin-film processing for fusion magnets.

The electromagnets in a full-scale tokamak are as tall as a three-story building. Structures made using strong metal alloys are needed to hold these electromagnets around the large vacuum vessel that physically contains the magnetically confined plasma. Similar large-scale, complex metal structures are required for shipbuilding, aerospace, oil and gas infrastructure, and turbines. But fusion plants will require new versions of the alloys that are radiation-tolerant, able to withstand cryogenic temperatures, and corrosion-resistant. China’s manufacturing capacity and its metallurgical research efforts position it well to outcompete other global suppliers in making the necessary specialty metal alloys and machining them into the complex structures needed for fusion.

A tokamak also requires large-scale power electronics. Here again China dominates. Similar systems are found in the high-speed rail (HSR) industry, renewable microgrids, and arc furnaces. As of 2024, China had deployed over 48,000 kilometers of HSR. That is three times the length of Europe’s HSR network and 55 times as long as the Acela network in the US, which is slower than HSR. While other nations have a presence, China’s expertise is more recent and is being applied on a larger scale.

But this is not the end of the story. The West still has an opportunity to lead the other three adjacent industries important to the fusion supply chain: cryo-plants, fuel processing, and blankets. 

The electromagnets in an operational tokamak need to be kept at cryogenic temperatures of around 20 Kelvin to remain superconducting. This requires large-scale, multi-megawatt cryogenic cooling plants. Here, the country best set up to lead the industry is less clear. The two major global suppliers of cryo-plants are Europe-based Linde Engineering and Air Liquide Engineering; the US has Air Products and Chemicals and Chart Industries. But they are not alone: China’s domestic champions in the cryogenic sector include Hangyang Group, SASPG, Kaifeng Air Separation, and SOPC. Each of these regions already has an industrial base that could scale up to meet the demands of fusion.

Fuel production for fusion is a nascent part of the industrial base requiring processing technologies for light-isotope gases—hydrogen, deuterium, and tritium. Some processing of light-isotope gases is already done at small scale in medicine, hydrogen weapons production, and scientific research in the US, Europe, and China. But the scale needed for the fusion industry does not exist in today’s industrial base, presenting a major opportunity to develop the needed capabilities.

Similarly, blankets and heat flux management are an opportunity for the West. The blanket is the medium used to absorb energy from the fusion reaction and to breed tritium. Commercial-scale blankets will require entirely novel technology. To date, no adjacent industries have relevant commercial expertise in liquid lithium, lead-lithium eutectic, or fusion-specific molten salts that are required for blanket technology. Some overlapping blanket technologies are in early-stage development by the nuclear fission industry. As the largest producer of beryllium in the world, the US has an opportunity to capture leadership because that element is a key material in leading fusion blanket concepts. But the use of beryllium must be coupled with technology development programs for the other specialty blanket components.

These six industries will prove critical to scaling fusion energy. In some, such as thin-film processing and large metal-alloy structures, China already has a sizable advantage. Crucially, China recognizes the importance of these adjacent industries and is actively harnessing them in its fusion efforts. For example, China launched a fusion consortium that consists of industrial giants spanning the steel, machine tooling, electric grid, power generation, and aerospace sectors. It will be extremely difficult for the West to catch up in these areas, but policymakers and business leaders must pay attention and try to create robust alternative supply chains.

As the industrial area of greatest strength, cryo-plants could continue to be an opportunity for leadership in the West. Bolstering Western cryo-plant production by creating demand for natural-gas liquefaction will be a major boon to the future cryo-plant supply chain that will support fusion energy.

The US and European countries also have an opportunity to lead in the emerging industrial areas of fuel processing and blanket technologies. Doing so will require policymakers to work with companies to ensure that public and private funding is allocated to these critical emerging supply chains. Governments may well need to serve as early customers and provide debt financing for significant capital investment. Governments can also do better to incentivize private capital and equity financing—for example, through favorable capital-gains taxation. In lagging areas of thin-film and alloy production, the US and Europe will likely need partners, such as South Korea and Japan, that have the industrial bases to compete globally with China.

The need to connect and capitalize multiple industries and supply chains will require long-term thinking and clear leadership. A focus on the demand side of these complementary industries is essential. Fusion is a decade away from maturation, so its supplier base must be derisked and made profitable in the near term by focusing on other primary demand markets that contribute to our economic vitality. To name a few, policymakers can support modernization of the grid to bolster domestic demand for power electronics and domestic semiconductor manufacturing to support thin-film processing.

The West must also focus on the demand for energy production itself. As the world’s largest energy consumer, China will leverage demand from its massive domestic market to climb the learning curve and bolster national champions. This is a strategy that China has wielded with tremendous success to dominate global manufacturing, most recently in the electric-vehicle industry. Taken together, supply- and demand-side investment have been a winning strategy for China.

The competition to lead the future of fusion energy is here. Now is the moment for the US and its Western allies to start investing in the foundational innovation ecosystem needed for a vibrant and resilient industrial base to support it.

Daniel F. Brunner is a co-founder of Commonwealth Fusion Systems and a Partner at Future Tech Partners.

Edlyn V. Levine is the co-founder of a stealth-mode technology start up and an affiliate of the MIT Sloan School of Management.

Fiona E. Murray is a professor of entrepreneurship at the MIT School of Management and Vice Chair of the NATO Innovation Fund.

Rory Burke is a graduate of MIT Sloan and a former summer scholar with ARPA-E.

The latest threat from the rise of Chinese manufacturing

The findings a decade ago were, well, shocking. Mainstream economists had long argued that free trade was overall a good thing; though there might be some winners and losers, it would generally bring lower prices and widespread prosperity. Then, in 2013, a trio of academic researchers showed convincing evidence that increased trade with China beginning in the early 2000s and the resulting flood of cheap imports had been an unmitigated disaster for many US communities, destroying their manufacturing lifeblood.

The results of what in 2016 they called the “China shock” were gut-wrenching: the loss of 1 million US manufacturing jobs and 2.4 million jobs in total by 2011. Worse, these losses were heavily concentrated in what the economists called “trade-exposed” towns and cities (think furniture makers in North Carolina).

If in retrospect all that seems obvious, it’s only because the research by David Autor, an MIT labor economist, and his colleagues has become an accepted, albeit often distorted, political narrative these days: China destroyed all our manufacturing jobs! Though the nuances of the research are often ignored, the results help explain at least some of today’s political unrest. It’s reflected in rising calls for US protectionism, President Trump’s broad tariffs on imported goods, and nostalgia for the lost days of domestic manufacturing glory.

The impacts of the original China shock still scar much of the country. But Autor is now concerned about what he considers a far more urgent problem—what some are calling China shock 2.0. The US, he warns, is in danger of losing the next great manufacturing battle, this time over advanced technologies to make cars and planes as well as those enabling AI, quantum computing, and fusion energy.

Recently, I asked Autor about the lingering impacts of the China shock and the lessons it holds for today’s manufacturing challenges.

How are the impacts of the China shock still playing out?

I have a recent paper looking at 20 years of data, from 2000 to 2019. We tried to ask two related questions. One, if you looked at the places that were most exposed, how have they adjusted? And then if you look to the people who are most exposed, how have they adjusted? And how do those two things relate to one anothe

It turns out you get two very different answers. If you look at places that were most exposed, they have been substantially transformed. Manufacturing, once it starts going down, never comes back. But after 2010, these trade-impacted local labor markets staged something of an employment recovery, such that employment has grown faster after 2010 in trade-exposed places than non-trade-exposed places because a lot of people have come in. But these are jobs mostly in low-wage sectors. They’re in K–12 education and non-traded health services. They’re in warehousing and logistics. They’re in hospitality and lodging and recreation, and so they’re lower-wage, non-manufacturing jobs. And they’re done by a really different set of people.

The growth in employment is among women, among native-born Hispanics, among foreign-born adults and a lot of young people. The recovery is staged by a very different group from the white and black men, but especially white men, who were most represented in manufacturing. They have not really participated in this renaissance.

Employment is growing, but are these areas prospering?

They have a lower wage structure: fewer high-wage jobs, more low-wage jobs. So they’re not, if your definition of prospering is rapidly rising incomes. But there’s a lot of employment growth. They’re not like ghost towns. But then if you look at the people who were most concentrated in manufacturing—mostly white, non-college, native-born men—they have not prospered. Most of them have not transitioned from manufacturing to non-manufacturing.

One of the great surprises is everyone had believed that people would pull up stakes and move on. In fact, we find the opposite. People in the most adversely exposed places become less likely to leave. They have become less mobile. The presumption was that they would just relocate to find higher ground. And that is not at all what occurred.

What happened to the total number of manufacturing jobs?

There’s been no rebound. Once they go, they just keep going. If there is going to be new manufacturing, it won’t be in the sectors that were lost to China. Those were basically labor-intensive jobs, the kind of low-tech sectors that we will not be getting back. You know—commodity furniture and assembly of things, shoes, construction material. The US wasn’t going to keep them forever, and once they’re gone, it’s very unlikely to get them back.

I know you’ve written about this, but it’s not hard to draw a connection between the dynamics you’re describing—white-male manufacturing jobs going away and new jobs going to immigrants—and today’s political turmoil.

We have a paper about that called “Importing Political Polarization?”

How big a factor would you say it is in today’s political unrest?

I don’t want to say it’s the factor. The China trade shock was a catalyst, but there were lots of other things that were happening. It would be a vast oversimplification to say that it was the sole cause.

But most people don’t work in manufacturing anymore. Aren’t these impacts that you’re talking about, including the political unrest, disproportionate to the actual number of jobs lost?

These are jobs in places where manufacturing is the anchor activity. Manufacturing is very unevenly distributed. It’s not like grocery stores and hospitals that you find in every county. The impact of the China trade shock on these places was like dropping an economic bomb in the middle of downtown. If the China trade shock cost us a few million jobs, and these were all—you know—people in groceries and retail and gas stations, in hospitality and in trucking, you wouldn’t really notice it that much. We lost lots of clerical workers over the last couple of decades. Nobody talks about a clerical shock. Why not? Well, there was never a clerical capital of America. Clerical workers are everywhere. If they decline, it doesn’t wipe out the entire basis of a place.

So it goes beyond the jobs. These places lost their identity.

Maybe. But it’s also the jobs. Manufacturing offered relatively high pay to non-college workers, especially non-college men. It was an anchor of a way of life.

And we’re still seeing the damage.

Yeah, absolutely. It’s been 20 years. What’s amazing is the degree of stasis among the people who are most exposed—not the places, but the people. Though it’s been 20 years, we’re still feeling the pain and the political impacts from this transition.

Clearly, it has now entered the national psyche. Even if it weren’t true, everyone now believes it to have been a really big deal, and they’re responding to it. It continues to drive policy, political resentments, maybe even out of proportion to its economic significance. It certainly has become mythological.

What worries you now?

We’re in the midst of a totally different competition with China now that’s much, much more important. Now we’re not talking about commodity furniture and tube socks. We’re talking about semiconductors and drones and aviation, electric vehicles, shipping, fusion power, quantum, AI, robotics. These are the sectors where the US still maintains competitiveness, but they’re extremely threatened. China’s capacity for high-tech, low-cost, incredibly fast, innovative manufacturing is just unbelievable. And the Trump administration is basically fighting the war of 20 years ago. The loss of those jobs, you know, was devastating to those places. It was not devastating to the US economy as a whole. If we lose Boeing, GM, and Apple and Intel—and that’s quite possible—then that will be economically devastating.

I think some people are calling it China shock 2.0.

Yeah. And it’s well underway.

When we think about advanced manufacturing and why it’s important, it’s not so much about the number of jobs anymore, is it? Is it more about coming up with the next technologies?

It does create good jobs, but it’s about economic leadership. It’s about innovation. It’s about political leadership, and even standard setting for how the rest of the world works.

Should we just accept that manufacturing as a big source of jobs is in the past and move on?

No. It’s still 12 million jobs, right? Instead of the fantasy that we’re going to go back to 18 million or whatever—we had, what, 17.7 million manufacturing jobs in 1999—we should be worried about the fact that we’re going to end up at 6 million, that we’re going to lose 50% in the next decade. And that’s quite possible. And the Trump administration is doing a lot to help that process of loss along.

We have a labor market of over 160 million people, so it’s like 8% of employment. It’s not zero. So you should not think of it as too small to worry about it. It’s a lot of people; it’s a lot of jobs. But more important, it’s a lot of what has helped this country be a leader. So much innovation happens here, and so many of the things in which other countries are now innovating started here. It’s always been the case that the US tends to innovate in sectors and then lose them after a while and move on to the next thing. But at this point, it’s not clear that we’ll be in the frontier of a lot of these sectors for much longer.

So we want to revive manufacturing, but the right kind—advanced manufacturing?

The notion that we should be assembling iPhones in the United States, which Trump wants, is insane. Nobody wants to do that work. It’s horrible, tedious work. It pays very, very little. And if we actually did it here, it would make the iPhones 20% more expensive or more. Apple may very well decide to pay a 25% tariff rather than make the phones here. If Foxconn started doing iPhone assembly here, people would not be lining up for that job.

But at the same time, we do need new people coming into manufacturing.

But not that manufacturing. Not tedious, mind-numbing, eyestrain-inducing assembly.

We need them to do high-tech work. Manufacturing is a skilled activity. We need to build airplanes better. That takes a ton of expertise. Assembling iPhones does not.

What are your top priorities to head off China shock 2.0?

I would choose sectors that are important, and I would invest in them. I don’t think that tariffs are never justified, or industrial policies are never justified. I just don’t think protecting phone assembly is smart industrial policy. We really need to improve our ability to make semiconductors. I think that’s important. We need to remain competitive in the automobile sector—that’s important. We need to improve aviation and drones. That’s important. We need to invest in fusion power. That’s important. We need to adopt robotics at scale and improve in that sector. That’s important. I could come up with 15 things where I think public money is justified, and I would be willing to tolerate protections for those sectors.

What are the lasting lessons of the China shock and the opening up of global trade in the 2000s?

We did it too fast. We didn’t do enough to support people, and we pretended it wasn’t going on.

When we started the China shock research back around 2011, we really didn’t know what we’d find, and so we were as surprised as anyone. But the work has changed our own way of thinking and, I think, has been constructive—not because it has caused everyone to do the right thing, but it at least caused people to start asking the right questions.

What do the findings tell us about China shock 2.0?

I think the US is handling that challenge badly. The problem is much more serious this time around. The truth is, we have a sense of what the threats are. And yet we’re not seemingly responding in a very constructive way. Although we now know how seriously we should take this, the problem is that it doesn’t seem to be generating very serious policy responses. We’re generating a lot of policy responses—they’re just not serious ones.