I don't think Gillette is worried about market loss to Jeremy's razors. the question is if Jeremy's is a viable business with $800k/month in ad spend, and if th

I don't think Gillette is worried about market loss to Jeremy's razors. the question is if Jeremy's is a viable business with $800k/month in ad spend, and if they're acquiring customers faster than they're losing them. Before jeremy's there were other similar businesses with the same business model that weren't anti woke but advertised heavily online - dollar shave club, harry's, etc. They both have the same business model as Jeremy's. Dollar shave club was acquired by Unilever for $1 Billion and Harry's was acquired by Schick for $1.37 Billion. After being acquired both companies seem to have stopped advertising online anywhere near as heavily as they did before. I think Harry's started as a sort of charity buy one give one sort of company so it also had a social aspect to its promotion. It's clearly a space where there's room for competition and the possibility of getting acquired by a giant company who doesn't want to compete with you. If you have a built in audience of "anti woke" who will buy whatever dailywire sells them, you short circuit a lot of your risk and can focus on growth. The targeted ads at people more likely to be interested is just that, looking for growth. It doesn't mean its a bad business.