Survivorship, Loss Aversion, Confirmation & Systems - and the end of Rogue.
Survivorship, Loss Aversion, Confirmation & Systems - and the end of Rogue.
Survivorship, Loss Aversion, Confirmation & Systems - and the end of Rogue.
Survivorship, Loss Aversion, Confirmation & Systems - and the end of Rogue.
Category
General
Category
General
Category
General
Category
General
Date
Jul 5, 2024
Date
Jul 5, 2024
Date
Jul 5, 2024
Date
Jul 5, 2024
Author
Asher Flowers
Author
Asher Flowers
Author
Asher Flowers
Author
Asher Flowers
I’m going to tell you a story of love & loss.
Prior to Lateish Drinks & Broken Barrier Tequila, I launched a breakfast brand called Rogue. We made jams, marmalades, and condiments, and eventually overstretched to create a healthy cereal. It was 5 years, some huge wins, big losses and bigger learnings but ultimately the brand didn’t quite ‘make it’.
When I look back, there are a few key principles that I would place more emphasis on going forward.
Survivorship Bias
We believe that the success stories we hear represent a guaranteed path, leading us to overlook the common struggles and failures that happen in the industry. Guy Raz's How I Built This provides something of a comfort blanket to those dark(er) days, but many of these success stories are often outliers—and outliers make terrible role models.
Confirmation Bias
We seek positive or even negative feedback that supports our existing beliefs. A perfect example of this in the drinks industry is Hard Seltzer. What works in California doesn’t necessarily work for a British summer. Many brands have invested in this space in the UK, yet only two brands remain in this space on Ocado (a hell of an effort, by the way).
Loss Aversion
The fear of losing that initial success or those listings has meant that we continuously look to add additional flavours, variants, or limited editions rather than refining and focusing on a core set of manageable products. We often think ‘more variants, more sales’—pack formats, limited editions, or growing into bigger markets seeking bigger opportunities.
Lack of Systems
As we expanded, the lack of robust systems and processes made it increasingly difficult to get ahead of production, inventory, and distribution effectively. It’s always nice to be able to tell the story of “Wow, we sold out,” but we must remind ourselves that “we missed out on the opportunity to service more customers.”
So, back to the story of love and loss, some of this may resonate with you, some of it you may not, but I’m going to tell you about the downfall of Rogue and the lessons along the way.
Rogue, my first brand, was a breakfast brand that initially focused on jams, marmalades, and condiments. The business started on my mum's kitchen table in the valleys. After a year of trading at farmers' markets and food festivals, we began to outgrow this space. Out of the 35 products we tested, we found that five condiments, two marmalades, and two jams made up 80% of our sales. These products were particularly popular at a festival called ‘Cheese Fest,’ especially the Bravado Chilli Pepper Jam and Spiced Carrot Chutney.
Despite this, when we successfully approached Ocado and Sainsbury’s, they didn’t see the need for the condiments. What was attractive to them were the jams and marmalades. So why did I continue to pursue the condiments? Confirmation bias led me to prioritise keeping those initial couple of thousand customers ‘happy’ over focusing on what could give us scale.
Loss aversion also played a significant role. The fear of losing those initial loyal customers made it difficult to let go of the condiments, even though the market signals were clear. Over time, we dropped the Spiced Carrot Chutney, Onion & Caraway Chutney, and Raspberry and Red Onion Chutney. But for those few thousand fans of Bravado Chilli Pepper Jam and Kickin’ & Smokin’ Sauce, we kept them in until the bitter end.
There is a difference between quitting and giving up on a few products. Had we quit those products, we could have gone deeper and faster on the jams and marmalades that had a roadmap to scale. Confirmation bias drove us to stick with our condiments despite clear market signals pointing us towards jams and marmalades, and loss aversion made it hard to pivot away from our initial successes, hindering our potential for growth and scale. The brand was still bootstrapped at this point, with no system and a loan from the Welsh Development Bank we had a scattergun approach of trying to bring in revenue wherever we could but we stopped delivering directly to retail partners, relying on our first wholesaler.
As we began to see signs of growth, we expanded to four marmalades and three jams, with one being seasonal. Our responsive customers told us how much they adored and needed the whole range, and no doubt they did! However, we had three flavours that ended up cannibalising each other: Dark & Stormy Marmalade, Negroni Marmalade, and Espresso Martini Marmalade, while the Blood Orange & Vanilla Marmalade became our non-alcoholic offering. The issue here was the paradox of choice. On paper, these different flavours fit very different needs. Dark & Stormy and Negroni Marmalade became our most popular choices, while Espresso Martini was intriguing as the original marmalade. This meant we weren’t being ruthless with our capital, nor were we considering our repeat purchase rate. Had we limited ourselves to just the Dark & Stormy Marmalade, we could have expanded our distribution and built a stronger repeat purchase rate.
This situation illustrates the role of loss aversion, confirmation bias, survivorship bias, and the lack of systems. Loss aversion played a significant role—we were afraid to drop any flavours, fearing the loss of customers who liked them. This fear prevented us from focusing on the most successful product. Confirmation bias also influenced our decisions; the positive feedback from a small group of customers convinced us to keep all the flavours, clouding our judgement about which products truly had the potential for wider success.
Survivorship bias further complicated matters. We assumed that since some products were doing well, adding more would replicate that success, ignoring the reality that not all flavours were equally popular or viable in the long term. This overconfidence in our expanding product line diverted resources and attention away from optimising our best-sellers.
Lastly, the lack of robust systems exacerbated these issues. Without streamlined operations and a strategic focus, we struggled to manage the complexity of multiple SKUs. This inefficiency hindered our ability to scale and maintain quality, ultimately affecting our repeat purchase rate and overall growth.
I really admire those brands that maintain a single SKU focus. Take Botivo, for example, known as ‘the Big-Sipping Botanical Aperitivo.’ Botivo has carved a unique niche in the non-alcoholic beverage space with their approach, which isn't about eliminating the drinking occasion but providing a versatile, alcohol-free spirit that can be enjoyed with or without alcohol. Whether it’s in a Clementine Sour or a Botivo & Elderflower Tonic, this strategy has resonated well with sommeliers, chefs, food critics, and consumers. Their focus on a single SKU (Stock Keeping Unit) has allowed them to fulfil orders efficiently while expanding their distribution and encouraging repeat purchases. This single SKU focus has ironically led to commanding excellent shelf space due to high consumer demand, highlighted by their listings in locations such as The Deli Downstairs. Botivo has also coined the term “The Yellow Hour” to define that moment when you clock off and ease into your evening with a glass of Botivo.
Botivo's focused approach offers key lessons for brand owners on avoiding confirmation bias, survivorship bias, and loss aversion, while highlighting the importance of solid systems. By seeking varied feedback and objectively considering market signals, Botivo dodged confirmation bias and honed a single product to meet market needs without getting sidetracked by early wins or praise from a small group. Their success shows the value of learning from both wins and failures, avoiding survivorship bias by recognising the power of one strong SKU over multiple, less impactful products. Botivo's strategic focus helped them overcome loss aversion, confidently betting on their core product instead of fearing the loss of initial customers. This focus, combined with streamlined operations, allowed them to meet demand and maintain quality, fuelling their growth. Entrepreneurs should challenge their assumptions, study a range of case studies, manage their fear of loss, and build robust systems to scale and adapt as their business grows.
During the Covid-19 pandemic, the shift in consumer behaviour led to a significant increase in D2C sales. At that point, Rogue was still self-funded with zero investment for D2C channels or launching on Amazon. By the time we did, we were playing catch-up. The return on ad spend had fallen, changes in iOS settings affected our META adverts, and the cost of acquiring customers became unsustainably high. We didn’t investigate why our consumers were buying our products—our 600g jam at £3.95 only offered value when multiple products were bought. Were consumers switching to Ocado? Were we a gifting item? Without this data, our limited time and budget were stretched thin.
Ultimately, Rogue faced an end marked by underfunding, overextension, and a risky move into a new category. Winning bigger listings made me believe we were on course for critical mass and potential funding beyond the £33,000 we had previously raised. We sought £350,000 but secured only £147,000. Even with opportunities, lack of funding made growth increasingly difficult. Our listing opportunities outpaced our manufacturing capacity, prompting a move into the healthy cereals space. Although this category was larger and seemingly more promising, the product's flavour didn’t resonate with the brand Marketing, advertising, and promotion required a more intense budget. Balancing a chilli jam and a healthy cherry bakewell cereal spelled the beginning of the end.
This scenario underscores the critical roles of loss aversion, confirmation bias, survivorship bias, and the need for systems. Loss aversion kept us from dropping unprofitable products, fearing loss of potential revenue and loyal customers. Confirmation bias led us to overvalue early successes and positive feedback, clouding our judgement about the real potential of our new products. Survivorship bias made us believe that replicating the successes of others in a larger category would ensure our success, without adequately considering the failures in the same space.
The lack of robust systems exacerbated these issues. Without proper systems for data collection, we couldn’t understand customer behaviour or optimise our product offerings. Our operational inefficiencies made scaling impossible, especially with limited funds. For entrepreneurs, this highlights the importance of overcoming biases and building strong, data-driven systems. It's crucial to make informed decisions, streamline operations, and secure adequate funding to ensure sustainable growth and adaptability.
The intention for this post isn’t to dwell on past mistakes or external challenges but to underscore the importance of building a company on a foundation of solid systems and the willingness to ask challenging, provocative questions. As a brand owner, it’s often easier to cling to what worked for successful brands in the past rather than embracing new strategies. Whenever evaluating opportunities—whether it's online sales, additional SKUs, or growing distribution—it’s crucial to invest the time, effort, and resources to understand what these opportunities truly look like for your business. This means asking tough questions and assessing the resources needed to make these channels work effectively.
Start by recognising the biases you have around your business. Challenge them. Ask your customers and audience for feedback. Do more SKUs mean more sales? If so, why? For example, Lucky Saint spent five years becoming synonymous with alcohol-free beer by perfecting a delicious lager before launching an IPA. That’s a team of more than 20 people pushing a single product versus a team of one pushing more than 20 SKUs.
At Lateish, our approach is system-based. We’re not looking to achieve quick wins but rather to build brands sustainably over the long term. We don’t aim to be in every retail store, bar, or hotel—our focus is on those that complement each other. This targeted approach allows our team to concentrate and understand how our brand's key messages are landing. We’re not seeking a large client list; instead, we are incredibly selective about where and how we list our products.
Our agency’s goal is not merely to survive but to grow globally, with a team of BDMs building our brand in relevant cultural capitals. We constantly seek to test, learn, and adapt, recognising that our industry is in perpetual development. This commitment to a system, a set of values, and beliefs creates a productive tension that allows us to work at speed. Our focus means that we strive to reach decisions quickly, with a dynamic team that not only builds complementary strategies but is also comfortable challenging our own expectations and those of decision-makers.
In conclusion, always ask yourself: What does success look like? What does it take to get there, and who or what do you need to succeed? Despite past failings, it's not about being cavalier in our approach. With the best intentions and lessons learned, we must do better going forward. By committing to robust systems and embracing tough questions, we can build brands that are not only resilient but also poised for sustainable growth.
I’m going to tell you a story of love & loss.
Prior to Lateish Drinks & Broken Barrier Tequila, I launched a breakfast brand called Rogue. We made jams, marmalades, and condiments, and eventually overstretched to create a healthy cereal. It was 5 years, some huge wins, big losses and bigger learnings but ultimately the brand didn’t quite ‘make it’.
When I look back, there are a few key principles that I would place more emphasis on going forward.
Survivorship Bias
We believe that the success stories we hear represent a guaranteed path, leading us to overlook the common struggles and failures that happen in the industry. Guy Raz's How I Built This provides something of a comfort blanket to those dark(er) days, but many of these success stories are often outliers—and outliers make terrible role models.
Confirmation Bias
We seek positive or even negative feedback that supports our existing beliefs. A perfect example of this in the drinks industry is Hard Seltzer. What works in California doesn’t necessarily work for a British summer. Many brands have invested in this space in the UK, yet only two brands remain in this space on Ocado (a hell of an effort, by the way).
Loss Aversion
The fear of losing that initial success or those listings has meant that we continuously look to add additional flavours, variants, or limited editions rather than refining and focusing on a core set of manageable products. We often think ‘more variants, more sales’—pack formats, limited editions, or growing into bigger markets seeking bigger opportunities.
Lack of Systems
As we expanded, the lack of robust systems and processes made it increasingly difficult to get ahead of production, inventory, and distribution effectively. It’s always nice to be able to tell the story of “Wow, we sold out,” but we must remind ourselves that “we missed out on the opportunity to service more customers.”
So, back to the story of love and loss, some of this may resonate with you, some of it you may not, but I’m going to tell you about the downfall of Rogue and the lessons along the way.
Rogue, my first brand, was a breakfast brand that initially focused on jams, marmalades, and condiments. The business started on my mum's kitchen table in the valleys. After a year of trading at farmers' markets and food festivals, we began to outgrow this space. Out of the 35 products we tested, we found that five condiments, two marmalades, and two jams made up 80% of our sales. These products were particularly popular at a festival called ‘Cheese Fest,’ especially the Bravado Chilli Pepper Jam and Spiced Carrot Chutney.
Despite this, when we successfully approached Ocado and Sainsbury’s, they didn’t see the need for the condiments. What was attractive to them were the jams and marmalades. So why did I continue to pursue the condiments? Confirmation bias led me to prioritise keeping those initial couple of thousand customers ‘happy’ over focusing on what could give us scale.
Loss aversion also played a significant role. The fear of losing those initial loyal customers made it difficult to let go of the condiments, even though the market signals were clear. Over time, we dropped the Spiced Carrot Chutney, Onion & Caraway Chutney, and Raspberry and Red Onion Chutney. But for those few thousand fans of Bravado Chilli Pepper Jam and Kickin’ & Smokin’ Sauce, we kept them in until the bitter end.
There is a difference between quitting and giving up on a few products. Had we quit those products, we could have gone deeper and faster on the jams and marmalades that had a roadmap to scale. Confirmation bias drove us to stick with our condiments despite clear market signals pointing us towards jams and marmalades, and loss aversion made it hard to pivot away from our initial successes, hindering our potential for growth and scale. The brand was still bootstrapped at this point, with no system and a loan from the Welsh Development Bank we had a scattergun approach of trying to bring in revenue wherever we could but we stopped delivering directly to retail partners, relying on our first wholesaler.
As we began to see signs of growth, we expanded to four marmalades and three jams, with one being seasonal. Our responsive customers told us how much they adored and needed the whole range, and no doubt they did! However, we had three flavours that ended up cannibalising each other: Dark & Stormy Marmalade, Negroni Marmalade, and Espresso Martini Marmalade, while the Blood Orange & Vanilla Marmalade became our non-alcoholic offering. The issue here was the paradox of choice. On paper, these different flavours fit very different needs. Dark & Stormy and Negroni Marmalade became our most popular choices, while Espresso Martini was intriguing as the original marmalade. This meant we weren’t being ruthless with our capital, nor were we considering our repeat purchase rate. Had we limited ourselves to just the Dark & Stormy Marmalade, we could have expanded our distribution and built a stronger repeat purchase rate.
This situation illustrates the role of loss aversion, confirmation bias, survivorship bias, and the lack of systems. Loss aversion played a significant role—we were afraid to drop any flavours, fearing the loss of customers who liked them. This fear prevented us from focusing on the most successful product. Confirmation bias also influenced our decisions; the positive feedback from a small group of customers convinced us to keep all the flavours, clouding our judgement about which products truly had the potential for wider success.
Survivorship bias further complicated matters. We assumed that since some products were doing well, adding more would replicate that success, ignoring the reality that not all flavours were equally popular or viable in the long term. This overconfidence in our expanding product line diverted resources and attention away from optimising our best-sellers.
Lastly, the lack of robust systems exacerbated these issues. Without streamlined operations and a strategic focus, we struggled to manage the complexity of multiple SKUs. This inefficiency hindered our ability to scale and maintain quality, ultimately affecting our repeat purchase rate and overall growth.
I really admire those brands that maintain a single SKU focus. Take Botivo, for example, known as ‘the Big-Sipping Botanical Aperitivo.’ Botivo has carved a unique niche in the non-alcoholic beverage space with their approach, which isn't about eliminating the drinking occasion but providing a versatile, alcohol-free spirit that can be enjoyed with or without alcohol. Whether it’s in a Clementine Sour or a Botivo & Elderflower Tonic, this strategy has resonated well with sommeliers, chefs, food critics, and consumers. Their focus on a single SKU (Stock Keeping Unit) has allowed them to fulfil orders efficiently while expanding their distribution and encouraging repeat purchases. This single SKU focus has ironically led to commanding excellent shelf space due to high consumer demand, highlighted by their listings in locations such as The Deli Downstairs. Botivo has also coined the term “The Yellow Hour” to define that moment when you clock off and ease into your evening with a glass of Botivo.
Botivo's focused approach offers key lessons for brand owners on avoiding confirmation bias, survivorship bias, and loss aversion, while highlighting the importance of solid systems. By seeking varied feedback and objectively considering market signals, Botivo dodged confirmation bias and honed a single product to meet market needs without getting sidetracked by early wins or praise from a small group. Their success shows the value of learning from both wins and failures, avoiding survivorship bias by recognising the power of one strong SKU over multiple, less impactful products. Botivo's strategic focus helped them overcome loss aversion, confidently betting on their core product instead of fearing the loss of initial customers. This focus, combined with streamlined operations, allowed them to meet demand and maintain quality, fuelling their growth. Entrepreneurs should challenge their assumptions, study a range of case studies, manage their fear of loss, and build robust systems to scale and adapt as their business grows.
During the Covid-19 pandemic, the shift in consumer behaviour led to a significant increase in D2C sales. At that point, Rogue was still self-funded with zero investment for D2C channels or launching on Amazon. By the time we did, we were playing catch-up. The return on ad spend had fallen, changes in iOS settings affected our META adverts, and the cost of acquiring customers became unsustainably high. We didn’t investigate why our consumers were buying our products—our 600g jam at £3.95 only offered value when multiple products were bought. Were consumers switching to Ocado? Were we a gifting item? Without this data, our limited time and budget were stretched thin.
Ultimately, Rogue faced an end marked by underfunding, overextension, and a risky move into a new category. Winning bigger listings made me believe we were on course for critical mass and potential funding beyond the £33,000 we had previously raised. We sought £350,000 but secured only £147,000. Even with opportunities, lack of funding made growth increasingly difficult. Our listing opportunities outpaced our manufacturing capacity, prompting a move into the healthy cereals space. Although this category was larger and seemingly more promising, the product's flavour didn’t resonate with the brand Marketing, advertising, and promotion required a more intense budget. Balancing a chilli jam and a healthy cherry bakewell cereal spelled the beginning of the end.
This scenario underscores the critical roles of loss aversion, confirmation bias, survivorship bias, and the need for systems. Loss aversion kept us from dropping unprofitable products, fearing loss of potential revenue and loyal customers. Confirmation bias led us to overvalue early successes and positive feedback, clouding our judgement about the real potential of our new products. Survivorship bias made us believe that replicating the successes of others in a larger category would ensure our success, without adequately considering the failures in the same space.
The lack of robust systems exacerbated these issues. Without proper systems for data collection, we couldn’t understand customer behaviour or optimise our product offerings. Our operational inefficiencies made scaling impossible, especially with limited funds. For entrepreneurs, this highlights the importance of overcoming biases and building strong, data-driven systems. It's crucial to make informed decisions, streamline operations, and secure adequate funding to ensure sustainable growth and adaptability.
The intention for this post isn’t to dwell on past mistakes or external challenges but to underscore the importance of building a company on a foundation of solid systems and the willingness to ask challenging, provocative questions. As a brand owner, it’s often easier to cling to what worked for successful brands in the past rather than embracing new strategies. Whenever evaluating opportunities—whether it's online sales, additional SKUs, or growing distribution—it’s crucial to invest the time, effort, and resources to understand what these opportunities truly look like for your business. This means asking tough questions and assessing the resources needed to make these channels work effectively.
Start by recognising the biases you have around your business. Challenge them. Ask your customers and audience for feedback. Do more SKUs mean more sales? If so, why? For example, Lucky Saint spent five years becoming synonymous with alcohol-free beer by perfecting a delicious lager before launching an IPA. That’s a team of more than 20 people pushing a single product versus a team of one pushing more than 20 SKUs.
At Lateish, our approach is system-based. We’re not looking to achieve quick wins but rather to build brands sustainably over the long term. We don’t aim to be in every retail store, bar, or hotel—our focus is on those that complement each other. This targeted approach allows our team to concentrate and understand how our brand's key messages are landing. We’re not seeking a large client list; instead, we are incredibly selective about where and how we list our products.
Our agency’s goal is not merely to survive but to grow globally, with a team of BDMs building our brand in relevant cultural capitals. We constantly seek to test, learn, and adapt, recognising that our industry is in perpetual development. This commitment to a system, a set of values, and beliefs creates a productive tension that allows us to work at speed. Our focus means that we strive to reach decisions quickly, with a dynamic team that not only builds complementary strategies but is also comfortable challenging our own expectations and those of decision-makers.
In conclusion, always ask yourself: What does success look like? What does it take to get there, and who or what do you need to succeed? Despite past failings, it's not about being cavalier in our approach. With the best intentions and lessons learned, we must do better going forward. By committing to robust systems and embracing tough questions, we can build brands that are not only resilient but also poised for sustainable growth.
I’m going to tell you a story of love & loss.
Prior to Lateish Drinks & Broken Barrier Tequila, I launched a breakfast brand called Rogue. We made jams, marmalades, and condiments, and eventually overstretched to create a healthy cereal. It was 5 years, some huge wins, big losses and bigger learnings but ultimately the brand didn’t quite ‘make it’.
When I look back, there are a few key principles that I would place more emphasis on going forward.
Survivorship Bias
We believe that the success stories we hear represent a guaranteed path, leading us to overlook the common struggles and failures that happen in the industry. Guy Raz's How I Built This provides something of a comfort blanket to those dark(er) days, but many of these success stories are often outliers—and outliers make terrible role models.
Confirmation Bias
We seek positive or even negative feedback that supports our existing beliefs. A perfect example of this in the drinks industry is Hard Seltzer. What works in California doesn’t necessarily work for a British summer. Many brands have invested in this space in the UK, yet only two brands remain in this space on Ocado (a hell of an effort, by the way).
Loss Aversion
The fear of losing that initial success or those listings has meant that we continuously look to add additional flavours, variants, or limited editions rather than refining and focusing on a core set of manageable products. We often think ‘more variants, more sales’—pack formats, limited editions, or growing into bigger markets seeking bigger opportunities.
Lack of Systems
As we expanded, the lack of robust systems and processes made it increasingly difficult to get ahead of production, inventory, and distribution effectively. It’s always nice to be able to tell the story of “Wow, we sold out,” but we must remind ourselves that “we missed out on the opportunity to service more customers.”
So, back to the story of love and loss, some of this may resonate with you, some of it you may not, but I’m going to tell you about the downfall of Rogue and the lessons along the way.
Rogue, my first brand, was a breakfast brand that initially focused on jams, marmalades, and condiments. The business started on my mum's kitchen table in the valleys. After a year of trading at farmers' markets and food festivals, we began to outgrow this space. Out of the 35 products we tested, we found that five condiments, two marmalades, and two jams made up 80% of our sales. These products were particularly popular at a festival called ‘Cheese Fest,’ especially the Bravado Chilli Pepper Jam and Spiced Carrot Chutney.
Despite this, when we successfully approached Ocado and Sainsbury’s, they didn’t see the need for the condiments. What was attractive to them were the jams and marmalades. So why did I continue to pursue the condiments? Confirmation bias led me to prioritise keeping those initial couple of thousand customers ‘happy’ over focusing on what could give us scale.
Loss aversion also played a significant role. The fear of losing those initial loyal customers made it difficult to let go of the condiments, even though the market signals were clear. Over time, we dropped the Spiced Carrot Chutney, Onion & Caraway Chutney, and Raspberry and Red Onion Chutney. But for those few thousand fans of Bravado Chilli Pepper Jam and Kickin’ & Smokin’ Sauce, we kept them in until the bitter end.
There is a difference between quitting and giving up on a few products. Had we quit those products, we could have gone deeper and faster on the jams and marmalades that had a roadmap to scale. Confirmation bias drove us to stick with our condiments despite clear market signals pointing us towards jams and marmalades, and loss aversion made it hard to pivot away from our initial successes, hindering our potential for growth and scale. The brand was still bootstrapped at this point, with no system and a loan from the Welsh Development Bank we had a scattergun approach of trying to bring in revenue wherever we could but we stopped delivering directly to retail partners, relying on our first wholesaler.
As we began to see signs of growth, we expanded to four marmalades and three jams, with one being seasonal. Our responsive customers told us how much they adored and needed the whole range, and no doubt they did! However, we had three flavours that ended up cannibalising each other: Dark & Stormy Marmalade, Negroni Marmalade, and Espresso Martini Marmalade, while the Blood Orange & Vanilla Marmalade became our non-alcoholic offering. The issue here was the paradox of choice. On paper, these different flavours fit very different needs. Dark & Stormy and Negroni Marmalade became our most popular choices, while Espresso Martini was intriguing as the original marmalade. This meant we weren’t being ruthless with our capital, nor were we considering our repeat purchase rate. Had we limited ourselves to just the Dark & Stormy Marmalade, we could have expanded our distribution and built a stronger repeat purchase rate.
This situation illustrates the role of loss aversion, confirmation bias, survivorship bias, and the lack of systems. Loss aversion played a significant role—we were afraid to drop any flavours, fearing the loss of customers who liked them. This fear prevented us from focusing on the most successful product. Confirmation bias also influenced our decisions; the positive feedback from a small group of customers convinced us to keep all the flavours, clouding our judgement about which products truly had the potential for wider success.
Survivorship bias further complicated matters. We assumed that since some products were doing well, adding more would replicate that success, ignoring the reality that not all flavours were equally popular or viable in the long term. This overconfidence in our expanding product line diverted resources and attention away from optimising our best-sellers.
Lastly, the lack of robust systems exacerbated these issues. Without streamlined operations and a strategic focus, we struggled to manage the complexity of multiple SKUs. This inefficiency hindered our ability to scale and maintain quality, ultimately affecting our repeat purchase rate and overall growth.
I really admire those brands that maintain a single SKU focus. Take Botivo, for example, known as ‘the Big-Sipping Botanical Aperitivo.’ Botivo has carved a unique niche in the non-alcoholic beverage space with their approach, which isn't about eliminating the drinking occasion but providing a versatile, alcohol-free spirit that can be enjoyed with or without alcohol. Whether it’s in a Clementine Sour or a Botivo & Elderflower Tonic, this strategy has resonated well with sommeliers, chefs, food critics, and consumers. Their focus on a single SKU (Stock Keeping Unit) has allowed them to fulfil orders efficiently while expanding their distribution and encouraging repeat purchases. This single SKU focus has ironically led to commanding excellent shelf space due to high consumer demand, highlighted by their listings in locations such as The Deli Downstairs. Botivo has also coined the term “The Yellow Hour” to define that moment when you clock off and ease into your evening with a glass of Botivo.
Botivo's focused approach offers key lessons for brand owners on avoiding confirmation bias, survivorship bias, and loss aversion, while highlighting the importance of solid systems. By seeking varied feedback and objectively considering market signals, Botivo dodged confirmation bias and honed a single product to meet market needs without getting sidetracked by early wins or praise from a small group. Their success shows the value of learning from both wins and failures, avoiding survivorship bias by recognising the power of one strong SKU over multiple, less impactful products. Botivo's strategic focus helped them overcome loss aversion, confidently betting on their core product instead of fearing the loss of initial customers. This focus, combined with streamlined operations, allowed them to meet demand and maintain quality, fuelling their growth. Entrepreneurs should challenge their assumptions, study a range of case studies, manage their fear of loss, and build robust systems to scale and adapt as their business grows.
During the Covid-19 pandemic, the shift in consumer behaviour led to a significant increase in D2C sales. At that point, Rogue was still self-funded with zero investment for D2C channels or launching on Amazon. By the time we did, we were playing catch-up. The return on ad spend had fallen, changes in iOS settings affected our META adverts, and the cost of acquiring customers became unsustainably high. We didn’t investigate why our consumers were buying our products—our 600g jam at £3.95 only offered value when multiple products were bought. Were consumers switching to Ocado? Were we a gifting item? Without this data, our limited time and budget were stretched thin.
Ultimately, Rogue faced an end marked by underfunding, overextension, and a risky move into a new category. Winning bigger listings made me believe we were on course for critical mass and potential funding beyond the £33,000 we had previously raised. We sought £350,000 but secured only £147,000. Even with opportunities, lack of funding made growth increasingly difficult. Our listing opportunities outpaced our manufacturing capacity, prompting a move into the healthy cereals space. Although this category was larger and seemingly more promising, the product's flavour didn’t resonate with the brand Marketing, advertising, and promotion required a more intense budget. Balancing a chilli jam and a healthy cherry bakewell cereal spelled the beginning of the end.
This scenario underscores the critical roles of loss aversion, confirmation bias, survivorship bias, and the need for systems. Loss aversion kept us from dropping unprofitable products, fearing loss of potential revenue and loyal customers. Confirmation bias led us to overvalue early successes and positive feedback, clouding our judgement about the real potential of our new products. Survivorship bias made us believe that replicating the successes of others in a larger category would ensure our success, without adequately considering the failures in the same space.
The lack of robust systems exacerbated these issues. Without proper systems for data collection, we couldn’t understand customer behaviour or optimise our product offerings. Our operational inefficiencies made scaling impossible, especially with limited funds. For entrepreneurs, this highlights the importance of overcoming biases and building strong, data-driven systems. It's crucial to make informed decisions, streamline operations, and secure adequate funding to ensure sustainable growth and adaptability.
The intention for this post isn’t to dwell on past mistakes or external challenges but to underscore the importance of building a company on a foundation of solid systems and the willingness to ask challenging, provocative questions. As a brand owner, it’s often easier to cling to what worked for successful brands in the past rather than embracing new strategies. Whenever evaluating opportunities—whether it's online sales, additional SKUs, or growing distribution—it’s crucial to invest the time, effort, and resources to understand what these opportunities truly look like for your business. This means asking tough questions and assessing the resources needed to make these channels work effectively.
Start by recognising the biases you have around your business. Challenge them. Ask your customers and audience for feedback. Do more SKUs mean more sales? If so, why? For example, Lucky Saint spent five years becoming synonymous with alcohol-free beer by perfecting a delicious lager before launching an IPA. That’s a team of more than 20 people pushing a single product versus a team of one pushing more than 20 SKUs.
At Lateish, our approach is system-based. We’re not looking to achieve quick wins but rather to build brands sustainably over the long term. We don’t aim to be in every retail store, bar, or hotel—our focus is on those that complement each other. This targeted approach allows our team to concentrate and understand how our brand's key messages are landing. We’re not seeking a large client list; instead, we are incredibly selective about where and how we list our products.
Our agency’s goal is not merely to survive but to grow globally, with a team of BDMs building our brand in relevant cultural capitals. We constantly seek to test, learn, and adapt, recognising that our industry is in perpetual development. This commitment to a system, a set of values, and beliefs creates a productive tension that allows us to work at speed. Our focus means that we strive to reach decisions quickly, with a dynamic team that not only builds complementary strategies but is also comfortable challenging our own expectations and those of decision-makers.
In conclusion, always ask yourself: What does success look like? What does it take to get there, and who or what do you need to succeed? Despite past failings, it's not about being cavalier in our approach. With the best intentions and lessons learned, we must do better going forward. By committing to robust systems and embracing tough questions, we can build brands that are not only resilient but also poised for sustainable growth.
I’m going to tell you a story of love & loss.
Prior to Lateish Drinks & Broken Barrier Tequila, I launched a breakfast brand called Rogue. We made jams, marmalades, and condiments, and eventually overstretched to create a healthy cereal. It was 5 years, some huge wins, big losses and bigger learnings but ultimately the brand didn’t quite ‘make it’.
When I look back, there are a few key principles that I would place more emphasis on going forward.
Survivorship Bias
We believe that the success stories we hear represent a guaranteed path, leading us to overlook the common struggles and failures that happen in the industry. Guy Raz's How I Built This provides something of a comfort blanket to those dark(er) days, but many of these success stories are often outliers—and outliers make terrible role models.
Confirmation Bias
We seek positive or even negative feedback that supports our existing beliefs. A perfect example of this in the drinks industry is Hard Seltzer. What works in California doesn’t necessarily work for a British summer. Many brands have invested in this space in the UK, yet only two brands remain in this space on Ocado (a hell of an effort, by the way).
Loss Aversion
The fear of losing that initial success or those listings has meant that we continuously look to add additional flavours, variants, or limited editions rather than refining and focusing on a core set of manageable products. We often think ‘more variants, more sales’—pack formats, limited editions, or growing into bigger markets seeking bigger opportunities.
Lack of Systems
As we expanded, the lack of robust systems and processes made it increasingly difficult to get ahead of production, inventory, and distribution effectively. It’s always nice to be able to tell the story of “Wow, we sold out,” but we must remind ourselves that “we missed out on the opportunity to service more customers.”
So, back to the story of love and loss, some of this may resonate with you, some of it you may not, but I’m going to tell you about the downfall of Rogue and the lessons along the way.
Rogue, my first brand, was a breakfast brand that initially focused on jams, marmalades, and condiments. The business started on my mum's kitchen table in the valleys. After a year of trading at farmers' markets and food festivals, we began to outgrow this space. Out of the 35 products we tested, we found that five condiments, two marmalades, and two jams made up 80% of our sales. These products were particularly popular at a festival called ‘Cheese Fest,’ especially the Bravado Chilli Pepper Jam and Spiced Carrot Chutney.
Despite this, when we successfully approached Ocado and Sainsbury’s, they didn’t see the need for the condiments. What was attractive to them were the jams and marmalades. So why did I continue to pursue the condiments? Confirmation bias led me to prioritise keeping those initial couple of thousand customers ‘happy’ over focusing on what could give us scale.
Loss aversion also played a significant role. The fear of losing those initial loyal customers made it difficult to let go of the condiments, even though the market signals were clear. Over time, we dropped the Spiced Carrot Chutney, Onion & Caraway Chutney, and Raspberry and Red Onion Chutney. But for those few thousand fans of Bravado Chilli Pepper Jam and Kickin’ & Smokin’ Sauce, we kept them in until the bitter end.
There is a difference between quitting and giving up on a few products. Had we quit those products, we could have gone deeper and faster on the jams and marmalades that had a roadmap to scale. Confirmation bias drove us to stick with our condiments despite clear market signals pointing us towards jams and marmalades, and loss aversion made it hard to pivot away from our initial successes, hindering our potential for growth and scale. The brand was still bootstrapped at this point, with no system and a loan from the Welsh Development Bank we had a scattergun approach of trying to bring in revenue wherever we could but we stopped delivering directly to retail partners, relying on our first wholesaler.
As we began to see signs of growth, we expanded to four marmalades and three jams, with one being seasonal. Our responsive customers told us how much they adored and needed the whole range, and no doubt they did! However, we had three flavours that ended up cannibalising each other: Dark & Stormy Marmalade, Negroni Marmalade, and Espresso Martini Marmalade, while the Blood Orange & Vanilla Marmalade became our non-alcoholic offering. The issue here was the paradox of choice. On paper, these different flavours fit very different needs. Dark & Stormy and Negroni Marmalade became our most popular choices, while Espresso Martini was intriguing as the original marmalade. This meant we weren’t being ruthless with our capital, nor were we considering our repeat purchase rate. Had we limited ourselves to just the Dark & Stormy Marmalade, we could have expanded our distribution and built a stronger repeat purchase rate.
This situation illustrates the role of loss aversion, confirmation bias, survivorship bias, and the lack of systems. Loss aversion played a significant role—we were afraid to drop any flavours, fearing the loss of customers who liked them. This fear prevented us from focusing on the most successful product. Confirmation bias also influenced our decisions; the positive feedback from a small group of customers convinced us to keep all the flavours, clouding our judgement about which products truly had the potential for wider success.
Survivorship bias further complicated matters. We assumed that since some products were doing well, adding more would replicate that success, ignoring the reality that not all flavours were equally popular or viable in the long term. This overconfidence in our expanding product line diverted resources and attention away from optimising our best-sellers.
Lastly, the lack of robust systems exacerbated these issues. Without streamlined operations and a strategic focus, we struggled to manage the complexity of multiple SKUs. This inefficiency hindered our ability to scale and maintain quality, ultimately affecting our repeat purchase rate and overall growth.
I really admire those brands that maintain a single SKU focus. Take Botivo, for example, known as ‘the Big-Sipping Botanical Aperitivo.’ Botivo has carved a unique niche in the non-alcoholic beverage space with their approach, which isn't about eliminating the drinking occasion but providing a versatile, alcohol-free spirit that can be enjoyed with or without alcohol. Whether it’s in a Clementine Sour or a Botivo & Elderflower Tonic, this strategy has resonated well with sommeliers, chefs, food critics, and consumers. Their focus on a single SKU (Stock Keeping Unit) has allowed them to fulfil orders efficiently while expanding their distribution and encouraging repeat purchases. This single SKU focus has ironically led to commanding excellent shelf space due to high consumer demand, highlighted by their listings in locations such as The Deli Downstairs. Botivo has also coined the term “The Yellow Hour” to define that moment when you clock off and ease into your evening with a glass of Botivo.
Botivo's focused approach offers key lessons for brand owners on avoiding confirmation bias, survivorship bias, and loss aversion, while highlighting the importance of solid systems. By seeking varied feedback and objectively considering market signals, Botivo dodged confirmation bias and honed a single product to meet market needs without getting sidetracked by early wins or praise from a small group. Their success shows the value of learning from both wins and failures, avoiding survivorship bias by recognising the power of one strong SKU over multiple, less impactful products. Botivo's strategic focus helped them overcome loss aversion, confidently betting on their core product instead of fearing the loss of initial customers. This focus, combined with streamlined operations, allowed them to meet demand and maintain quality, fuelling their growth. Entrepreneurs should challenge their assumptions, study a range of case studies, manage their fear of loss, and build robust systems to scale and adapt as their business grows.
During the Covid-19 pandemic, the shift in consumer behaviour led to a significant increase in D2C sales. At that point, Rogue was still self-funded with zero investment for D2C channels or launching on Amazon. By the time we did, we were playing catch-up. The return on ad spend had fallen, changes in iOS settings affected our META adverts, and the cost of acquiring customers became unsustainably high. We didn’t investigate why our consumers were buying our products—our 600g jam at £3.95 only offered value when multiple products were bought. Were consumers switching to Ocado? Were we a gifting item? Without this data, our limited time and budget were stretched thin.
Ultimately, Rogue faced an end marked by underfunding, overextension, and a risky move into a new category. Winning bigger listings made me believe we were on course for critical mass and potential funding beyond the £33,000 we had previously raised. We sought £350,000 but secured only £147,000. Even with opportunities, lack of funding made growth increasingly difficult. Our listing opportunities outpaced our manufacturing capacity, prompting a move into the healthy cereals space. Although this category was larger and seemingly more promising, the product's flavour didn’t resonate with the brand Marketing, advertising, and promotion required a more intense budget. Balancing a chilli jam and a healthy cherry bakewell cereal spelled the beginning of the end.
This scenario underscores the critical roles of loss aversion, confirmation bias, survivorship bias, and the need for systems. Loss aversion kept us from dropping unprofitable products, fearing loss of potential revenue and loyal customers. Confirmation bias led us to overvalue early successes and positive feedback, clouding our judgement about the real potential of our new products. Survivorship bias made us believe that replicating the successes of others in a larger category would ensure our success, without adequately considering the failures in the same space.
The lack of robust systems exacerbated these issues. Without proper systems for data collection, we couldn’t understand customer behaviour or optimise our product offerings. Our operational inefficiencies made scaling impossible, especially with limited funds. For entrepreneurs, this highlights the importance of overcoming biases and building strong, data-driven systems. It's crucial to make informed decisions, streamline operations, and secure adequate funding to ensure sustainable growth and adaptability.
The intention for this post isn’t to dwell on past mistakes or external challenges but to underscore the importance of building a company on a foundation of solid systems and the willingness to ask challenging, provocative questions. As a brand owner, it’s often easier to cling to what worked for successful brands in the past rather than embracing new strategies. Whenever evaluating opportunities—whether it's online sales, additional SKUs, or growing distribution—it’s crucial to invest the time, effort, and resources to understand what these opportunities truly look like for your business. This means asking tough questions and assessing the resources needed to make these channels work effectively.
Start by recognising the biases you have around your business. Challenge them. Ask your customers and audience for feedback. Do more SKUs mean more sales? If so, why? For example, Lucky Saint spent five years becoming synonymous with alcohol-free beer by perfecting a delicious lager before launching an IPA. That’s a team of more than 20 people pushing a single product versus a team of one pushing more than 20 SKUs.
At Lateish, our approach is system-based. We’re not looking to achieve quick wins but rather to build brands sustainably over the long term. We don’t aim to be in every retail store, bar, or hotel—our focus is on those that complement each other. This targeted approach allows our team to concentrate and understand how our brand's key messages are landing. We’re not seeking a large client list; instead, we are incredibly selective about where and how we list our products.
Our agency’s goal is not merely to survive but to grow globally, with a team of BDMs building our brand in relevant cultural capitals. We constantly seek to test, learn, and adapt, recognising that our industry is in perpetual development. This commitment to a system, a set of values, and beliefs creates a productive tension that allows us to work at speed. Our focus means that we strive to reach decisions quickly, with a dynamic team that not only builds complementary strategies but is also comfortable challenging our own expectations and those of decision-makers.
In conclusion, always ask yourself: What does success look like? What does it take to get there, and who or what do you need to succeed? Despite past failings, it's not about being cavalier in our approach. With the best intentions and lessons learned, we must do better going forward. By committing to robust systems and embracing tough questions, we can build brands that are not only resilient but also poised for sustainable growth.
ASHER@LATEISHDRINKS.CO
ETHOS
TEAM
PORTFOLIO
JOURNAL
RAISING
THE BAR
ASHER@LATEISHDRINKS.CO
ETHOS
TEAM
PORTFOLIO
JOURNAL
Asher@lateishdrinks.co
©2024 Lateish Drinks LTD
ETHOS
TEAM
PORTFOLIO
JOURNAL