General Catalyst just committed $1B to finance a single supplement brand's customer acquisition. But @TaylorHoliday thinks the whole category has a structural problem. His argument: there is no defensible CAC in supplements, because there is no barrier to making claims: 👉 "Science" isn't a moat. If you spend $10M researching a line and I can write the same line, the customer can't tell the difference 👉 AG1's science didn't protect it when Gruns changed the form factor from powder to gummies 👉 There's a big risk in CAC-financed models: you're modeling off your earliest cohorts on a business that's ~20 months old and cohorts will likely get worse 👉 Where Taylor thinks the actual moats are (hint: it's health & wellness, but not supplements) Oh, and I also make my case that parity is a dumb goal in sports and therefore the Dodgers aren't ruining baseball (if you're into that sort of thing). Always fun to get together with Taylor on the pod. Get it wherever you get podcasts below 👇👇👇: