[JoshTriplett]

The "Market" slide makes a very effective point.

On the "Problems / Solutions" slide: "save ... up to 100% off retail" says absolutely nothing, except perhaps that the author doesn't know how percents work. "save ... up to 100%" means "save somewhere between nothing and everything".

On the graph in the "Customer Acquisition" slide, the "reduce customer acquisition cost through SEO" point implies a lower cost to acquire a customer, not a higher long-term value per customer.

The "Traction" slide provides four useful figures, attached to giant meaningless arrows made of up-and-to-the-rightium.

This pitch still sits on a webpage, so why don't the logos on the "Press Coverage" slide link to the actual coverage?

[jules]

Their market slide: http://investors.dressrush.com/#slide4

Their math doesn't compute?

    2.7M weddings * (14+152) people per wedding = 
    445.5 million people * 28k $/wedding = 
    75.6B $

They probably mean:

    2.7M weddings * 28k $/wedding = 75.6B $

But surely they're not trying to pocket $28k per wedding just for clothes?

It certainly looks beautiful, but the information is lacking. Also, 31% conversion rate?!!

[a5seo]

I think the bigger problem is 2.7m * .55 CPA * 7x ltv = a market oppty for THEM of $10.3 million if every bride in America signed up for their service, assuming knot.com and competitors don't try to copy them first. What's worse, they have to re-acquire their user base constantly. Weddings are like apartments or cars... It's totally point of need, and only one or two brands will be on people's minds.

[keltex]

It's unlikely that it's more than $1K for clothes on average (estimate based on: http://www.moneyunder30.com/how-much-average-wedding-cost). So the real market for wedding clothes is under $2.7 Billion.

[bigurn]

I'm sure they are going to be going local and adding services soon. That way they can get at the whole 28k. Probably expand to babies and home to keep the customer after the wedding too...

[anthonyb]

My biggest problem with it was at the bottom of the fourth slide. The problem that they're solving is apparently that brides can't afford their perfect wedding, but their picture has Vera Wang dresses at $1500.

Nice looking deck though :)

[craigmc]

Do these discount dresses come with the same rw social experience that tends to accompany bridal shopping? Glasses of champagne at (multiple) fittings, long lunches afterwards? Even where a bride doesn't have the budget for a designer dress, this experience can be replicated with off-the-peg versions.

I know that lots of rw shopping experiences have translated very well online, but this one is so social (indeed it is pretty much a rite of passage) that I imagine it is going to be challenging to replicate online.

Also, forgive my stupidity, but $90k of product 'moved' (sold?) / 2803 = $32 means not just dresses and if so, is the name totally appropriate? Plus with weddings taking 12 months+ to arrange, what is the rush...

[JoshTriplett]

Since I definitely don't fall in the target market, I have no idea whether you intended that as a comment on unrealistically low prices, unrealistically high bridal expectations, or that the company targeted the high end of the target market.

[anthonyb]

More the way that that picture came right after the $500->$150 sale tag and the "most brides can't afford...".

It seemed to me like the authors of the deck are trying to sell low cost bridal, but when they need pictures, they're going far more upmarket (that's $1500 after their discount, not before). That seems to me to be stretching the truth somewhat.

[aaronblohowiak]

How familiar are you with the Wedding market? Your average wedding costs about 25k. 1500 is about average for a wedding dress, and cheap for a vera wang; high-end dresses are in the 2-5k range.

[ahall]

http://weddingindustrystatistics.com/

[ahall]

Up to 100% is basically because some deals are 50% off and some are 100% free. See Appsumo