Well that would be part of serious diligence in looking to invest. Is the price high because of low-volume? If the product is shipping in low volume and what the business needs is an injection of money to do a risk commitment for higher volume in manufacturing in combination with marketing to get it out to an audience - that would seem like it could be within the realm of VC funding.
Pumping is painful, and women who pump are often working moms, so they'll have money. Getting rid of daily physical pain is worth a lot of money. I'm flabbergasted why this isn't a "shut up and take my money" situation.
The demand is still limited by the number of births. Rentals just make them more available.
Anyway, my question isn't meant to be dismissive, the rough percentage of recent mothers that choose to use a pump is important information in trying to figure out the potential market size.
The average fertility rate is low in the developed world. You're not selling many of these in the developing world.
Even in the United States, the government picks up the tab for ~50% of all child deliveries (those parents probably can't afford a smart pump, and if they can, I wonder why they're not paying for their child's delivery)
How many high income families chose to have a mom stay at home? It seems like a fair amount, anecdotally, ~30% of my colleagues don't come back from maternity leave.
And how much better is this than existing pumps?
At least Juicero was categorically different than other at-home juicers, it had some interesting technology for tracking food supply chains, and offered a recurring revenue model - it can justify a high customer acquisition cost if it can get lucrative customers. This doesn't seem to have a reoccurring, indefinite revenue stream. Even if you can make money off each use, eventually the kid is going to get weaned.
You mean they don't want to fund it _again_ - after all, they gave 6.5M in 2013.
When you factor hardware, 2x to 4x more expensive than its direct competitor, and a small market, it seems to me a risky investment. Maybe VCS did learn from Juicero.
Even the hospital grade Medela pump (more than the $999 quoted) is an onerous chore to use. My wife and I would gladly have paid it. It's out of reach of most mothers, but so are most quality maternity products, and that's due more to our crappy health care system that penalizes women for being women.
Juicero iirc was pitched based on a recurring revenue model for the packets. Printer and ink cartridge or razor handle and blade kind of business models, which should have very different financial prospects (if executed and marketed correctly) than a buy once and done gadget, no matter how useful the gadget may be.
A grown woman at CNN recently went off the rails because her guest said "boobs". Mammary glands are apparently highly upsetting and I think we should respect people's sensitivities. However, it'd be even better to find people built of tougher stuff and put them in economically relevant positions.
To be fair, that guest threw it out into the middle of a conversation that had nothing to do with it just to rile people up. The exact quote was "I’m a first amendment absolutist. I believe in only two things completely, the First Amendment and boobs"[1] while talking about ESPN mixing politics into their sports coverage
I'm glad you got here before I did, because the post to which you are replying is disingenously mischaracterizing it as "oh, someone said boobs." That dude was rolling in some openly sexist garbage, smugging about it, and looked shocked that the female refused to take it. It wasn't about any particular body part being referred to at all, and that poster knew it when making that post.
(And I'm saying this despite looking at the prices in the article at the root of this thread and having my eyeballs roll out of their sockets and bounce down the road.)
Apparently I'm the only person who thinks the host blew it in regards to that. The guy who said "boobs" in a bad effort to be shocking and funny actually tried to keep the conversation on topic.. going so far as to talk over the host when she kept trying to get him to clarify what he said. Yea he's an asshat but she blew that entire bit. And she wasn't helped by the apologist who couldn't move past it either.
She should have just moved on and then at the end of it informed him he's a mysognist and wouldn't be allowed back on the show.. not just declare she's cutting the mics because she's so fragile and mind blown.
(Disregard if this isn't about the blonde lady, white guy, and black guy discussing why Trump's people won't quit trying to get the ESPN commentator fired)
You aren't the only person with that view, of course, but certainly there are many of us now who disagree with your assessment.
Even using words like "fragile" seems out of line--she's a talk show host who refused to take shit from some asshole. That's not fragility, that's someone standing up for herself.
This looks a lot like the double standard that's commonly applied to women's behavior: men are "assertive" and women are "bitchy" for doing the exact same thing in the exact same situation. Under that kind of analysis, women can't win. (Which is maybe the point of that kind of analysis.)
Which is quite strange given that when the pussyhats and vagina costumes (I'm not offended by them) are used in demos and shown on TV people aren't getting beside themselves --good on them.
It's all theater and story or narrative, unfortunately.
So it's really not about the subject per se, but rather the context of the subject, which proves the guy's point.
No adult should get grossed out at a breast pump. Certainly no adult in such a position of responsibility that they're considering funding such a product. I am assuming the investors in question were men, but that's really not all that important to the point I'm making.
It has been entertaining watching the points on my comment slide up and down between positive and negative territory. As you can imagine, "men" and "women" are heavy descriptors. Heck, I can imagine someone taking issue with "grown".
Yeah, it's fun and weird to watch what gets downvoted.
I wanted to make my comment gender-neutral, but I couldn't come up with a phrase with the same nice sound as "grown men," and sounding good won out. The perils of internet comments....
No, a certain kind of VC, so man-boys with more money than sense and no one honest enough to tell them that they’re not really princes of their own little kingdoms. In that light, the behavior of the Kalanicks of the world is easy to understand, and this article doesn’t come as a surprise.
VCs are prone to the same sort of investment "analysis" that regular schmoes are. "Do I like the product?" "Do the people I hang out with use it?"
Needless to say, the answers for a breast pump aren't great when you're a 30-45 yr old man who mostly hangs out with other men and, if you're married with children, likely has a wife that didn't need to pump.
My wife's pump was covered by her insurance company. Do you think this might be covered too? If so, I can't imagine why a VC wouldn't want to get into a business where consumers WANT the product and don't even have to make a financial decision about it.
The insurance only covers the pump up to a certain dollar value. The fancier pumps, you have to pay for, but I think you get a rebate from insurance.
So a $200 pump is probably free, but this $1000 pump, is probably still going to cost you $800.
The impression I got from the article is that the investors never got to the point in the conversation where they found out how much the thing cost. They were put off before any sort of ROI considerations were on the table.
There's no comparison to Juicero. It's not beautifully-designed-but-has-no-value-prop brick. It's extremely useful, albeit for a pretty small market given its price point.
> She and her husband, Jeffrey Alvarez, managed to raise $6.5 million from investors after starting the business together in 2013. But they’ve recently hit a wall. With few VCs willing to fund the product, they’re turning to Kickstarter in the hopes of keeping their company running. The campaign, with an initial goal of $100,000, is expected to start Thursday. “If VCs don’t want this, then we know parents and mothers do,” Alvarez said.
1. This sounds like there's more of an issue of money drying up for hardware products.
2. This also seems conveniently timed for their KS launch :)
I'll say it. Maybe it's a mediocre product that isn't attracting lots of investments? I think VCs are primarily driven by greed and their ROI values rather than sexism.
As much as I agree and have seen first person that VC (and all of finance by the way) is an old-boy male dominated world, this story smells like it's spinning the yarn that it's not Icarus.
She and her husband, Jeffrey Alvarez, managed to raise $6.5 million from investors after starting the business together in 2013...Precursor Ventures, said he decided to make a seed investment in Naya
Oh ok, so VC's do like it [1][2]. Despite what you hear it's a tiny subsection of startups that ever raise any money. Even harder for hardware startups.
The company was selling the Naya for $999 until Thursday, when it lowered the price temporarily to $649. A typical Medela pump is about $250...There’s a dedicated fan base among mothers who can afford it
Ah, got it. Their product is too expensive for too small of a market.
Today, Naya Health opened up the possibility for customers to register to buy one at least — no deposit required
Wait, they don't even have sales yet? If you go to the site you can buy one...
Look, the VC's that were acting like teenagers are slimeballs and anyone, regardless of your gender, race whatever has run into slimeball investors. I'm male and I've been sexually harassed or had a casually racist comment lobbed past me more times than I can count by a potential investor. It sucks.
It is not however why it's proving hard to close a massively risky, and I assume hugely expensive A round. This looks like submarine PR wrapped in an outrage sandwich.
You don't know the market, you don't know the product, and you're making a lot of assumptions.
EDIT: Knowing HN's audience, I expected the downvotes. What I don't get is why my comments are being flagged. Please stop abusing HN's tools to silence dissenting opinions.
EDIT: I realize I'm responding to someone who wasn't the original commenter. This comment is written saying "you", etc, but I'll leave it as-is, with apologies to iamdave.
> Oh ok, so VC's do like it
Some VCs liked it enough for an initial round. But you're using that to imply that the article's claims about VC reactions to their current attempt to raise money is "spinning a yarn", with zero evidence that this is true.
> Ah, got it. Their product is too expensive for too small of a market.
No it's not. Hospital-grade Medela pumps are much more expensive than the prices listed in the article. I don't know how the Naya compares to the hospital grade pumps, but the current crop of home-grade pumps are really really crappy, and if the Naya can improve on them, it can absolutely demand a higher price. And I don't know how large the pump market is, but given that pumps are something that every single mother can use (whether or not they choose to do so), I don't think that's a particularly small market.
The real problem isn't market size, it's competing with the free home pumps many parents get, and convincing people who do buy pumps that it's worth paying for the better pump. If their product is significantly better, they have a chance.
> I'm male and I've been sexually harassed or had a casually racist comment lobbed past me more times than I can count by a potential investor. It sucks.
Cry me a river.
In the context of this article, this line is actually pretty insulting. You're casually dismissing a really serious problem that female CEOs face on the basis that men occasionally see crappy behavior too. It's not at all comparable.
> It is not however why it's proving hard to close a massively risky, and I assume hugely expensive A round.
Bullshit. It sounds (and I can very easily believe this) like the VCs aren't even getting to the point of properly evaluating the product and company, because they're too hung up on it being a female CEO with a product that the male VCs don't have any experience with and think is "gross". Here you're completely dismissing that and just assuming that the VCs are actually doing something that the article provides direct evidence to the contrary.
If Juicero can get funded, Naya should be able to get funded too. The problem is VCs could easily understand the appeal of Juicero's product, but they don't seem to be even trying to understand Naya's product and market.
I've got three kids - all who breastfed for 2+ years and am intimately aware of the challenges of breastfeeding. You could consider me a lactivist.
I can teach you how to get your baby to latch, how to efficiently express, what nipple cream you need depending on what is going on between mom and baby, when or when not to pump/breastfeed based on your diet etc...
Your creds don’t convince me. Maybe if you expressed how painful it was for you to wear the pump...or any of the points I’m about to make.
My wife stopped using the pump altogether because of discomfort and the knowledge that saliva-to-aureola contact is healthier for the child.
The price really isn’t the problem as insurance will cover at least part of it, and it is marketed to breastfeeding women who have jobs and health insurance (have the means to make the purchase), and the developer is sending clear signals they understand the price issue and the price will likely scale down as production scales up. And there’s also an exit strategy as Medela would probably buy them too.
The key problems for this market are breast pumps are often handed down to other families, limiting the sales potential, and there is a large segment that will prefer contact breast feeding over pumping due to the health benefits.
And why is it that when a man understands the full implications of a crowdsourcing campaign and chums the water with press, he’s a “growth hacker”, yet you employ an invective by labeling this woman’s effort as “Submarine PR”?
That's not a fair description of HN's audience. The community is divided on divisive issues, just like any sufficiently large population sample would be. It only seems to be stacked against your view because provocative comments stand out more. We can point to countless generalizations about HN's audience that characterize it just the opposite way, and for the same reason.
Edit: as one illustrative example, the top two comments on this submission are currently both by women substantively critiquing the article, one of whom happens to be using a breast pump these days (and has amazingly detailed things to say about it, very much in the spirit of this site). Surprising? Not really. HN is just more diverse than many people say it is.
(I imagine users flagged your comment because it failed to be civil and substantive as the site guidelines ask.)
HN's audience has demonstrated itself to be insensitive to women's issues in the past, and is reasonably techbro-heavy. That's why I said I expected the downvotes. It may be a large population, but it's not a particularly diverse one.
And it wasn't just this comment that was flagged. It was my other one (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15305765), which lays out the substantive reasons why I disagreed with the parent comment. Though that one was subsequently unflagged (and then upvoted).
I can't agree with that. These perceptions are notoriously in the eye of the beholder.
Let me put it this way: HN "demonstrates" a lot of things—that's how user-generated content works. People pick the ones that stand out to them and call that "HN", but they could just as easily have picked the opposite ones, and indeed many others do.
> it's not a particularly diverse one
That's particularly off; it's hugely diverse (or at least divided), which is why the generalizations people make about it are contradictorily all over the place. At some point I need to put together a big list to illustrate this. I sometimes feel like I'm the only person who sees it, since it's my job to look at this stuff all day.
> And it wasn't just this comment that was flagged. It was my other one
It's easy to understand why it was flagged: conducting disagreement via "Bullshit", "Cry me a river", etc. breaks the site guidelines. Changing the subject slightly, I sometimes wonder whether this bullying, pugnacious approach to online commenting doesn't contribute to the very exclusionary dynamic that people on your side of the argument deplore. I deplore it too, and can't help but notice how comments on both sides can be equally bro-ey, douchey, and wincey. It makes HN less welcoming all around. Many people seem to think they get a pass for being right (one doesn't, of course), and then use that to vent what feel more like personal fumes.
In case it helps, I don't disagree with your underlying views (though mostly I don't read comments closely for that—it's too hard, and there are too many). Perhaps you noticed that I replied no less critically to the person you were objecting to, who broke the site guidelines as well.
Upon reflection, I’m actually a little concerned that you, the moderator, are calling my simple comment uncivil (and letting it remain flagged). This is exactly what I meant by abusing HN’s tools to silence dissenting opinions. I’m not calling the parent names, or swearing, or doing anything else that’s obviously uncivil. I’m just disagreeing with the parent. The only problem with my comment is that it’s very simple and doesn’t provide the reasoning to back up my claim that the parent doesn’t understand the product/market and is making assumptions (which isn’t an issue that warrants suppressing the comment). But mere disagreement is not uncivil behavior.
The comment was uncivil because it was unduly personal. Also it was harsh and unsubstantive, and guilty of its own charge (making assumptions) to boot. All that makes for a bad combo. I realize you don't see it that way, but that's because we all misjudge how our comments land with others online.
Moderating this sort of thing is routine to the point of tedium on Hacker News and doesn't have to do with your specific views, let alone 'silencing dissent' (a rather bombastic phrase which I hear a lot, from every ideological quarter). It just has to do with people's tendency to attack each other on the internet, which the spirit of HN is to try to work around, in the hope of good and interesting conversation. That's all.
Actually these attacks mirror each other across all ideological divides. We moderate them routinely as best we can, and then people routinely accuse us of siding with their enemies [1], but (a) these claims are contradictory and so cancel each other out, and (b) I'm pretty sure the majority of readers trust that we're not biased that way—or at least not ridiculously so, because our job would be impossible if we were.
This. Exactly. A breast pump at the cost of 4x the regular price, which is already expensive, that adds a thing you can easily do yourself and don't really need at that. If you would like the functionality there are a large number of (good looking) apps that keep these statistics at the cost of entering 3 digits every pump session.
But even worse. You don't need the functionality at all. You don't pump just because stock gets low, you pump to relief yourself. Breasts don't follow your app, it's the other way around. It's not like you can skip two sessions because you have plenty in the fridge. No matter what an app tells you. Your body will simply produce. It's a beautiful thing really, our bodies.
Overal it's a product that tries to follow the IoT hype. Guess what, the market is changing and connected boots that buzz you to go left or right (OK kinda cool), connected shavers that tell you you need to shave (O my God, how did I survive? I was doing hand to chin, yup need to shave all this time. So stupid!), and connected breast pumps are simply not good enough.
For giggles. You can buy the medela and buy the iphone8 and use a free app To track your production.
Well that's a bit of a gross generalization, wouldn't you say?
Try to imagine for a moment that you might be over looking a very important feature of any breast pump: comfort. This is the main reason my wife chose this pump. It's the only pump on the market that doesn't use air. Air imposes a much different discomfort relative to the Naya, according to my wife. She's very pleased with the product. The price? Sure, expensive. We're lucky to be able to afford it. The app? Don't care about it. Consider us your exception.
Yes. You are right. I didn't give that part enough credits because of the focus on smart pump in their PR and the poorly written article that agitated me more than it should. My bad, apologies.
I think the problem there is that VCs are mainly interested in potential big hits instead of niche markets. From my experience, there are not many complaints on the comfort of the pumps. Or, let me correct that, not at the size of $750,-. If they would drop their price to be high-end but in range of current offerings it might work. Just like any other high-end line of products it's a quality vs price trade-off. Right now the balance is skewed.
Some other issues I foresee:
- they say they save 10 min cleaning after use. Cleaning ours does not even take 10 mins. Disconnect, throw in steamer. Done.
- they use water instead of air. When water stays behind it gives fungus. Doesn't this require more cleaning? (Did not check how it works).
- setting up now takes 10 more minutes if i watch their movies. Filling with water, no bubbles..
P.s. Did your wife try another brand? So is she pleased comparing it to other top brands or just pleased without comparison?
The water can stay in the tubes for up to two weeks. She tried the Medela and the Phillips and while they were decent, ultimately felt the Naya was better for comfort.
Something about this comment sparked a bunch of nasty nitpicking about who understands breast pumps better. I think the fault lies (first) at the root. Had you posted more thoughtfully, instead of dropping several conversational land mines, the conversation would not likely have turned toxic.
Other commenters have shown themselves to be quite capable of this, even when the subject is breast pumps, so I'm sure you are too. Would you please re-read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and take the principles of this site to heart?
Most of the time, when things go flameways, the push in that direction was unintentional. The solution is for us all to consciously hold an intention for higher-quality discussion here. This does make conversation a bit less spontaneous, but since the alternative is tire fires, there is little choice.
I won't comment any further on this story but my point was that the article was written in bad faith with a flawed premise - clickbait if you will. Given that it was the top comment there was seemingly a lot of agreement with that take.
I'm afraid that's a non sequitur. Snarky/indignant comments routinely get "a lot of agreement" (i.e. upvotes). So do insinuations about PR, flamebait about divisive topics, etc. Such upvotes are not evidence that a comment was good, they're evidence of something wrong with homo interneticus.
We all need to control this lower nature, so to speak, when posting here, or the site won't survive. HN has survived semi-intact for this long only because most people are willing to make that effort, but it's not a huge majority and we're always dangling by a thread. Contributing to the solution requires a conscious effort at self-reform, at least for a while. Plenty of users here have made that effort, including me; my comments used to be a lot worse than everything I've objected to here.
I'm sure you could have made all your substantive points without the bits that turned the subthread nasty, so there's no significant loss in this.
My wife recently found this on kickstarter, and spent about 2 hours digging into it, raving about it the whole time. We have two small kids, and finding a suitable breast pump is a source of consistent challenge. Who ever cracks the code -and this firm might - will have a huge market.
Being "non-consensus" and "right" is how the great investor Howard Marks determines opportunity. Seems like this is as non-consensus as it gets...with a huge opportunity.
1) The total addressable market for a $1,000 breast pump might be outside of VC spectrum and more up small business financing or "Shark Tank" alley.
2) Women don't breastfeed their entire lives, so the units hit the used market pretty quickly, generating pricing pressure. Sales figures might look spectacular year 1, but what about year 5? VCs have access to market research data and executives at medical device companies who can probably provide them with better statistics.
3) Typical setup involves a hospital or a medical group buying a bunch of high-end pumps and renting them on a monthly basis (PSA for those who might need it: Kaiser Permanente will rent a breast pump to non-members).
4) Their main innovation seems to involve a different suction cup design that performed better for the target group they chose. How much a competitive moat is there? What's stopping Medela or a third-party parts supplier from building similar suction cups for a variety of breast pumps that's already out there?
Yep. Which is why Stocke AS history page boasts "3 generations of the Stokke family owned and operated the company", not "backed by prime Silicon Valley venture capital firms".
All valid points, but customer acquisition in that market is not zero. Amazon search results for electric breast pumps are 7 pages, many with 5-star reviews from verified purchasers.
> Women don't breastfeed their entire lives, so the units hit the used market pretty quickly, generating pricing pressure. Sales figures might look spectacular year 1, but what about year 5?
I think people who purchase $1000 pumps are not the type who go shop on Craigslist’s for used breast pumps.
Also number of first time mothers does not change year over year, so I don’t see a logic in your “1st year sales spike” point
I have Kaiser and I am an exclusively pumping parent - the rental is through Apria and Kaiser covers it in full on an indefinite basis. The $1-2k+ Symphony as a free-to-$40-monthly rental, with a free (with ACA plans) basic-level pump, makes a $600+ pump a bit of a nonstarter to most people that plan to pump.
> “Investors would say, ‘Let me go talk to my sister; let me go talk to my wife,’” Alvarez said.
Well yes. I would be thoroughly disappointed in any investor that doesn't check for suitability with somebody they trust that has a high likelihood of deeper knowledge in the area.
I expect their 4x current model price is a huge factor in failing to attract investment, the NHS and ObamaCare are unlikely to cover these in the vast majority of situations.
But I also don't doubt she is having a hard time and that the disgusting things she is quoting occurred; I have overheard and been present for many less than desirable comments - both from men and women - in professional settings.
EDIT: Just took a look at pumps available in the UK, for £50-150 I get lots of pumps advertising comfort etc. I would need to have an independent doctor or trusted woman with first-hand experience of these not being suitable to be convinced of any kind of mass market appeal.
Emily Chang is trying so hard to make this about the male dominated VCs for the founder's short comings instead of the apt criticism of the team and execution. Really, Emily Chang of Bloomberg West/Technology? She could have at least offered another perspective to the article, while still being able to connect the dots about the scrutiny that Silicon Valley faces.
A husband and wife co-founder duo, a literal mom and pop with 3 children, trying to scale up their hardware production business which hasn't proven itself after 6.5m in capital. Yeah there are a lot of valid criticisms that would be made to any team, and a couple unique to that team.
Making it just about the mom's experience with "male dominated VCs" is disingenuous. I'm not going to be an apologist for off-comments made by VCs, I do know that you can make a conclusion on business plans in like 30 seconds to 5 minutes, and then you have to spend the rest of the hour in small talk.
There is also the recurring trope of being included in a VCs portfolio becoming validation. If you are able to self fund an idea, you can make more money than you would with the VCs, in many scenarios. Yes everyone wants the publicity, but VC business models simply don't work with MOST business models. That has nothing to do with the efficacy of your business.
> It’s hard when you’re told you can’t be yourself because you have to play the game
This plays on "don't ask don't tell" themes of not being able to freely express yourself; But this is the norm for the environment, you might not normally wear a suit, or cover your tattoos, but you are often expected to do these things in a business meeting.
> During one pitch meeting, Alvarez recalled one guy saying, “I’m not touching that; that’s disgusting.” In another meeting, investors Googled the product and ended up on a porn site. They lingered on the page and started cracking jokes, she said. “I felt like I was in the middle of a fraternity,” Alvarez said. “I expect more from grown men.”
I guess that's fair game at a business meeting though.
There are a lot of armchair comments here, so let me throw in my 2¢: the market is bigger than you think, customers will place a heavy premium on new over used, they are willing to spend more than you think, and they aren't especially happy with the existing offerings. Making hardware is difficult, but that isn't news, and moderate success could end in a quick sale to an established player. Yes this is timed to be good PR, but isn't that how you play the game?
Some VCs liked it and invested. Others weren't willing to take the risk. Others acted deplorably.
When a Naya pitch meeting turned into a porn-fest, what did the Naya reps do? Did they try to laugh it off and humour the offenders because they wanted the money? Or did they realize that they didn't want to be in business with these people, shutdown and walk out?
If they didn't walk away, they are culpable. They clearly communicated that bad behaviour is tolerable depending on the money.
I am the target market for this. We have a Medela and it's doesn't work that well. We can easily afford Naya's $1000 version, but I don't think we'd pay 4x as much. In general, before saying the the situation is because of sexism, racism, etc., check if the other criticisms are valid. In this case, they sound very reasonable to me.
Economic doctrine/ideology says that this should create opportunities for someone to swoop in and do a good deal. I think we all know that reality rarely matches theory, especially in economics.
It’s possible the business itself has structural problems (cost, channel) — we don’t know those details. But these stories are dreadful, and dreadfully common.
Something in the article that jumped out at me was:
"But the couple still couldn’t raise money. As cash got tight, the founders asked their eight full-time employees, who are mostly in the San Francisco Bay area, to work for minimum wage, which would buy the company a few months of extra runway. The staff agreed."
The 8 employees must have drastically reduced the cash flow requirements by just being paid minimum wage. My question is, is that any different than directly investing into the company and giving the company cash outright like a VC?
The employees made an investment into the company like a VC would by giving extra runway to the company. I wonder if the employees received any equity compensation for doing so under the same terms that the Alvarez's are trying to raise financing under. Getting paid higher than minimum wage and needing financing which dilutes you or taking minimum wage reducing the need for financing but getting no equity for it seems unfair to the employees.
They never mentioned that detail in the article but it's something I always think about when founders and executives ask employees to make these sacrifices and take on added risk but without ever compensating employees like they would compensate other capital with equity for the risk they take.
Naya isn't the first company to try to do something like this. Willow and Anabella are two other companies/devices trying to sell people on a better pump. Anabella's indiegogo campaign has made the rounds in all my pumping groups like 100 times on its promise of getting 100% milk out (it's a common idea that pumps right now can't get all available milk out like babies' mouths can). Willow is being sold on the idea that it fits in your bra without any tubes or hassle, which is a big deal for people wishing to discreetly pump in workplaces and such.
But having used the top-of-the-line (Symphony and Ameda hospital grade pumps) all the way down to home-grade and manual pumps (Spectra S2, Freestyle, etc.) in the past 6 months - pretty sure it doesn't matter how effective the pump is or how comfortable it ends up being. The act of pumping itself is very difficult for many people and time consuming, and when you have employers, coworkers, and family/friends that don't respect your need to pump, you end up not pumping rather than doubling down with your $1k pump.
Especially in the face of the fact that most parents in the US will qualify to get a free home-grade pump through insurance (including through WIC etc.) and that without insurance the average pump is only $100-200 plus supplies another $50-100 - along with an expectation to replace the pump every time you have a new child (the pump itself does wear out - I wear them out prematurely due to EPing :) )... I think these companies face a lot more problems than they're willing to acknowledge. VCs may be frustrating to work with here, but a lot of questions remain. I still wish these companies the best of luck though, as all technology has to start somewhere and then maybe becomes cheaper and more accessible over time :) Breast pumps decades ago look like torture devices in comparison to what's available now.
edit to add: full disclosure, I haven't purchased or preordered any of the crop of new pumps. pretty much none of them support my (large) nipple size, and none of them seem to have worked closely with EPers as it is difficult to near impossible to find a pump that also promises that they'll have parts available for replacement. due to pumping all the damn time, I have to replace parts fairly frequently.
Thank you! I got a bit tired of seeing mostly (presumably) male voices talking about their partner or their indirect experiences (including my own partner, a bit!) and I just wanted to throw in my direct 2c. Especially as someone that pumps like 2 hours a day plus another hour of pumping-related stuff (and that's significantly down from the early days...).
I had mixed reactions to this article. On the one hand, as a parent I've often thought about neglected business opportunities to meet certain fertility, pregnancy, and parenting needs, and this article resonated with that for me.
But on the other hand, as you're mentioning, this area is a lot more complex than the article is letting on.
My wife pumped exclusively until our child was about 1.5 years old, and one thing I noticed was that as she went on, she went from various hand pumps to various electric pumps, and then back to hand pumps for several months because the paraphernalia and power requirements involved were more troublesome than they were worth.
I remember reading about this pump in early stages, and it sounded wonderful, and still sounds nice. But I'm not sure my wife would have actually been interested in it after a certain point in time, because it's still bulkier than a basic hand pump. At that big of price, they'd actually be losing out on two points, the extreme price and the bulk. Maybe going into pumping at the beginning, she would have purchased it if it had been available, but it's difficult for me to say. It's very expensive for what you'd be getting relative to the alternatives.
Yes. We had fertility issues too (so hard to find apps that support that!) and as a mostly-SAHP here I feel out of place in SF and struggle to find resources beyond facebook groups. Resources like Winnie (https://winnie.com/), in fact, which reduces a lot of my stress over taking a baby to a restaurant. I can definitely get on the rage-train about these things not getting funding while Juicero and Theranos throw away $$$$$$$.
I think there's even more that I haven't delved into in my comment that might be a concern. As you point out, yup, experiences and preferences are all over the map. I'm sure these companies did their market research, and all three of the ones I mentioned definitely target pain points for pumpers (comfort, milk amount, and ease-of-use). I'm sure cost will become less of an issue once insurances start partially covering the pumps. Just, who knows if it will work out, it's complex for sure. And I say this as one of the few(er) parents that would not hesitate to drop $1k on a new pump if I could.
Hell, there is even a video making the rounds in my EP groups of someone demonstrating hand-expressing 6 ounces (a lot!) of milk, for underproducers and for people stuck in hurricane-stricken-no-power areas to learn from. Too bad Facebook keeps removing the videos for explicit content. But the half hour of wringing out a boob just to feed your baby... many parents will definitely do whatever it takes!
Your wife is a saint. I am so sick of looking at pumps (all four of my pumps...) and pump parts. I am quitting cold turkey on day 366 of pumping. No pump design for no amount of money will help me with that, hah.
I have to say that you've only made the product sound more interesting: something that users spend countless hours with, which qualifies for a healthy subsidy, and which purports do something of great value (feeding one's children) sounds like an interesting business space to me!
My wife is going back to work on Monday (and leaving our 6-week old boy with my mom), so this product sounds especially enticing. If the claims of producing more milk are true, that would be incredibly comforting - we really want to feed him all breastmilk for as long as possible, but she has fears about her supply keeping up with a growing/hungry boy. That seems to be the main selling point to me, so conversely I can see why these products would be uninteresting once you've determined that your supply is more than adequate.
These are all marketing promises right now. We don't know how they work in practice among all the different people with different experiences and needs out there. Already Naya fails at one thing for me: nipple size. Like, really? Most pumps on the market come with multiple flange sizes because "average" doesn't mean one-size-fits-most. Naya will basically give me zero milk because it is too small. Otherwise I would buy this just to try it out, even halfway through with my pumping journey. Not sure about the bottles though - I don't even do daycare/nanny and I'm sitting on 10+ bottles I use daily... I'm not paying hundreds of dollars just for bottles that get thrown around and replaced and phased out by the end of a year, with zero mention of how to replace the nipples on the bottles (again, another replacement issue).
These pumps also don't fix the other issues I point out and more. It doesn't matter what pump you have if your employer wants to fire you for taking two 30 minute "breaks" daily to go and pump in a closet. Supply tanks when you can't/don't pump, not usually because you're choosing between a $600 pump and a free pump. Or maybe you don't respond to the $600 pump that well in the first place. Some people will just never, not even with the gold "standard" of feeding-at-the-breast and doing everything they can, produce enough milk. Some people, with all the equipment in the world, will never be comfortable with pumping.
I struggled with undersupply for the first 8 weeks, was a just-enougher for another month, and now I overproduce. If there's any unsolicited advice I can offer, it's that supply is a persistent thought that doesn't ever go away (outside of other issues it stabilizes like milk intake, usually, but only for as long as you're able to put enough effort into it), and that's what's so compelling about this kind of marketing. It sounds good to you, it sounds good to me! But that's why we should also be a little cautious. Support all the efforts (definitely tell awful VCs to fuck off, too), but make sure to get some domain experts (like people that actually have had to pump!) on board and continue solving pain points and refining the products. And for parents and yourself wondering if this might solve their problem - it may but it may not, and there's nothing wrong with formula supplementation or all formula if that's what it ends up coming down to. Fed is best.
Congrats on the little one and I hope your wife gets the support she needs to pump if that's what she wants to do :) I use a Symphony because it's free with my insurance (Kaiser) but my backup/travel pump is currently the Spectra S2 and it's a big favorite in EP communities for comfort and milk production, if she (like many) is unsatisfied with the non-Symphony Medela pumps that are so popular. Also: milk intake does level out around 4-6 weeks or so, so it's not like your wife has to pump an ever increasing number! At peak babies consume an average of 28-32oz/day until around 6 months when you start solids, and then milk slowly decreases once solids take over more and more. I know it's not very reassuring until you experience it for yourself (I've been there too), but I've got a very big 99th percentile weight/length baby that only has ~28oz/day or so.
Thanks so much for all of this! You’re right, we really would need to see more studies to verify claims of substantially increased output via their gadget, and even then, their “ecosystem” of attachments and whatnot sounds a bit too young. It’s actually (good) news to us that milk intake levels off at 4 - 6 weeks - one of those many essential facts that nobody teaches you!
I am confused by this article. They were able to raise 6.5 million initially, which is not insignificant. But when they weren't able to raise more money anecdotes about sexism are mentioned?
I don't doubt for a minute that there is rampant sexism in the Valley but they were able to raise money just not a second round. This is not uncommon.
> She and her husband, Jeffrey Alvarez, managed to raise $6.5 million from investors after starting the business together in 2013. But they’ve recently hit a wall. With few VCs willing to fund the product, they’re turning to Kickstarter in the hopes of keeping their company running. The campaign, with an initial goal of $100,000, is expected to start Thursday. “If VCs don’t want this, then we know parents and mothers do,” Alvarez said.
Is the $100K purely to demonstrate potential demand? Seems like a drop in the bucket compared to the $6.5M they've already received.
> The breast pump market is dominated by Swiss manufacturer Medela LLC, which got a boost in the U.S. from an Obamacare mandate that insurance companies must cover the cost of pumps for new moms. Most devices use hard plastic cups and an air suction system. They’re often loud and sometimes painful.
> The Naya’s soft suction cup mimics the feel of a baby’s mouth and distributes the suction over a broader area of a woman’s breast.
I'm hardly an expert on this but mimicking a baby mouth doesn't mean it's not going to be painful. Soft suction cups seems interesting though it's also something that could be added to a regular pump.
> Alvarez said the Naya delivers 30 percent more breast milk and is 20 percent faster than alternatives, thanks to a unique water-based system.
Now we're getting to something worthwhile. 20% of 45-120 minutes per day is quite a savings to the right person. I'd imagine it'd be particularly important to women that pump at the office.
> The company is also planning to sell a smart bottle that will be able to track the volume, calorie count and fat content of breast milk and inputs them into an app. Mothers would be able to use the software to monitor how much they’re pumping, how much the baby is eating and how much milk is left in storage.
This is utterly useless. I'm sure some idiots (particularly first time parents) will want these type of tracking features because they think they're important. But sensible people and anyone with more than one child will realize how pointless they are.
> Customers are asked to pay a serious premium for those features. The company was selling the Naya for $999 until Thursday, when it lowered the price temporarily to $649. A typical Medela pump is about $250. Naya is now pitching a lower-end model without a rechargeable battery or certain accessories for $399, though the price will go up by $100 eventually.
That's an obscene amount of money for a breast pump.
> [... truncated ...] But the couple still couldn’t raise money.
Bias deterring funding aside, I don't see how this company succeeds given their pricing and lack of true improvements over the status quo.
Please stop pretending there are gender discrimination issues on places there is none... It only takes relevance from real gender discrimination cases.
The title displayed for the article on facebook is even worse "A Smart Breast Pump: Mothers Love It. VCs Don’t"
This company is not struggling because evil VCs are not willing to fund companies run by women that offer products for women as the article wants to portray it...
It is struggling because it wants to sell a product that provides 0.3 more efficiency and 0.2 more speed at 4 times the cost of the alternatives!
Not to mention the fact that the company DID get $6.5M on funding! If it is struggling at this point is more likely due to market fitment issues or mismanagement issues.
So, please get real....
The owner is just playing the gender discrimination card to milk (not pun intended) some attention from the media towards the kickstarter campaign....
97 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 152 ms ] threadMy second reaction: well they gave $120M to Juicero.
And the percentage of women who purchase pumps might increase with more and better options and affordability through insurance, etc.
Anyway, my question isn't meant to be dismissive, the rough percentage of recent mothers that choose to use a pump is important information in trying to figure out the potential market size.
The average fertility rate is low in the developed world. You're not selling many of these in the developing world.
Even in the United States, the government picks up the tab for ~50% of all child deliveries (those parents probably can't afford a smart pump, and if they can, I wonder why they're not paying for their child's delivery)
How many high income families chose to have a mom stay at home? It seems like a fair amount, anecdotally, ~30% of my colleagues don't come back from maternity leave.
And how much better is this than existing pumps?
At least Juicero was categorically different than other at-home juicers, it had some interesting technology for tracking food supply chains, and offered a recurring revenue model - it can justify a high customer acquisition cost if it can get lucrative customers. This doesn't seem to have a reoccurring, indefinite revenue stream. Even if you can make money off each use, eventually the kid is going to get weaned.
When you factor hardware, 2x to 4x more expensive than its direct competitor, and a small market, it seems to me a risky investment. Maybe VCS did learn from Juicero.
What the hell? These were grown men?
[1]http://www.dailywire.com/news/21140/meltdown-sports-analyst-...
(And I'm saying this despite looking at the prices in the article at the root of this thread and having my eyeballs roll out of their sockets and bounce down the road.)
She should have just moved on and then at the end of it informed him he's a mysognist and wouldn't be allowed back on the show.. not just declare she's cutting the mics because she's so fragile and mind blown.
(Disregard if this isn't about the blonde lady, white guy, and black guy discussing why Trump's people won't quit trying to get the ESPN commentator fired)
Even using words like "fragile" seems out of line--she's a talk show host who refused to take shit from some asshole. That's not fragility, that's someone standing up for herself.
This looks a lot like the double standard that's commonly applied to women's behavior: men are "assertive" and women are "bitchy" for doing the exact same thing in the exact same situation. Under that kind of analysis, women can't win. (Which is maybe the point of that kind of analysis.)
It's all theater and story or narrative, unfortunately.
So it's really not about the subject per se, but rather the context of the subject, which proves the guy's point.
It has been entertaining watching the points on my comment slide up and down between positive and negative territory. As you can imagine, "men" and "women" are heavy descriptors. Heck, I can imagine someone taking issue with "grown".
I wanted to make my comment gender-neutral, but I couldn't come up with a phrase with the same nice sound as "grown men," and sounding good won out. The perils of internet comments....
Needless to say, the answers for a breast pump aren't great when you're a 30-45 yr old man who mostly hangs out with other men and, if you're married with children, likely has a wife that didn't need to pump.
1. This sounds like there's more of an issue of money drying up for hardware products.
2. This also seems conveniently timed for their KS launch :)
Well played.
She and her husband, Jeffrey Alvarez, managed to raise $6.5 million from investors after starting the business together in 2013...Precursor Ventures, said he decided to make a seed investment in Naya
Oh ok, so VC's do like it [1][2]. Despite what you hear it's a tiny subsection of startups that ever raise any money. Even harder for hardware startups.
The company was selling the Naya for $999 until Thursday, when it lowered the price temporarily to $649. A typical Medela pump is about $250...There’s a dedicated fan base among mothers who can afford it
Ah, got it. Their product is too expensive for too small of a market.
Today, Naya Health opened up the possibility for customers to register to buy one at least — no deposit required
Wait, they don't even have sales yet? If you go to the site you can buy one...
Look, the VC's that were acting like teenagers are slimeballs and anyone, regardless of your gender, race whatever has run into slimeball investors. I'm male and I've been sexually harassed or had a casually racist comment lobbed past me more times than I can count by a potential investor. It sucks.
It is not however why it's proving hard to close a massively risky, and I assume hugely expensive A round. This looks like submarine PR wrapped in an outrage sandwich.
[1]https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/naia-health/investor...
[2]https://techcrunch.com/2016/04/25/naya-health-raises-3-9-mil...
EDIT: Knowing HN's audience, I expected the downvotes. What I don't get is why my comments are being flagged. Please stop abusing HN's tools to silence dissenting opinions.
> Oh ok, so VC's do like it
Some VCs liked it enough for an initial round. But you're using that to imply that the article's claims about VC reactions to their current attempt to raise money is "spinning a yarn", with zero evidence that this is true.
> Ah, got it. Their product is too expensive for too small of a market.
No it's not. Hospital-grade Medela pumps are much more expensive than the prices listed in the article. I don't know how the Naya compares to the hospital grade pumps, but the current crop of home-grade pumps are really really crappy, and if the Naya can improve on them, it can absolutely demand a higher price. And I don't know how large the pump market is, but given that pumps are something that every single mother can use (whether or not they choose to do so), I don't think that's a particularly small market.
The real problem isn't market size, it's competing with the free home pumps many parents get, and convincing people who do buy pumps that it's worth paying for the better pump. If their product is significantly better, they have a chance.
> I'm male and I've been sexually harassed or had a casually racist comment lobbed past me more times than I can count by a potential investor. It sucks.
Cry me a river.
In the context of this article, this line is actually pretty insulting. You're casually dismissing a really serious problem that female CEOs face on the basis that men occasionally see crappy behavior too. It's not at all comparable.
> It is not however why it's proving hard to close a massively risky, and I assume hugely expensive A round.
Bullshit. It sounds (and I can very easily believe this) like the VCs aren't even getting to the point of properly evaluating the product and company, because they're too hung up on it being a female CEO with a product that the male VCs don't have any experience with and think is "gross". Here you're completely dismissing that and just assuming that the VCs are actually doing something that the article provides direct evidence to the contrary.
If Juicero can get funded, Naya should be able to get funded too. The problem is VCs could easily understand the appeal of Juicero's product, but they don't seem to be even trying to understand Naya's product and market.
I can teach you how to get your baby to latch, how to efficiently express, what nipple cream you need depending on what is going on between mom and baby, when or when not to pump/breastfeed based on your diet etc...
Pretty sure I know the market bud.
My wife stopped using the pump altogether because of discomfort and the knowledge that saliva-to-aureola contact is healthier for the child.
The price really isn’t the problem as insurance will cover at least part of it, and it is marketed to breastfeeding women who have jobs and health insurance (have the means to make the purchase), and the developer is sending clear signals they understand the price issue and the price will likely scale down as production scales up. And there’s also an exit strategy as Medela would probably buy them too.
The key problems for this market are breast pumps are often handed down to other families, limiting the sales potential, and there is a large segment that will prefer contact breast feeding over pumping due to the health benefits.
And why is it that when a man understands the full implications of a crowdsourcing campaign and chums the water with press, he’s a “growth hacker”, yet you employ an invective by labeling this woman’s effort as “Submarine PR”?
Edit: as one illustrative example, the top two comments on this submission are currently both by women substantively critiquing the article, one of whom happens to be using a breast pump these days (and has amazingly detailed things to say about it, very much in the spirit of this site). Surprising? Not really. HN is just more diverse than many people say it is.
(I imagine users flagged your comment because it failed to be civil and substantive as the site guidelines ask.)
And it wasn't just this comment that was flagged. It was my other one (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15305765), which lays out the substantive reasons why I disagreed with the parent comment. Though that one was subsequently unflagged (and then upvoted).
I can't agree with that. These perceptions are notoriously in the eye of the beholder.
Let me put it this way: HN "demonstrates" a lot of things—that's how user-generated content works. People pick the ones that stand out to them and call that "HN", but they could just as easily have picked the opposite ones, and indeed many others do.
> it's not a particularly diverse one
That's particularly off; it's hugely diverse (or at least divided), which is why the generalizations people make about it are contradictorily all over the place. At some point I need to put together a big list to illustrate this. I sometimes feel like I'm the only person who sees it, since it's my job to look at this stuff all day.
> And it wasn't just this comment that was flagged. It was my other one
It's easy to understand why it was flagged: conducting disagreement via "Bullshit", "Cry me a river", etc. breaks the site guidelines. Changing the subject slightly, I sometimes wonder whether this bullying, pugnacious approach to online commenting doesn't contribute to the very exclusionary dynamic that people on your side of the argument deplore. I deplore it too, and can't help but notice how comments on both sides can be equally bro-ey, douchey, and wincey. It makes HN less welcoming all around. Many people seem to think they get a pass for being right (one doesn't, of course), and then use that to vent what feel more like personal fumes.
In case it helps, I don't disagree with your underlying views (though mostly I don't read comments closely for that—it's too hard, and there are too many). Perhaps you noticed that I replied no less critically to the person you were objecting to, who broke the site guidelines as well.
Moderating this sort of thing is routine to the point of tedium on Hacker News and doesn't have to do with your specific views, let alone 'silencing dissent' (a rather bombastic phrase which I hear a lot, from every ideological quarter). It just has to do with people's tendency to attack each other on the internet, which the spirit of HN is to try to work around, in the hope of good and interesting conversation. That's all.
Actually these attacks mirror each other across all ideological divides. We moderate them routinely as best we can, and then people routinely accuse us of siding with their enemies [1], but (a) these claims are contradictory and so cancel each other out, and (b) I'm pretty sure the majority of readers trust that we're not biased that way—or at least not ridiculously so, because our job would be impossible if we were.
1. An example from a few minutes ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15310419.
But even worse. You don't need the functionality at all. You don't pump just because stock gets low, you pump to relief yourself. Breasts don't follow your app, it's the other way around. It's not like you can skip two sessions because you have plenty in the fridge. No matter what an app tells you. Your body will simply produce. It's a beautiful thing really, our bodies.
Overal it's a product that tries to follow the IoT hype. Guess what, the market is changing and connected boots that buzz you to go left or right (OK kinda cool), connected shavers that tell you you need to shave (O my God, how did I survive? I was doing hand to chin, yup need to shave all this time. So stupid!), and connected breast pumps are simply not good enough.
For giggles. You can buy the medela and buy the iphone8 and use a free app To track your production.
I think the problem there is that VCs are mainly interested in potential big hits instead of niche markets. From my experience, there are not many complaints on the comfort of the pumps. Or, let me correct that, not at the size of $750,-. If they would drop their price to be high-end but in range of current offerings it might work. Just like any other high-end line of products it's a quality vs price trade-off. Right now the balance is skewed.
Some other issues I foresee:
- they say they save 10 min cleaning after use. Cleaning ours does not even take 10 mins. Disconnect, throw in steamer. Done.
- they use water instead of air. When water stays behind it gives fungus. Doesn't this require more cleaning? (Did not check how it works).
- setting up now takes 10 more minutes if i watch their movies. Filling with water, no bubbles..
P.s. Did your wife try another brand? So is she pleased comparing it to other top brands or just pleased without comparison?
Other commenters have shown themselves to be quite capable of this, even when the subject is breast pumps, so I'm sure you are too. Would you please re-read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and take the principles of this site to heart?
Most of the time, when things go flameways, the push in that direction was unintentional. The solution is for us all to consciously hold an intention for higher-quality discussion here. This does make conversation a bit less spontaneous, but since the alternative is tire fires, there is little choice.
We all need to control this lower nature, so to speak, when posting here, or the site won't survive. HN has survived semi-intact for this long only because most people are willing to make that effort, but it's not a huge majority and we're always dangling by a thread. Contributing to the solution requires a conscious effort at self-reform, at least for a while. Plenty of users here have made that effort, including me; my comments used to be a lot worse than everything I've objected to here.
I'm sure you could have made all your substantive points without the bits that turned the subthread nasty, so there's no significant loss in this.
Being "non-consensus" and "right" is how the great investor Howard Marks determines opportunity. Seems like this is as non-consensus as it gets...with a huge opportunity.
2) Women don't breastfeed their entire lives, so the units hit the used market pretty quickly, generating pricing pressure. Sales figures might look spectacular year 1, but what about year 5? VCs have access to market research data and executives at medical device companies who can probably provide them with better statistics.
3) Typical setup involves a hospital or a medical group buying a bunch of high-end pumps and renting them on a monthly basis (PSA for those who might need it: Kaiser Permanente will rent a breast pump to non-members).
4) Their main innovation seems to involve a different suction cup design that performed better for the target group they chose. How much a competitive moat is there? What's stopping Medela or a third-party parts supplier from building similar suction cups for a variety of breast pumps that's already out there?
I think people who purchase $1000 pumps are not the type who go shop on Craigslist’s for used breast pumps.
Also number of first time mothers does not change year over year, so I don’t see a logic in your “1st year sales spike” point
Well yes. I would be thoroughly disappointed in any investor that doesn't check for suitability with somebody they trust that has a high likelihood of deeper knowledge in the area.
I expect their 4x current model price is a huge factor in failing to attract investment, the NHS and ObamaCare are unlikely to cover these in the vast majority of situations.
But I also don't doubt she is having a hard time and that the disgusting things she is quoting occurred; I have overheard and been present for many less than desirable comments - both from men and women - in professional settings.
EDIT: Just took a look at pumps available in the UK, for £50-150 I get lots of pumps advertising comfort etc. I would need to have an independent doctor or trusted woman with first-hand experience of these not being suitable to be convinced of any kind of mass market appeal.
> “Manufacturers use hard plastic unlike this pump...”
No they don’t, we have an avent pump for $200 and it has very soft suction cups.
A husband and wife co-founder duo, a literal mom and pop with 3 children, trying to scale up their hardware production business which hasn't proven itself after 6.5m in capital. Yeah there are a lot of valid criticisms that would be made to any team, and a couple unique to that team.
Making it just about the mom's experience with "male dominated VCs" is disingenuous. I'm not going to be an apologist for off-comments made by VCs, I do know that you can make a conclusion on business plans in like 30 seconds to 5 minutes, and then you have to spend the rest of the hour in small talk.
There is also the recurring trope of being included in a VCs portfolio becoming validation. If you are able to self fund an idea, you can make more money than you would with the VCs, in many scenarios. Yes everyone wants the publicity, but VC business models simply don't work with MOST business models. That has nothing to do with the efficacy of your business.
So maybe, good luck with the kickstarter.
> It’s hard when you’re told you can’t be yourself because you have to play the game
This plays on "don't ask don't tell" themes of not being able to freely express yourself; But this is the norm for the environment, you might not normally wear a suit, or cover your tattoos, but you are often expected to do these things in a business meeting.
I guess that's fair game at a business meeting though.
"Only wear black and gray; don’t use nail polish; don’t smile or laugh too much; and keep your hair back in a pony tail"
When a Naya pitch meeting turned into a porn-fest, what did the Naya reps do? Did they try to laugh it off and humour the offenders because they wanted the money? Or did they realize that they didn't want to be in business with these people, shutdown and walk out?
If they didn't walk away, they are culpable. They clearly communicated that bad behaviour is tolerable depending on the money.
It's not so easy to make principled stands when people are depending on you.
Economic doctrine/ideology says that this should create opportunities for someone to swoop in and do a good deal. I think we all know that reality rarely matches theory, especially in economics.
It’s possible the business itself has structural problems (cost, channel) — we don’t know those details. But these stories are dreadful, and dreadfully common.
"But the couple still couldn’t raise money. As cash got tight, the founders asked their eight full-time employees, who are mostly in the San Francisco Bay area, to work for minimum wage, which would buy the company a few months of extra runway. The staff agreed."
The 8 employees must have drastically reduced the cash flow requirements by just being paid minimum wage. My question is, is that any different than directly investing into the company and giving the company cash outright like a VC?
The employees made an investment into the company like a VC would by giving extra runway to the company. I wonder if the employees received any equity compensation for doing so under the same terms that the Alvarez's are trying to raise financing under. Getting paid higher than minimum wage and needing financing which dilutes you or taking minimum wage reducing the need for financing but getting no equity for it seems unfair to the employees.
They never mentioned that detail in the article but it's something I always think about when founders and executives ask employees to make these sacrifices and take on added risk but without ever compensating employees like they would compensate other capital with equity for the risk they take.
Naya isn't the first company to try to do something like this. Willow and Anabella are two other companies/devices trying to sell people on a better pump. Anabella's indiegogo campaign has made the rounds in all my pumping groups like 100 times on its promise of getting 100% milk out (it's a common idea that pumps right now can't get all available milk out like babies' mouths can). Willow is being sold on the idea that it fits in your bra without any tubes or hassle, which is a big deal for people wishing to discreetly pump in workplaces and such.
But having used the top-of-the-line (Symphony and Ameda hospital grade pumps) all the way down to home-grade and manual pumps (Spectra S2, Freestyle, etc.) in the past 6 months - pretty sure it doesn't matter how effective the pump is or how comfortable it ends up being. The act of pumping itself is very difficult for many people and time consuming, and when you have employers, coworkers, and family/friends that don't respect your need to pump, you end up not pumping rather than doubling down with your $1k pump.
Especially in the face of the fact that most parents in the US will qualify to get a free home-grade pump through insurance (including through WIC etc.) and that without insurance the average pump is only $100-200 plus supplies another $50-100 - along with an expectation to replace the pump every time you have a new child (the pump itself does wear out - I wear them out prematurely due to EPing :) )... I think these companies face a lot more problems than they're willing to acknowledge. VCs may be frustrating to work with here, but a lot of questions remain. I still wish these companies the best of luck though, as all technology has to start somewhere and then maybe becomes cheaper and more accessible over time :) Breast pumps decades ago look like torture devices in comparison to what's available now.
edit to add: full disclosure, I haven't purchased or preordered any of the crop of new pumps. pretty much none of them support my (large) nipple size, and none of them seem to have worked closely with EPers as it is difficult to near impossible to find a pump that also promises that they'll have parts available for replacement. due to pumping all the damn time, I have to replace parts fairly frequently.
But on the other hand, as you're mentioning, this area is a lot more complex than the article is letting on.
My wife pumped exclusively until our child was about 1.5 years old, and one thing I noticed was that as she went on, she went from various hand pumps to various electric pumps, and then back to hand pumps for several months because the paraphernalia and power requirements involved were more troublesome than they were worth.
I remember reading about this pump in early stages, and it sounded wonderful, and still sounds nice. But I'm not sure my wife would have actually been interested in it after a certain point in time, because it's still bulkier than a basic hand pump. At that big of price, they'd actually be losing out on two points, the extreme price and the bulk. Maybe going into pumping at the beginning, she would have purchased it if it had been available, but it's difficult for me to say. It's very expensive for what you'd be getting relative to the alternatives.
I think there's even more that I haven't delved into in my comment that might be a concern. As you point out, yup, experiences and preferences are all over the map. I'm sure these companies did their market research, and all three of the ones I mentioned definitely target pain points for pumpers (comfort, milk amount, and ease-of-use). I'm sure cost will become less of an issue once insurances start partially covering the pumps. Just, who knows if it will work out, it's complex for sure. And I say this as one of the few(er) parents that would not hesitate to drop $1k on a new pump if I could.
Hell, there is even a video making the rounds in my EP groups of someone demonstrating hand-expressing 6 ounces (a lot!) of milk, for underproducers and for people stuck in hurricane-stricken-no-power areas to learn from. Too bad Facebook keeps removing the videos for explicit content. But the half hour of wringing out a boob just to feed your baby... many parents will definitely do whatever it takes!
Your wife is a saint. I am so sick of looking at pumps (all four of my pumps...) and pump parts. I am quitting cold turkey on day 366 of pumping. No pump design for no amount of money will help me with that, hah.
My wife is going back to work on Monday (and leaving our 6-week old boy with my mom), so this product sounds especially enticing. If the claims of producing more milk are true, that would be incredibly comforting - we really want to feed him all breastmilk for as long as possible, but she has fears about her supply keeping up with a growing/hungry boy. That seems to be the main selling point to me, so conversely I can see why these products would be uninteresting once you've determined that your supply is more than adequate.
These pumps also don't fix the other issues I point out and more. It doesn't matter what pump you have if your employer wants to fire you for taking two 30 minute "breaks" daily to go and pump in a closet. Supply tanks when you can't/don't pump, not usually because you're choosing between a $600 pump and a free pump. Or maybe you don't respond to the $600 pump that well in the first place. Some people will just never, not even with the gold "standard" of feeding-at-the-breast and doing everything they can, produce enough milk. Some people, with all the equipment in the world, will never be comfortable with pumping.
I struggled with undersupply for the first 8 weeks, was a just-enougher for another month, and now I overproduce. If there's any unsolicited advice I can offer, it's that supply is a persistent thought that doesn't ever go away (outside of other issues it stabilizes like milk intake, usually, but only for as long as you're able to put enough effort into it), and that's what's so compelling about this kind of marketing. It sounds good to you, it sounds good to me! But that's why we should also be a little cautious. Support all the efforts (definitely tell awful VCs to fuck off, too), but make sure to get some domain experts (like people that actually have had to pump!) on board and continue solving pain points and refining the products. And for parents and yourself wondering if this might solve their problem - it may but it may not, and there's nothing wrong with formula supplementation or all formula if that's what it ends up coming down to. Fed is best.
Congrats on the little one and I hope your wife gets the support she needs to pump if that's what she wants to do :) I use a Symphony because it's free with my insurance (Kaiser) but my backup/travel pump is currently the Spectra S2 and it's a big favorite in EP communities for comfort and milk production, if she (like many) is unsatisfied with the non-Symphony Medela pumps that are so popular. Also: milk intake does level out around 4-6 weeks or so, so it's not like your wife has to pump an ever increasing number! At peak babies consume an average of 28-32oz/day until around 6 months when you start solids, and then milk slowly decreases once solids take over more and more. I know it's not very reassuring until you experience it for yourself (I've been there too), but I've got a very big 99th percentile weight/length baby that only has ~28oz/day or so.
I don't doubt for a minute that there is rampant sexism in the Valley but they were able to raise money just not a second round. This is not uncommon.
Is the $100K purely to demonstrate potential demand? Seems like a drop in the bucket compared to the $6.5M they've already received.
> The breast pump market is dominated by Swiss manufacturer Medela LLC, which got a boost in the U.S. from an Obamacare mandate that insurance companies must cover the cost of pumps for new moms. Most devices use hard plastic cups and an air suction system. They’re often loud and sometimes painful.
> The Naya’s soft suction cup mimics the feel of a baby’s mouth and distributes the suction over a broader area of a woman’s breast.
I'm hardly an expert on this but mimicking a baby mouth doesn't mean it's not going to be painful. Soft suction cups seems interesting though it's also something that could be added to a regular pump.
> Alvarez said the Naya delivers 30 percent more breast milk and is 20 percent faster than alternatives, thanks to a unique water-based system.
Now we're getting to something worthwhile. 20% of 45-120 minutes per day is quite a savings to the right person. I'd imagine it'd be particularly important to women that pump at the office.
> The company is also planning to sell a smart bottle that will be able to track the volume, calorie count and fat content of breast milk and inputs them into an app. Mothers would be able to use the software to monitor how much they’re pumping, how much the baby is eating and how much milk is left in storage.
This is utterly useless. I'm sure some idiots (particularly first time parents) will want these type of tracking features because they think they're important. But sensible people and anyone with more than one child will realize how pointless they are.
> Customers are asked to pay a serious premium for those features. The company was selling the Naya for $999 until Thursday, when it lowered the price temporarily to $649. A typical Medela pump is about $250. Naya is now pitching a lower-end model without a rechargeable battery or certain accessories for $399, though the price will go up by $100 eventually.
That's an obscene amount of money for a breast pump.
> [... truncated ...] But the couple still couldn’t raise money.
Bias deterring funding aside, I don't see how this company succeeds given their pricing and lack of true improvements over the status quo.
The title displayed for the article on facebook is even worse "A Smart Breast Pump: Mothers Love It. VCs Don’t"
This company is not struggling because evil VCs are not willing to fund companies run by women that offer products for women as the article wants to portray it...
It is struggling because it wants to sell a product that provides 0.3 more efficiency and 0.2 more speed at 4 times the cost of the alternatives!
Not to mention the fact that the company DID get $6.5M on funding! If it is struggling at this point is more likely due to market fitment issues or mismanagement issues.
So, please get real....
The owner is just playing the gender discrimination card to milk (not pun intended) some attention from the media towards the kickstarter campaign....