What is the core value proposition of Public Goods according to the deck?

The core value proposition is making healthy, organic products affordable by removing traditional retail markups. Slide 9 summarizes this mission as 'Make healthy products affordable to all.' They achieve this through a membership model where products are sold at cost, shifting the profit center from product margins to a $59 annual subscription fee, as shown on Slide 10.

How does the deck handle financial projections and unit economics?

The deck is remarkably light on detailed financials. It provides a high-level traction figure of $750,000 in sales for 2017 (Slide 11) but does not include a slide for burn rate, CAC (Customer Acquisition Cost), LTV (Lifetime Value), or multi-year projections. It relies on the simplicity of the 'at cost' model to imply favorable unit economics via membership fees.

Why did the founders include photos from 2002 on the team slide?

This is a strategic move to demonstrate founder chemistry and long-term stability. By showing photos from 2002 alongside 2017 (Slide 13), the founders prove they have worked together for 15 years. For seed-stage investors, this reduces 'co-founder conflict' risk, which is a leading cause of early-stage startup failure.

How is the 'Problem' slide structured in this deck?

The problem is framed as a cost issue rather than a product quality issue. Slide 2 shows the average American household spends $6,000 on essentials, while Slide 3 shows that switching to a 'Healthy Organic Version' increases that cost to $10,000. The $4,000 gap is the specific problem Public Goods intends to solve.

Is there a specific 'Ask' or use of funds mentioned in the slides?

No. The 14 slides provided do not include a slide detailing how much money they are currently seeking or how they plan to spend it. While the catalogue facts state they raised $3M, the deck itself focuses entirely on the brand vision, the supply chain logic, and existing traction.

Public Goods Pitch Deck (2017): 14-Slide Seed Deck

See all 14 slides of the Public Goods pitch deck — a 2017 Seed deck — with a slide-by-slide teardown of what the deck does well and where it falls short.

The Public Goods pitch deck is a notable example of 'less is more' in the D2C space. Spanning just 14 slides, the deck relies heavily on visual storytelling to illustrate the inefficiencies of the traditional retail supply chain. Rather than using dense spreadsheets, the founders used a step-by-step build to show how a $2 factory cost balloons into a $20 retail price. This narrative sets the stage for their membership model—selling products 'at cost' for a $59 annual fee. While the deck lacks traditional sections like a detailed market size (TAM) analysis or a specific 'Ask' slide, its clear…

Key takeaways

The deck uses a five-slide progressive build (Slides 4-8) to visually demonstrate how middleman markups increase consumer prices by 10x.
Public Goods positions itself as a solution to the $4,000 'healthy organic' price premium paid by average households (Slides 2-3).
The business model is explicitly stated as 'Direct to consumer, at cost, for annual membership' at $59/yr (Slide 10).
Traction is displayed as a simple bar chart showing sales growth to $750,000 in 2017 (Slide 11).
The team slide emphasizes a 15-year relationship between the founders, showing photos from 2002 and 2017 (Slide 13).
The founders leverage past experience at major retailers including Walmart, Barneys New York, Saks Fifth Avenue, and J.Crew (Slide 13).
The deck mentions a previous raise of $1.4 million since participating in 500 (presumably 500 Startups) on Slide 12.
There is no explicit 'Ask' slide detailing how the $3M seed round will be allocated.

Public Goods: The Power of Visual Logic in D2C Fundraising

The Public Goods seed deck is a masterclass in minimalist design and narrative-driven pitching. In an era where many founders overwhelm investors with data-heavy slides, Public Goods opted for a 14-slide presentation that feels more like a brand lookbook than a corporate report. This approach aligns perfectly with their business: a minimalist, high-quality consumer goods brand. By using very few words and large, high-contrast visuals, the deck forces the investor to focus on a single, compelling logic chain: the traditional retail supply chain is broken, and a membership model is the fix.

Slides 1-3: Setting the Financial Stakes

Slide 1 is a clean title slide featuring the company name and a minimalist product shot of a razor, shampoo, and soap. It immediately establishes the brand's aesthetic—clean, white, and premium. Contact information for 'Morgan' and an AngelList link are provided at the bottom.

Slide 2 introduces the market context with a single figure: '$6,000'. The caption identifies this as the 'Average American Household' spend on household goods. The background image shows a family in a brightly lit, traditional supermarket, grounding the data in a relatable everyday activity.

Slide 3 presents the 'Problem' with a stark comparison. It shows the figure '$10,000' for the 'Healthy Organic Version' of that same household spend. By showing a $4,000 premium for healthy living, Public Goods identifies a clear economic pain point for consumers without needing a single bullet point of text.

Slides 4-8: The Supply Chain Teardown

This section is the heart of the deck's logical argument. It uses a progressive build to explain why products are expensive. Slide 4 starts at 'Their Factory' with a cost of $2. Slide 5 adds the 'Brand' layer, increasing the cost to $4. Slide 6 introduces the 'Distributor' at $8. Slide 7 brings in the 'Retailer', where the price jumps to $20. Finally, Slide 8 shows the end consumer: 'You With Less $$$' and a sad face icon. This 10x markup from factory to shelf is presented as an inherent inefficiency of the status quo.

Slides 9-10: The Public Goods Solution

Slide 9 acts as the mission statement: 'Make healthy products affordable to all.' The visual shows Public Goods products (toothpaste, hand soap, shaving cream) in a real-world bathroom setting, reinforcing the 'premium but accessible' brand identity. Slide 10 reveals the business model. It mirrors the supply chain slides but replaces the middlemen with a single line: 'Direct to consumer, at cost, for annual membership.' The price point is clearly stated as '$59/yr'. This slide is crucial because it explains how the company makes money if they are selling products 'at cost'.

Slides 11-12: Traction and History

Slide 11 provides a simple bar chart comparing 2016 to 2017. The 2017 bar is significantly larger, with the text '$750,000 Sales This Year' prominently displayed. The 2016 bar appears to be around the $100,000 mark, though it is not explicitly labeled with a figure. This demonstrates a 7.5x year-over-year growth rate, which is a strong signal for a seed round.

Slide 12 provides a brief fundraising history. It states, 'Since 500—$1.4million raised.' This likely refers to their participation in the 500 Startups accelerator program. Mentioning previous successful raises and institutional backing (500) builds social proof and momentum for the current $3M round.

Slides 13-14: The Team and Closing

Slide 13 is the team slide, but it avoids the standard 'Headshot + Bio' format. Instead, it shows two photos of the founders: one from 2002 and one from 2017. This visually communicates 15 years of partnership. Below the photos are the logos of major retailers: Walmart, Barneys New York, Saks Fifth Avenue, and J.Crew. This implies that the team has deep, high-level experience in the very industry they are trying to disrupt. The deck concludes on Slide 14 , which is a black version of the title slide with the same contact information.

What Works in the Public Goods Deck

The most successful element of this deck is its logical progression . By the time an investor reaches Slide 10, the $59 membership fee feels like a bargain because the founders have already spent five slides proving that the alternative is a $4,000 'organic tax'. The use of a progressive build for the supply chain (Slides 4-8) is a brilliant way to explain a complex industry problem in seconds.

Furthermore, the brand-product alignment is perfect. The deck looks exactly like the products they sell. This gives investors confidence that the founders understand brand identity—a critical skill in the D2C (Direct-to-Consumer) space. The team slide is also a standout; by showing a 15-year history, they mitigate one of the biggest fears investors have: founder breakup.

What is Missing from the Public Goods Deck

While the deck is highly persuasive, it omits several standard components that many institutional investors require. First, there is no Market Size (TAM/SAM/SOM) slide. While we can infer the market is huge based on 'Average American Household' spend, investors usually want to see a calculated Total Addressable Market.

Second, there is a complete lack of Unit Economics . While they say they sell 'at cost,' investors would want to know the specifics: What is the CAC (Customer Acquisition Cost)? What is the churn rate on the $59 membership? How many memberships are needed to reach break-even? Selling products at cost means the membership fee must cover all overhead, marketing, and shipping subsidies, which is a high bar to clear.

Finally, there is no Ask Slide . The deck does not state how much they are raising or what the milestones for the next 18 months are. While the catalogue facts confirm a $3M raise, the deck itself leaves the 'next steps' entirely to the verbal pitch.

What a Founder Should Copy

Founders should emulate the visual storytelling used to explain the 'Problem'. If your business involves removing middlemen or improving efficiency, don't just say 'we are 50% cheaper.' Show the step-by-step inflation of costs in the current system. This makes your solution feel inevitable rather than just 'better'.

Additionally, the team slide strategy is worth copying. If you have a long history with your co-founder, prove it with a 'then and now' photo. It is a humanizing touch that stands out in a pile of generic LinkedIn-style bios. Lastly, the minimalist aesthetic is a powerful tool. If your slides have fewer than 20 words, the investor has no choice but to listen to you. This deck ensures the founder remains the center of the presentation, not the slides.

Company: Public Goods · Sector: E-Commerce / Consumer Goods · Stage: Seed · Year: Not stated in deck (Traction shows 2017) · Slides: 14 · Deck Type: Seed Pitch Deck · Outcome: Raised $3M · HQ: Not stated in deck

Frequently asked questions

What is the core value proposition of Public Goods according to the deck?: The core value proposition is making healthy, organic products affordable by removing traditional retail markups. Slide 9 summarizes this mission as 'Make healthy products affordable to all.' They achieve this through a membership model where products are sold at cost, shifting the profit center from product margins to a $59 annual subscription fee, as shown on Slide 10.
How does the deck handle financial projections and unit economics?: The deck is remarkably light on detailed financials. It provides a high-level traction figure of $750,000 in sales for 2017 (Slide 11) but does not include a slide for burn rate, CAC (Customer Acquisition Cost), LTV (Lifetime Value), or multi-year projections. It relies on the simplicity of the 'at cost' model to imply favorable unit economics via membership fees.
Why did the founders include photos from 2002 on the team slide?: This is a strategic move to demonstrate founder chemistry and long-term stability. By showing photos from 2002 alongside 2017 (Slide 13), the founders prove they have worked together for 15 years. For seed-stage investors, this reduces 'co-founder conflict' risk, which is a leading cause of early-stage startup failure.
How is the 'Problem' slide structured in this deck?: The problem is framed as a cost issue rather than a product quality issue. Slide 2 shows the average American household spends $6,000 on essentials, while Slide 3 shows that switching to a 'Healthy Organic Version' increases that cost to $10,000. The $4,000 gap is the specific problem Public Goods intends to solve.
Is there a specific 'Ask' or use of funds mentioned in the slides?: No. The 14 slides provided do not include a slide detailing how much money they are currently seeking or how they plan to spend it. While the catalogue facts state they raised $3M, the deck itself focuses entirely on the brand vision, the supply chain logic, and existing traction.

Cover slide of the Public Goods pitch deck — Seed 2017 — Public Goods pitch deck, slide 1 (2017)

Public Goods pitch deck: the facts

Company: Public Goods
Year: 2017
Stage: Seed
Slides: 14
Sector: E-Commerce

Public Goods pitch deck PDF

The full Public Goods deck is embedded on this page and can be read slide by slide in the browser — no download or account required. Each slide is covered in the breakdown above.

What the Public Goods pitch deck was used for

This deck is a 14‑slide seed‑stage fundraising presentation used by Public Goods, a New York–based membership direct‑to‑consumer brand for everyday essentials, to raise a $3M seed round around 2018 from venture investors. It articulates a shift away from traditional retail’s hidden costs toward a minimalist, single‑brand, membership model. The deck predates later larger financings and was focused on funding product expansion and growth of the core marketplace. It is part of Public Goods’ early capital formation, following initial Kickstarter campaigns and friends‑and‑family funding that validated demand for its model.

Business model: Membership-based direct-to-consumer brand selling everyday essentials (household goods, personal care, food, and drink) under its own label, positioned as a simplified, cost-transparent alternative to traditional retail.

Round: Seed
Year: 2018
Raised: $3M seed round in September 2018
Lead investor: Yes VC
Investors: Yes VC, Listen Ventures, Day One Ventures, Existing investors (including earlier angels and friends-and-family backers)
Founded: 2016
Founders: Michael Ferchak
Headquarters: New York, NY, United States
Industry: E‑Commerce / Consumer Goods (direct-to-consumer household and personal care products).

Raising: Seed financing to expand product categories (notably food and drink) and scale the membership-based DTC marketplace.

Total funding: More than $4M raised by the time of the $3M seed (2018), with later reports indicating total funding in the ~$18–20M range across multiple rounds.

Use of funds as presented: Support rapid sales growth and **expansion into new product categories such as food and drink**, along with general scaling of operations and membership marketplace.

What happened after the Public Goods deck

Following the $3M seed round associated with this deck, Public Goods continued to grow its membership-based DTC marketplace, expanded into new product categories, secured a $15M investment from L Catterton, and accumulated total funding reported in the high teens to around $18–20M across several rounds.

Raised a **$3M seed round** in September 2018 led by Yes VC, with Listen Ventures, Day One Ventures, and existing invest
Surpassed **$4M total capital raised** by the time of this seed round.
Ran multiple **Kickstarter campaigns**, including raising roughly **$700k in 38 days** and later about **$410k from over
Received a **$15M investment from L Catterton**, significantly increasing total funding and supporting further growth.
Expanded product offerings beyond household and personal care into **food and drink** categories following the seed fina

What the Public Goods deck got right

Compelling and easily understandable model. The deck presents a **clear, differentiated business model**: a membership-based, single-brand marketplace for everyday essentials that simplifies choices and reduces hidden retail costs, which is easy for investors to grasp and connects directly to consumer pain points.
Strong pre‑seed validation via crowdfunding. Public Goods entered the seed round with **validated demand** from Kickstarter campaigns and earlier friends-and-family funding, allowing the deck to build on demonstrated traction rather than purely hypothetical projections.
Brand-consistent minimalist design. The minimalist 14‑slide format reinforces the brand’s promise of simplicity and low friction, creating coherence between the company’s product philosophy and its investor communication.
Strong problem framing around hidden retail costs. The story explicitly frames traditional retail as laden with **hidden costs and complexity**, positioning Public Goods as a structural improvement rather than just another DTC brand; this framing supports a bigger, more systemic narrative.
Clear linkage between capital and product expansion. The deck ties the $3M seed directly to **specific growth initiatives**, notably expansion into food and drink, giving investors a clear picture of how capital will be deployed to broaden the marketplace’s value proposition.
Subsequent funding validates early thesis. Later outcomes—including a substantial $15M investment from L Catterton and multi‑round funding history—demonstrate that the early seed narrative was credible enough to attract further institutional capital.

What could have been stronger

Sparse quantitative and operational detail. The deck’s minimalist design and lack of text make it harder for investors to quickly understand detailed unit economics, cost structure, and operational complexity of the supply chain shift it proposes. The reliance on visual simplicity may leave questions about margins, customer acquisition cost, and payback unaddressed in the slides themselves.
Limited evidence for claimed pricing advantage. While the narrative highlights “hidden costs” in traditional retail, the deck as described does not appear to clearly quantify the price advantage or show side‑by‑side comparisons that prove savings to members beyond conceptual claims.
Transition from crowdfunding to venture scale not fully developed. Given that Public Goods followed an atypical funding path (friends and family, Kickstarter, then VC), investors may look for a clearer bridge from crowdfunding validation to sustainable venture‑scale growth; the minimalist deck may not fully articulate this transition story or long‑term defensibility.
Limited competitive landscape and defensibility discussion. The deck predates major later events (e.g., substantial follow‑on funding and broader category expansion), but it likely does not address competitive responses and the risk of imitation in the direct‑to‑consumer essentials space, which became increasingly crowded.

How an investor would read this deck

What draws attention

Strength and clarity of the **membership-based DTC model** for everyday essentials and how it differs from traditional multi‑brand retail.
Evidence from early **Kickstarter campaigns and friends‑and‑family funding** that demand is real, not just theoretical.
Details of **unit economics**: gross margins, membership revenue, repeat purchase behavior, and customer acquisition costs for the marketplace.
Founding team’s experience (including Michael Ferchak’s prior entrepreneurial background) and capability to manage a brand, supply chain, and e‑commerce platform at scale.
Path from the initial **$3M seed** to subsequent institutional rounds (e.g., L Catterton’s $15M investment) and milestones achieved in between.

Risks that stand out

The direct‑to‑consumer essentials market is competitive, and larger retailers or well‑funded DTC brands could replicate a minimalist private‑label concept, pressuring margins and member growth.
Reliance on a **membership model** introduces churn risk; if customers do not perceive enough ongoing value, membership renewal rates may fall, hurting lifetime value.
Supply chain complexities in managing a broad assortment of private‑label products (including food and drink) could create quality, compliance, or working‑capital challenges as the company scales.
Crowdfunding and early‑stage momentum do not always translate into sustainable, profitable growth; there is execution risk between early validation and long‑term financial performance.

Questions this deck invites

What are the detailed unit economics of a typical Public Goods customer (membership fee, order frequency, average order value, gross margin, and payback period)?
How exactly does Public Goods source, manufacture, and quality‑control its private‑label products, and what portion of the margin improvement comes from supply chain changes versus brand and packaging simplification?
What traction metrics (revenue, active members, retention, churn, contribution margin) were in place at the time of the $3M seed round, and how did they change following the Kickstarter campaigns?
How defensible is the model against other DTC brands and larger retailers that could launch similar minimalist private‑label lines—are there meaningful moats in brand, community, data, or supply chain?
How has the product roadmap evolved since the seed (especially expansion into food and drink), and what have been the operational challenges and capital needs associated with that expansion?

What founders can take from the Public Goods deck

A **focused, minimalist narrative** around a clear pain point—in this case, the hidden costs and complexity of traditional retail—can be compelling enough to raise a significant seed round when paired with a simple, understandable alternative model.
Demonstrated **consumer validation through Kickstarter** and other pre‑VC funding can materially strengthen a seed‑stage pitch, especially for consumer products and marketplaces.
Explicitly connecting a **membership model** to predictable revenue and customer lifetime value is attractive to investors, but it still requires clear unit economics; a visually sparse deck must be supported by strong verbal and data-driven explanation in the meeting.
Showing how new capital will unlock **specific product and category expansions** (e.g., into food and drink) helps investors see a path from a niche offering to a broader platform.
Positioning against “hidden costs” and inefficiencies in an incumbent industry can frame a startup as a structural improvement, but the pitch is stronger when it includes **quantitative comparisons** instead of remaining conceptual.
A relatively lean seed deck can work when the company’s story is already de‑risked by prior **friends-and-family and crowdfunding rounds**, allowing the slides to focus on the model and vision rather than basic validation.

Public Goods pitch deck: common questions

What does Public Goods do?

Public Goods is a **membership-based direct-to-consumer brand** that sells basic necessities—household goods, personal care items, and later food and drink—under its own label via an online marketplace. The company positions itself as a simpler, more transparent alternative to traditional retail by offering a limited assortment of curated, “good enough” essentials at lower prices through an annual membership.

How much did Public Goods raise with this pitch deck, and who invested?

Public Goods raised a **$3M seed round in September 2018**, which is the round associated with this 14‑slide pitch deck. The round was **led by Yes VC**, with participation from **Listen Ventures, Day One Ventures, and existing investors**. This financing brought total capital raised at that time to **more than $4M**.

Who founded Public Goods and when was it started?

Public Goods was **founded in 2016** and is headquartered in **New York, NY**. Co‑founder **Michael Ferchak** is identified in later company profiles, with prior experience founding Fusion Glassworks and a BE in Engineering from Dartmouth’s Thayer School. The brand evolved out of an earlier company called Morgans, which was rebranded as Public Goods in 2017 after additional seed investment.

What was the purpose of Public Goods’ $3M seed round?

The $3M seed round was used to **expand Public Goods’ product categories**, especially **food and drink**, and to scale the membership-based marketplace. At the time of the seed, sales of household and personal care products were reported as growing rapidly, and the company intended to leverage the new capital to broaden its assortment while maintaining its minimalist, single-brand approach.

What happened to Public Goods after this seed round?

After the $3M seed, Public Goods went on to raise **additional capital**, including a **$15M investment from L Catterton** that significantly increased its funding base. Various trackers report total funding in the high teens to around **$18–20M** over multiple rounds. The company also continued to use **Kickstarter campaigns** both before and after the seed, raising hundreds of thousands of dollars and further validating consumer demand for its model.