root
6ac8a185ef
- demo-case-harvestlink.md + v2: fictional staged proposals for product-marketing video (no PII) - CONTRACT.md: subscription model / contact form / receipt fixes technical contract (read-only analysis 2026-08-19) - portal/index.html + ops-portal/: customer portal + ops portal single-file builds - .gitignore: demo-creds*.txt excluded
70 lines
3.7 KiB
Markdown
70 lines
3.7 KiB
Markdown
# VerdictTank Demo Case: HarvestLink (Revised)
|
|
|
|
Revised after panel feedback. Same fictional company; changes are real responses to the
|
|
first review's fatal flaws: corrected market sizing, added pilot unit economics, a worked
|
|
pricing waterfall, a compliance plan, and a reframed Sacramento-only ask.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## HarvestLink: Direct Farm-to-Restaurant Sourcing
|
|
|
|
### The Problem
|
|
Independent restaurants lose roughly 30% of their produce spend to spoilage and distributor
|
|
markup. Small and mid-size farms have no efficient channel to reach restaurants directly, so
|
|
they sell through aggregators that take the margin.
|
|
|
|
### The Solution
|
|
HarvestLink is a marketplace and logistics platform connecting local farms directly to
|
|
independent restaurants. Restaurants order through a mobile app; farms fulfill through a shared
|
|
cold-chain delivery network. Built-in demand forecasting tells farms what to plant and
|
|
restaurants what to order, cutting waste on both sides.
|
|
|
|
### Market (corrected)
|
|
US independent restaurants spend an estimated $28 billion a year on fresh produce. Our three
|
|
launch metros (Sacramento, Austin, Portland) hold roughly 7.3 million people, about 2.2% of the
|
|
US population, which implies a served market near $620 million, not the $1.9 billion we
|
|
previously stated. Bottom-up check: about 4,800 independent restaurants across the three metros
|
|
at an average $130,000 a year in produce spend lands on the same ~$620 million figure.
|
|
|
|
### Business Model (with pricing waterfall)
|
|
8% take rate on marketplace transactions plus a $99/month restaurant subscription after a
|
|
60-day free trial. Farms sell at a 12-18% premium over their farm-gate wholesale price, while
|
|
restaurants still pay less than distributor pricing.
|
|
|
|
Worked waterfall on a $3,000/month produce basket:
|
|
- Distributor today: $2,308 wholesale x 30% markup = $3,000.
|
|
- HarvestLink: $2,308 wholesale x 12% farm premium = $2,585, plus 8% take = $2,792.
|
|
- Restaurant pays $2,792, saving $208/month before the $99 subscription; net ~$109/month after.
|
|
|
|
### Traction and Unit Economics (Sacramento pilot, actual)
|
|
12 farms and 9 restaurants live. $18,400 GMV in three months, 71% repeat order rate. Two
|
|
restaurants churned over delivery windows.
|
|
- Average order value: $240.
|
|
- Order frequency: 2.8 orders per restaurant per month.
|
|
- GMV per restaurant: $681/month.
|
|
- Take revenue: 8% x $18,400 = $1,472 for the quarter; subscription is $0 during trials.
|
|
- Delivery: shared cold-chain routes at $28/stop today. Take revenue alone ($19/stop) does not
|
|
cover delivery; the $99 subscription is what makes a route contribution-positive. Route
|
|
break-even is roughly 45-60 restaurants per route at current AOV and frequency. We are at 9,
|
|
so the plan is Sacramento-only density before any expansion.
|
|
|
|
### Compliance Plan
|
|
PACA license, FSMA/cold-chain HACCP food-safety procedures, cargo and liability insurance,
|
|
written supplier and restaurant terms, and a recall procedure before scaling beyond the pilot.
|
|
Multistate compliance is deferred: we are Sacramento-only for this round, so California-only
|
|
compliance applies.
|
|
|
|
### Team and Hiring
|
|
Founder with seven years in restaurant operations and supply chain at a regional chain, plus one
|
|
contract engineer. This round funds a full-time logistics/operations lead and a sales hire;
|
|
both are prerequisites before any second-city launch.
|
|
|
|
### The Ask
|
|
$250,000 to run a 12-month Sacramento-only proof: grow 9 to 60 restaurants, hire the
|
|
logistics and sales leads, lock in a cold-chain partner, and reach route-level contribution
|
|
breakeven. Austin and Portland are deferred until Sacramento breakeven is proven.
|
|
|
|
### Use of Funds
|
|
45% logistics and delivery network, 30% sales and onboarding, 15% engineering, 10% compliance
|
|
and operations.
|