I think it's too early to say. For me the real problem with these companies is VC money seeking VC-sized returns, which often come from getting outsize market power (e.g., the FAANGs).

I think the DTC companies mostly can't build the moats needed to make that kind of money. So I think a reckoning is overdue. But once key players can no longer subsidize each sale, we'll find out for sure where the store-vs-DTC balance is.

My personal guess is that plenty of people will keep buying DTC goods, and that many categories will be more than competitive with brick-and-mortar competitors. So I expect DTC mattresses will be a good business, even if none of the current big players survive the culling.

Opacity and user hostility tends to exist to substantially inflate prices or thwart discounting. Lower prices are sufficient for a DTC entrant to grab share.

Maybe just a little before Casper was founded, I bought a memory foam mattress off of Amazon that was well-reviewed and could be delivered with Prime. It's been a great mattress. That's still an option today -- and at a few hundred dollars cheaper than the main DTCs, I'm not quite sure where they can really provide a ton of additional value.

You have some assurance that you’re buying a consistent product.

Buying a foam mattress on Amazon sounds like inviting some sort of toxic mess of outgassing junk into your bedroom. No thanks.

Yeah I got an "egg crate" mattress topper off of Amazon and had to let that thing sit in my garage for a week before it didn't reek. I can only wonder how much it off gassed after that, but my bedroom has decent ventilation so hopefully I didn't breathe in too many carcinogens.

> Based on the data, I think we can conclude that opacity and user hostility are insufficient criteria for a DTC play.

DTC at a 40% discount from "I can buy it walking into a show room staffed by a dozen salesmen in a Manhattan shopping district" is not enough of a discount. Make a discount 85% of that every damn day and we can talk.