You are right, their pricing isn’t optimal. It might become more competitive, they just need to let Freetrade’s success show them the way.
Freetrade have a better product, but Dabbl have SNA (silly name advantage). everyone knows that Millennials love apps with silly names
The name is actually a big negative for me
I don’t really mind a silly name but dabbl just sounds incredibly half-hearted. Suggests “hey yeah maybe try this investing thing out for a laugh”.
I totally agree. Also it’s very important that the name is easy to remember and/or give a strong association. I think being funny is a plus but not necessary.
For instance Freetrade = trade for free
Revolut ->Revolution (bank and exchange experience)
Or SpaceX, and so on.
Are all brands that you can clearly associate with what is their mission and the name is common enough to be memorable but not common words.
But sometimes even an Apple can do
I don’t really like their marketing campaign… ‘Fancy a Dabbl’
Exactly this but even a step further, advertising like this at sporting events just makes them out to be a gambling company…
Edit: if you didn’t see their stunt this is it
I could be wrong but it does seem like a bit of an opportunistic attempt to ride on the fintech wave but with quite a shallow execution.
Does anyone know if Dabbl is a fully-fledged stockbroker or works with a broker for their trades (like Revolut)? If they are a fully-fledged broker, does that not mean the cost advantage is on pa to Freetrade? That would give them more flexibility in terms of pricing in future to be able to compete with Freetrade, not forgetting they seem to be operational already.
Dabbl Group Limited is an appointed representative of VIBHS Financial Ltd.
They might have ambitions of becoming a broker though.
The CEO/founder Mark Ackred is ex CMC Markets, Head of UK Partners and before that Head of Business Development.
don’t take any of this as advice or endorsement
While they are piggybacking on VIBHS infrastracture, they seem to have a plan to become a full pleged broker within a year or so.
Dont think it has an active community or built a momemtum of following yet despite already operational and all the marketing activities.
The crowdfund will tell amount of interest ppl have in the company but the funding will give it the boost it may need in marketing and biulding out a fully fleged broker.
Any idea about valuations? Also is this the first raise? I have registered interest but still not available on seedrs yet.
It (dabbl) is available to invest on seedrs for whoever pre-registered, and the pre money valuation is 10 million!!!
They’re overfunding. What’s your thoughts on the valuation and offering?
Still waiting for access to pitch deck. £10m (£10,003,161 to be precise ) seems high on face value though…
Edit: A few points from quick scan
- Aiming for 10m customers Globally in 5 years
- Marketing spend to date £0 - I don’t believe this is true, even their sandpaper campaign must have cost a couple of quid
- Followed by mention of an advertising partnership with ITV
- Freetrade mentioned: 27k in their community (most from crowdcube campaign) - actual figure is over 40k
Some more observations:
They have spent a fair amount on the product itself, I expected a very thin layer on top of whatever systems VIBHS Financial Ltd offers. Dabbl also have plans on whitelabelling their own systems and doing B2B. Interesting they’re using Passfort for AML & KYC.
Good to see key team members have invested a fair amount in this round, shows a lot of internal belief in the product.
They view Robinhood, Degiro, Nutmeg, and Freetrade as a Challengers. While they view Dabbl, Bux, and Acorns as Visionaries.
Interesting they think they can get 10 million customers in 5 years, while Robinhood still only has 4 million…
They want people who wouldn’t normally invest, hence the partnerships with National Association of Students, focusing on brand investing, photo search etc. It really is dabbling.
Mentions community but no obvious push to build one like Monzo, Revolut, Freetrade etc have done.
This pitch deck reads like it is old. Makes me wonder if they aimed to get traditional funding originally and then switched based on what Freetrade have achieved with crowdfunding.
IMHO Bux and Dabbl both seem lightweight and are certainly not ‘visionaries’. The Seedrs campaign for Bux didn’t seem a success, it was online for a while and investment dried up, they didn’t raise as much as they would have wanted to (140% funded). They spent a fortune on advertising (including TV) and got 1m+ app downloads which looked good until you see their customer numbers were only had 85k!
I get the impression that Dabbl is concealing the customer numbers in the pack as they’re very low. They state they had 3k on the waitlist before going live (at the time they were saying the first 10k would get early access to a crowdfund) and now elsewhere they mention they have ‘hundreds’ of active investors. I’ll ignore the 10m forecast!
To get the Freetrade valuation of £21m timing-wise (i.e. post raise) they must have known the Freetrade community was much higher than the stated 27k!
The user numbers are apparently sensitive
I’m not sure how you could invest without knowing if there’s any traction…
Seems more like a pathetic reason not to disclose the number which will most likely deter investors from subscribing for shares. I would stay away
He said the same to me. To his credit he’s openly answered my other questions so far which other founders would have declined to answer. Not sure why some founders think user metrics are sensitive though.
What metrics do the Times state in their article?
I have to agree with Mark Ackred. The numbers are sensitive, which is precisely why they are important to investors carrying out due diligence before committing money.
@saf, @Rob14 and @Vlad all raise really good points, and you can’t help but wonder, is crowdfunding a funder of last resort? That doesn’t mean there isn’t potential, but does maybe demonstrate a lack of appetite from more traditional funding sources.
Bit of a wider point here; so of course it’s desirable, essential even to present the business in the best possible light, but erecting a reality distortion field and giving the impression of not being upfront about what amounts to materially important information I think raises a few questions, and only leads to more experienced investors and observers to read between the lines and draw less than positive conclusions wrt to a particular opportunity’s prospects.
I find this particularly problematic where barriers to accessing such opportunities are relatively low, and where accountability is also low. Inexperienced investors might not know the right questions to ask, especially when pitches are wrapped up in hyperbole, and that can be quite dangerous.