- The Weekly D-Briefs
- Posts
- Chomps
Lesson: Most brands scale into profitability. Chomps scaled from it.
I walked past Chomps for a long time. Meat sticks live in a category that hasn't needed to try hard in decades. Slim Jim built the shelf. Jack Link's built the checkout rack. The whole category smelled like gas stations and truck stop regulars. Nobody was reimagining it. Nobody thought they had to.
Pete Maldonado did. He was a personal trainer watching clients fall off their nutrition plans the moment convenience ran out. He needed something portable, clean, and high-protein that didn't read like a processed food label. So he made it. Started in 2012 with $6,500, no investors, no co-packer relationships, no distribution. Just a product he believed in and a category he knew was being built for the wrong person. Seventy percent of meat snack buyers were women. The entire category is marketed to men. That gap wasn't a demographic insight; it was a decade of missed revenue sitting in plain sight. Chomps didn't chase it with a rebrand or a new colorway. They just made a cleaner stick and put it in front of the right person. Grass-fed beef. Zero sugar. No artificial preservatives. No MSG. According to Bloomberg Businessweek, Chomps now produces 2 million sticks a day and still can't fulfill all its orders, turning away new retailers to protect the quality of what's already on the shelf. The brand went from under $50M in 2020 to nearly $1B today without a single venture capital dollar.
The first real break came in 2016, a $1.1M Trader Joe's purchase order that was ten times their annual revenue the year before. Most brands would have sprinted to raise capital and flood distribution. Chomps didn't. They raised just $700K from angels total, kept the SKU count tight, and let the product earn its shelf space before asking for more of it. That restraint is rare. It's also why the margins held.
Where the Real Edge Lives
Ninety percent of Chomps' revenue comes from three SKUs. That's the edge. Not the sourcing, not the certifications, not the influencer strategy, the focus. Most food brands confuse growth with expansion and end up with a bloated portfolio that dilutes the core. Chomps kept the lineup tight while the category around them got noisier. Twenty-four percent of their buyers last year had never purchased a meat snack before. That's not stealing share. That's pulling an entirely new consumer into a category and owning it from the start.
Three Signals That Matter
Signal 1 - Founder/Operator Takeaway
They built profitability before they built scale. That sequencing is almost impossible to find in CPG right now. Most brands burn cash to buy distribution and figure out the unit economics later. Chomps proved the model worked at a small scale before asking it to work at a large scale. That's not a growth strategy. That's a survival instinct that turned into a competitive advantage.
Signal 2 - Consumer Insight
The buyer Chomps built for wasn't looking for a meat snack. She was looking for a protein option that fit how she actually eats, clean, portable, no label guilt. Chomps happened to be a stick. The format was secondary. The trust was primary. That's a harder position to compete against than any flavor innovation or price cut.
Signal 3 - Investor/Market Lens
161% year-over-year growth, bootstrapped, nearly $1B in revenue, and currently building a second dedicated manufacturing facility opening in 2027. The constraint isn't demand; they're turning it away. The constraint is production. Brands that can't keep up with their own demand don't have a market problem. They have an infrastructure problem. That's a much better problem to have.
That's my read on it from actually building in the CPG space.
Stick around. I’m just warming up.
Subscribe here for more → The Weekly D-Briefs (or forward this to someone building something meaningful)