Executive Summary
Lily & Laurent Montreal is a five-month-old Shopify fashion brand operating in the Canadian market with an on-demand fulfillment model through the supplier DayOne. Though the business boasts over $185K in revenue and a reported $42K in profit within a short timeframe, several red flags regarding brand reputation, fulfillment integrity, and sustainability of revenue streams require serious consideration.
While the low asking price, automated operations, and scalable model may appear attractive to acquisition-driven investors, trust and product quality issues—backed by multiple 1-star public reviews—pose critical brand equity and legal risks.
This report explores the business's website performance, marketing efforts, financial health, customer relationships, and operational model, with a final assessment of acquisition viability.
Website Performance & Business Metrics
Website Speed
Tested performance showed acceptable load times on desktop, with mobile slightly lagging.
Shopify optimization is basic, no advanced caching or compressed assets in place.
Product Variation & SKUs
Limited range focused on outerwear and seasonal fashion.
Lack of genuine product depth; many listings appear to be generic dropshipped styles, with inconsistent branding and duplicated imagery.
AOV (Average Order Value) & LTV
Estimated AOV appears in the range of $40–$60 based on revenue and order estimates.
No verifiable LTV due to short business lifespan and minimal evidence of brand loyalty.
Repeat Customer Rate
Not disclosed. Based on sentiment and review data, repeat purchases are likely low.
Conversion Rate
Not explicitly shared; based on average Shopify data and ad spend model, assumed to be ~1.5–2.5%.
Website Design & UX
Clean, minimal Shopify storefront with attractive visuals.
However, product pages lack trust-building features like customer reviews, return policy transparency, or detailed sizing/quality information.
Brand Positioning & Customer Sentiment
Site claims ethical, eco-friendly Canadian-made fashion — yet all verified reviews refute these claims.
TrustPilot reviews are alarming: 10 reviews, all 1-star, citing scam, misleading marketing, poor material quality, no refunds, and Chinese-origin goods without labeling.
Severe disconnect between brand promise and customer experience.
Marketing & Efficiency
Marketing is heavily reliant on Facebook ads; early revenue spikes were driven by paid traffic with low retention.
No visible SEO strategy or organic content marketing in place.
Customer Acquisition Cost (CAC) & Scalability
Profit margin (~23%) implies a moderate CAC, though not explicitly disclosed.
CAC likely increasing over time as negative sentiment impacts ad effectiveness and customer trust.
Product Offering & Marketing Angle
Brand leans on “eco-friendly,” “Canadian-made,” and “minimalist” values — none of which are substantiated.
Repositioning would require complete rebranding or honesty-focused storytelling, potentially adding cost and complexity.
Key Concerns
Customer trust is critically damaged.
No proprietary product or IP.
Supplier-based model lacks uniqueness.
Finances
Month | Revenue | Profit | Notes |
December | $22,300 | $11,473 | High profit margin, early push |
January | $36,471 | $6,326 | Revenue up, profit down |
February | $71,851 | $18,182 | Strongest month so far |
March | $54,770 | $6,896 | Revenue decline, margin shrinks |
Inconsistency in profit vs. revenue suggests inefficient ad spend or high refund/chargeback rates.
Margin volatility is concerning. February’s spike not sustained.
Profit multiple of 0.7x and revenue multiple of 0.2x are unusually low, often reflecting seller urgency or underlying instability.
Marketing (Paid & Organic)
Paid Marketing
Facebook Ads primary traffic source.
No mention of ROI on ad spend or ROAS.
No TikTok, Google Shopping, or influencer collaboration noted—despite recommendation in seller commentary.
Organic Marketing
Weak or nonexistent.
No blog, UGC, SEO effort, or email automation mentioned.
Instagram and social platforms are minimally active; follower engagement is low.
Branding & Assets
Brand positioning inconsistent with actual product and customer experience.
Visuals look appealing but lack authenticity.
Operational Efficiency
Fulfillment & Inventory
Dropshipping via DayOne supplier (automated).
No warehousing or stock held — positive for cash flow, negative for quality control.
Team & Management
Small outsourced team handled:
Product sourcing
Ad management
Customer service
PayPal disputes
Scalability
Operational structure supports scale, but brand reputation hinders it.
Automated fulfillment can be leveraged if quality can be verified or improved.
Customer Data & Relationships
Email List: 2,281+ contacts — unclear how engaged or segmented.
Customer Feedback: Extremely negative. Refunds, shipping, and trust issues dominate reviews.
No CRM strategy or loyalty building in place.
No UGC, reviews, referrals, or engagement loops driving repeat purchases.
Legal & Compliance Due Diligence
False Advertising: Claimed eco-friendly and Canadian origin not supported.
Consumer Protection Risk: Customers cite misleading marketing and inability to get refunds.
Lack of clear returns/refunds terms visible on-site.
Intellectual Property: No original product designs or proprietary branding.
Potential Chargeback Liability: High likelihood based on complaints.
Key Observations & Recommendations
Opportunities
Low acquisition price may present a value buy for an experienced operator willing to reposition the brand or rebrand entirely.
Existing infrastructure and customer list can be recycled under a more honest, quality-first model.
Could pivot to a sustainable fashion aggregator or curated marketplace.
Email list and Facebook ad account offer some reusable digital assets.
Challenges & Risks
Reputation Damage: TrustPilot scores are nearly fatal. Brand may need to be scrapped or renamed.
Product Quality & Refund Complaints are severe and consistent.
No verifiable LTV or retention model.
Revenue volatility suggests no stable funnel or predictable acquisition strategy.
Legal vulnerability due to deceptive marketing.
Final Thoughts
This business presents a high-risk, low-certainty acquisition. While the infrastructure is solid and revenue has shown early potential, the damage to brand reputation—combined with non-differentiated products and inconsistent profits—makes this an unattractive purchase unless the buyer plans a total rebrand and rework of supply chain standards.
We strongly recommend engaging with the seller to clarify:
Verified CAC, refund, and chargeback data
Customer acquisition funnel performance (Facebook ROAS)
Reasons for negative reviews and plans (if any) to address them
Actual revenue/profit since March
Why they haven’t addressed severe brand criticism
If you’re looking for a quick-flip or semi-passive asset, this is not it.
However, if your client has strong digital branding, creative, and supply chain resources, this may serve as a turnaround opportunity, provided it’s priced appropriately below intrinsic value.
