Hi, everyone. Welcome. We're really glad to introduce you to 1stDibs.com. This is David Rosenblatt, CEO, and over here we have Bradford Shellhammer, CPO and CMO. I've Googled them both, and they have incredibly impressive resumes. You should take a look. This guy's really interesting. Thank you. He is very interesting. Much more interesting than I am, actually. So who is 1stDibs? 1stDibs is the world's leading curated online marketplace for luxury one-of-a-kind items. Our mission, as the slide says here, is to enrich lives with extraordinary design. We've been doing this for over 25 years. Just to kind of give you a feel for how we do it, what we've done, our average order value is a little bit under $3,000, which is about 6x higher than the average order value of other marketplaces that are typically regarded as luxury. We've sold over $3.3 billion worth of product to over 1.2 million customers in the time that we've been an e-commerce platform, which is something that I'll get to in a minute. But I think probably the best way to give those of you who don't have a feel for kind of where the brand or the brand positioning that we occupy, is to tell you a quick story, one of my favorites, there are many actually, about this company. My background is tech, non-luxury, and actually before 1stDibs, non-consumer as well. So I joined 1stDibs, and I was sitting in my office one day, and I looked down and I saw that I got an email from Diane von Fürstenberg, the famous fashion designer, and she asked me to have lunch. So I responded and I said, "I'm sure that this wasn't intended for me." There are a lot of sort of variants of David Rosenblatt, and I get emails for all of them all the time. She said, "No, I know exactly who you are," and I do in fact. It was intended for you. "Why don't you come over," our office was pretty close by in New York, "and let's have lunch." I did, and I showed up at the appointed time, and when I got there, I asked her, "So why did you want to have lunch with me?" She said she had a line, which I think, again, I've always remembered, and I think captures the customer perception of 1stDibs' uniqueness in a way that's probably better than I could do myself, which is she said, "Other than my own, there are only two websites that I truly love. One is Amazon and the other is 1stDibs. I've met the guy who's doing Amazon, and I just wanted to meet the guy who's doing 1stDibs." Okay, I'll take being in that company. It is indicative of what we represent to people who truly care and love luxury design. Okay. Our history. Like I mentioned, we're 26 years old. We were founded in the Paris Flea Market in 2000, which is the neighborhood in Paris, the sort of design district, for lack of a better word, in Paris. One could say the whole city is a design district. This is the district that's focused on the type of product that this business was launched to put online. I'm not the founder. The founder, Michael Bruno, moved the company to New York shortly after founding it in Paris. For its first 10 years, the business was run in a way that was very similar to craigslist, meaning it was a listings platform. He recruited the best sellers of antique and vintage furniture, mostly in the U.S. Those sellers listed items on the marketplace, but there was no e-commerce. The only way to buy was to call or email the seller and then negotiate a transaction off-platform. In 2011, 1stDibs and Michael raised its initial venture round from Benchmark Capital, the Silicon Valley investors. I had a prior relationship with Benchmark, I lived in New York, and I came in as part of that investment, and I've been here ever since. We've had really three primary strategic thrusts since then, which at the highest level still are relevant and kind of define how we think about who we are. Number one was to transactionalize the marketplace. Like I mentioned, we had been craigslist. One way to think about it is we turned craigslist into eBay. We're now a fully end-to-end, e-commerce, online, pure-play marketplace. The second was, at the time that I joined, despite the fact that the company had been founded in Paris, 95% of our supply and 90% of our demand was U.S. only. The market that we operate in is fundamentally a global marketplace. If you're interested in the best design in the world, you don't care where it happens to sit. Number two was to globalize the business. Number three was to expand the business from the vintage and antique furniture category, which was the only product that we had on the marketplace, into adjacent categories that could benefit from the brand that we had created as a byproduct of our first-mover status in vintage and luxury design. Today, that still defines again, at the highest level, how we think about who we are. We went public in June of 2021. That was at the peak, unfortunately, of the real estate market. Since then, the market has been on a decline and we declined with it. GMV declined for a number of years. For much of that time, we have been adjusted EBITDA negative. We have corrected now both of those things. Our first priority was to get to breakeven. We got to adjusted EBITDA breakeven in Q4 last year, and at the midpoint of guidance for this quarter, it will have been our fourth quarter in a row of adjusted EBITDA breakeven. So we are now profitable on that basis. The second priority has been to restore growth. There, too, we are a little bit ahead of schedule. We had planned to get to growth positive, and I will explain why in a few slides. In Q4 of this year, we got there two quarters earlier than planned. In Q2, we grew at 7% with an adjusted EBITDA margin of 6%. At the midpoint of guidance, again, we will grow in Q3, and that is comping a significant cutback in paid. The comps just get easier after that, beginning in Q4. Again, I will explain that in a couple of slides. What is the definition of the business? We are, in many respects, a classic example of a two-sided network effect marketplace. The supply side is about 6,000 vetted professional sellers of, as I said, luxury furniture, jewelry, art, and some fashion. The difference here between us and many other marketplaces is twofold on the supply side. One is our sellers are businesses. They are not individuals, so we are not a so-called C2C or consumer-to-consumer marketplace. Our sellers are all professional sellers. The second is they are all vetted. It is very difficult to become a seller on 1stDibs. You have to apply, you have to submit photographs. We check your business records, which fairs and other venues you have sold through. We obviously evaluate the inventory and so on, and you only get on the marketplace if you check out on all of those dimensions. One of the things that I think is an interesting proof point of the benefit of that is that our combined fraud and return rate is less than 5% across all orders. If you compare that to, say, the average across luxury fashion marketplaces, it is roughly for them, roughly in the 30% zip code. The reason why that is lower, there are a bunch of reasons, but the primary reason is you do not get on the marketplace unless you are really good, and there is less reason to return items from sellers like that. The demand side consists of two types of buyers. 70% of our demand is from consumers, mostly higher net worth, mostly female, mostly older. The balance, 30% of our demand, comes from professional buyers, interior designers, who are to this market what, for example, ad agencies are to the media market in the sense that they buy for a living, they are high repeat purchasers, they tend to be higher average order value buyers, and most of all, they have a significant and deep appreciation for the quality and the differentiation of our assortment. We, of course, record GMV as GMV, gross merchandise value of all products that we sell. Our revenue model is a combination subscription fees that we charge sellers as well as commissions. On a combined basis, our take rate is about 25%. That is commissions, subscription fees, and we do sell some advertising as well, though that is a relatively small percent of the take rate. Did I just go backwards? I did. Okay. I have mentioned a bunch of these numbers, and I will just call out a few that I think are relevant for understanding the business. I would say, actually, maybe even the most important one here is the zero. We have $0 of owned inventory, meaning we are completely asset light. We never touch the product. Our sellers are responsible for fulfillment. We do create shipping programs that leverage our scale as an aggregator of many sellers, and we allow our sellers and buyers to benefit from both the kind of economics and the service levels that go with that. But we ourselves are not responsible for the physical fulfillment of these items. I mentioned our average order value, which is $2,850. Our median order value is $1,500, meaning not everything we sell is incredibly expensive by the standards of this marketplace. We have $10 billion of stock value, meaning the face value of all the product on the marketplace is $10 billion, versus the $365 million that we are selling each year. Why the difference? I think part of it is just inherently there is a longer sales cycle in this market than there is when you are selling commoditized products like batteries and so on. On the other hand, we feel like there is substantial headroom to improve the so-called conversion rate, the percentage of visitors that convert into buyers as well, even without growing that $10 billion of stock value. So while there is a significant opportunity to expand the amount of supply that is on the marketplace, we are not dependent on that in order to be able to sustain our GMV growth. Okay. I mentioned that at the inception of the company and for over a decade, we were all furniture all the time. The basic idea, again, was to take the substantial brand and equity value of our brand that we generated as a byproduct of the fact that we had the best assortment in luxury design and kind of amortize or apply that to other categories that could benefit from that same level of trust. I think in that respect, jewelry is a sort of interesting example. Jewelry is our second biggest market, or second biggest category, rather. It is far and away our largest market that we operate in. If you think about it, there is no pure- play incumbent jewelry luxury marketplace on the internet, right? There is no marketplace version of Tiffany's or so on. Despite the fact that jewelry is very easy to ship, very easy to return, can be bought at many different price points, is relevant to almost all women in the world, and many men. It includes watches as well. These are big markets. They are very e-commerce friendly. Yet there is no incumbent marketplace. One of the questions I have always asked myself in the time that I have been at 1stDibs is why is that the case? I think that is because no other company has the trust that is required to be able to transact at the price points that are most common in the jewelry industry. There are marketplaces that traffic in much lower priced jewelry items than we have, but there really is not one at scale that operates at the level that we operate at. Again, I mention that because I think it is a perfect example of the phenomenon that I am talking about. We also operate in the art market. There is a high degree of complementarity between art and design. We also think there is opportunity in parts, not all, but parts of the luxury fashion market as well. This gives you, I think, a more concrete sense for the types of products that we sell. I do not know, probably the one that I would call out is the one in the middle, the Norman Rockwell, which we happened to sell last quarter for $1.3 million. What was amazing about that order was that it was from a first-time buyer. Somebody showed up at 1stDibs, they had never bought from us before, they found this $1.3 million Rockwell, and they bought it sight unseen. From a customer, from a vendor, and from his point of view, with whom he did not have a relationship, right? Again, I think that sort of speaks to just the really compelling level of trust that our brand occupies in the mind of the buyer, even those who have not actually bought from us, which was the case in this example. The other products here, I think, again, give you a feel for what we market that others do not. This is not product that you are likely to see on almost any other mainstream marketplace. Facebook Marketplace, eBay, Etsy, and so on all operate at a much lower price point level than we do. Bradford and my background is solidly in tech. Our belief is that the best companies in every category are tech companies. The best tech companies are product driven, full stop. That is the best and most sustainable and also most profitable way to generate growth through product enhancements rather than through extensive advertising. We do advertise, but the majority of our growth is driven by product. Our contribution margin is about 65%, which is, I think, a good proof point of that. What are we focused on? We are really focused on just the fundamentals of the buyer and seller experience and making that as good as possible. Bradford started last August, and this roadmap is really his. It falls into four main categories. Discovery, which is finding things on the marketplace, right? We have 2 million items. It is not always that easy to find stuff. In many cases, buyers do not even know what they are looking for. They just want something that looks great in their living room or their bedroom or their office or whatever. The primary drivers of discovery, or the primary components of discovery, are search and personalization. Off of 1stDibs, a kind of influencer network, which we call 1stDibs Tastemakers, to broaden the appeal of our marketplace beyond our historical core categories. That's especially important, I think, in a world where search and just Google and the user experience of finding things through Google is changing in really fundamental ways and becoming a much less reliable way to acquire new users than through other channels like Instagram, TikTok, social platforms that we all know and love. Pricing, which we're in the process of expanding to trust more broadly. I think the problem this solves is that customers tend not to know what items are worth or what they should be worth because they're one of a kind. It's bigger than that. It's also understanding and appreciating the quality of the sellers and of the vetting that we do, and on our side, making that checkout process as seamless and as frictionless as possible, which in this market, again, we're not selling batteries, right? There's a lot there that doesn't exist in other markets. One small example of that is over half of our sales are the result of negotiated kind of discussions and exchanges between buyer and seller. When was the last time you negotiated for anything on Amazon, right? It's not an e-commerce experience that people find, or at least the broader market finds intuitively obvious. The burden is on us. It's quite powerful, but the burden is on us to kind of describe the power of that to buyers, the fact that they can actually talk to the seller and they can negotiate with the seller and make that a kind of unforbidding, inviting experience. Shipping. I think the challenges with shipping are obvious. It's not that different than the challenges with shipping in other markets, except there are no solutions yet in this market. We're developing them. Our goals there are relatively straightforward, which are to make shipping prices kind of universally understandable before checkout, meaning you don't have to go through a whole kind of bespoke process to figure out what it's going to cost to ship something from point A to point B. Have those costs be as low as possible, have them be as transparent in terms of tracking as possible, and then to make sure that the item actually gets to the buyer as quickly as possible. All of those are kind of table stakes in other markets. They don't exist in this market. Lastly, when you're selling $1.3 million works of art, you can offer Amazon or eBay-like levels of service. Not that their service levels are low, but it's really more a different quality of service. You need to give people the ability to talk to somebody while not sacrificing triple nines level of service on some of the core deliverables like logistics and all of that. These four are really the core focus of our product management strategy. And really ultimately of our growth strategy, because as I mentioned, our strategy is to grow by product enhancements rather than only by marketing. The last thing I will say on this is probably the best example of our kind of nature as a product-driven technology company is just our distribution of headcount. Roughly half of our folks work in product and engineering. Which again, very different from, I do not know, a large auction house or a large retailer business like that. I mentioned some of these advantages, some of these assets. Our TAM is large, over $100 billion if you add up the sales opportunity in each of the four major categories that we are in. We really are, I think, unique in the sense that we offer a trusted platform that others do not. One way I have always thought of thinking about this is, when you think about the kind of e-commerce races in different markets, it is pretty clear that the race for the $50 order is over and Amazon and potentially Walmart have won that. The race for the $5,000 order is not over yet, and I believe that we have a right to win there. We are, again, classic marketplace business with all the benefits that come with that, including high degrees of financial and operating leverage, as well as increasing returns of scale and all of those MBA terms that sound like jargon, but they are true. And we and our customers both benefit from that. We are highly scalable, so we worked really hard to get to adjusted EBITDA breakeven in Q4. As we resume growth, we will not have to resume headcount growth beyond the minimal that is required to handle higher volumes. That plus the fact that we have a low dependence on paid advertising is what allows us to have the financial and operating leverage that we benefit from today. The last thing I would say, and probably most interesting given just sort of where people's heads are, for good reason today, every single thing that we do is now we are going to be able to do 10x better because of AI. So all of these problems existed before, but in each of those areas, when we think about our major product enhancements, some of the things that allowed us to get to growth a couple quarters earlier than we had planned, they are all driven by AI. Just as examples, discovery, personalization is driven. We just rolled out a personalization algorithm that has a very positive effect on the homepage. We just this week are rolling it out to our email marketing. That is an AI, that is a machine learning model. On pricing, one of the ways that we can now scalably ensure that our sellers are complying with our price parity policy is via a machine learning model. Shipping, we used to only be able to pre-quote 60%-65% of items on the marketplace. That is now at 95% because we use a machine learning model to be able to accurately predict what it is going to cost to ship otherwise hard to quote items from point A to point B. Service, we are automating our kind of base level, lowest level of customer service inquiries via an AI model, which then frees up our service folks to support buyers of $1.4 million Norman Rockwells. Okay, financials. I think I am just going to do one slide on financials. We are public. All the data is out there. I am happy to answer any questions to the extent you have them. In Q2, we did, you can see the numbers here, $96 million of GMV, $23 million and change of revenue, and importantly, $1.3 million of EBITDA. I think what is interesting to me here, much less than the absolute numbers, is the trend line. Starting with the EBITDA set of charts on the right. We worked very hard. It took us four years to get to this point of being adjusted EBITDA positive as a public company, and we are going to stay there. The next goal, as I mentioned, if you move to the left, is to have a kind of similar or achieve a similar curve on GMV and then revenue. That is going to be a function, in the first instance, of these product enhancements made easier over the next couple of quarters, beginning in Q4, by comping a pretty substantial cutback in paid spend that we undertook in Q4 last year. All of this, by the way, is without a recovery in the real estate market. When that happens, and it will happen, this is not a market that is clearly in secular decline, it is a cyclical problem. I cannot call, none of us can call when that is going to happen, but it will. Then that will add a second tailwind to our top-line growth. Okay. That is who we are. Any questions? [inaudible] We spend much less than most other marketplaces, which I think is the key point. As I mentioned, in Q4 last year, we cut paid advertising by 50%. That is part of the reason why our GMV declined in Q4 and in Q1. Again, we had planned to resume GMV growth in Q4. We were actually able to get there in Q2, largely as a result of the product enhancements that I discussed. What do we spend it on? Our largest source is Google. Second largest is Meta, which is basically Instagram. [inaudible] Well, we only spend money on advertising that is effective. So we measure all of our ad spend on a kind of strict LTV basis. And we don't spend a dollar that's below our return threshold. Yeah. First time hearing the story, but I know you originated in flea market in Paris. Yeah. Are you [inaudible] new product and wholesaling, retailing them? [inaudible] Tell me— Yeah. [inaudible] Yeah, no, it is a good question. Even though it is called a flea market, it is much fancier than that because it is in Paris. But the Paris Flea Market is the design district in Paris that specializes in high-end secondary market, I guess, is the easiest way to call it, furniture. If you were to walk into the nicest apartments in Paris and New York, London, most of what you would say, "Oh, wow, that is beautiful," is product that originates from the Paris Flea Market or sellers similar to those who specialize there. Putting that marketplace online was the original business model. For the first 10 years, it was the only assortment that we had. So 100% of what we sold was high-end vintage, meaning secondary market or antique furniture. I think the kind of opportunity that we all felt was there was to take the brand that we generated as a byproduct of specializing in this very high-quality design, and using that as a way to get into other categories like jewelry, like new artisanal furniture, and fashion and so on, art, that would benefit from the strength of that brand. Today, 50% of our GMV is that original category of secondary market luxury design. The balance is both secondary market and new product in the categories that I mentioned: furniture, jewelry, art, and fashion. [inaudible] to get some attestation from an expert in the field, or is that the seller's responsibility? Yeah. I would say, for probably 99% of what we sell, we do not seek attestation or confirmation of the authenticity of the item beyond that which is already on the marketplace and provided by the seller. That's the benefit of having a vetted marketplace. We vet our sellers once, and then we do not vet, for the most part, at the item level beyond that. Which is helpful for our economics. In cases like that, we've had [six $1+ million orders] in the time since we introduced e-commerce. In those cases, the buyer typically does ask for an additional attestation, and we will work with the seller. The seller is ultimately the one that has to provide it. We'll work with the seller to provide that. But again, in 99% of the orders that we support, it's not asked for, it's not needed. [inaudible] Correct. [inaudible] Yeah. So they do the work, but we help in a number of ways. One is just, for example, we have technology that can automatically take a picture of a vase and put it against a white background where the seller may have just taken the picture of the vase in his workshop or something like that. So we do employ technology to improve the appearance of the imagery or to improve the quality of the imagery. But for the most part, our sellers do the work. The second way that we help is we give sellers guidelines. We know because of our scale what's likely to work for the buyer, and we tell the seller, and we create an incentive system where the better the seller represents the item, both in terms of the visual imagery, but also in terms of the item description and the accuracy of dimensions and so on. The more good things happen to the seller, the more prominence we give the item and so on. Have you attracted all the sellers you can? [inaudible] Yeah. I think, if you think about it in terms of There are two ways to think about it, right? What percent of our TAM on the supply side do we have in terms of number of sellers, and what percent do we have in terms of number of items? I think the answer on both is low. In our historical core category of vintage and antique luxury design, it's high. But again, we have this right to win in adjacent categories like contemporary design, jewelry, both secondary market and primary market art. If you look at it on that basis, especially through a global filter, our share of professional sellers is very low. If in the future we were to expand the supply side to include consumers, otherwise known as C2C, it obviously becomes infinitesimally low, right? Because there are so many more consumers than there are professional sellers. Equally, if you look at it on an item basis, it's also extremely low. Many of those items are in people's homes and closets, and so accessing that would require a C2C model. That's not our current focus, but for the future, it's not off the table either. [inaudible] Actually, we spend very little time and energy to attract sellers. The reason again is because of the network effect. It's sort of universally known within our industry that we have aggregated, certainly for design, meaning furniture, the large majority of qualified buyers. One small example, I have a second home in Connecticut, and I remember when I was talking to Benchmark about potentially joining 1stDibs, I called my interior designer who had helped us with this home, and I asked him, "Hey, Russell, have you ever heard of this company, 1stDibs?" And he said, "If I heard of 1stDibs, 50% of your place in Connecticut was sourced on 1stDibs." So that speaks to our share and our awareness among the most qualified users. However, the market of people that haven't heard of us is much, much larger, right? That I think is by far the bigger opportunity, and I think there are a lot of things entailed in meeting that opportunity. Part of it is creating an e-commerce experience that has much less friction than ours does today. Part of it is increasing the amount of supply we have and so on. But that opportunity is certainly in front of us and something that we're very consciously going after. Yeah. [inaudible] buyer network out there, is it different in terms of professional versus true [inaudible] Yeah. There are only professional buyers in furniture, right? Interior designers. Outside of that, they're all consumer markets. They're fundamentally different. [inaudible] I guess, how do you think about just the difference in attracting that from a customer standpoint? Yeah. With interior designers, as I mentioned, I'd say we have 95% awareness, so that's not the issue. The issue is just sort of increasing their frequency of purchasing, just similar to many other businesses. On the consumer side, it's much more of an awareness game, and one of the things that Bradford launched soon after starting is our first-ever influencer network. We actually didn't have one. This brand works really well with that. One, it's very visual, and the second is it is influencer based, right? When you think about what you want to buy, you are influenced by others in a way that's not as true in other markets. Then the third thing is that the nature of this market is such that those who can be effective influencers are typically not competed for, right? It's like we're not going for the 25-year-old super hot fashion influencer who lives in, I don't know, wherever, right? Like Soho or something like that. We're going after a much more niche-y audience that has correspondingly higher credibility amongst its audience, but it's just a much less competitive process. Thank you very much.