Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

I think "lifestyle" businesses (I like that term) are structured so much different because there are not that many capital costs to get into it.  No expensive construction equipment, low office costs such as officing out of your home, only a handful of employees. 

As somebody who is currently scaling up I can definitely attest I fall into 847's category #2, except I hope to pass it on to my kids (they will have to buy me out in some form, albeit cheaper than the market would get). 

Yeah, and to an extent the term can be wider. 

I first came across it as a term used to denigrate a business. It was when I was working for a startup that obviously had investors, and the investors had the typical [tech] startup exit strategy that was either IPO or get acquired. Whereas other businesses in the sector basically said: "We have a certain addressable market, we have a business plan that makes us competitive, and we desire to service that market. It's not a robust growth market, so we'll work to keep a defendable market share and a good enough gross margin to pay our owners and our employees." The very IPO/startup minded folks looked at something like a "lifestyle business" as more of a "dead end" business, because it might keep you employed but it'll never make you wildly rich.

That said, these businesses weren't little mom&pop work from home deals. And in many ways, neither is a brewery. It might cost a couple hundred thousand to really get set up to run a small neighborhood brewery. 

The difference is that in brewing, someone who wants to scale and expand gets investors. To lure investors you need an exit strategy for them to get their investment back plus enough profit to justify the risk of investment. If you're looking at brewing as a lifestyle business, you get a loan. To secure a loan you just need a viable business plan that shows you're going to be able to earn enough money to pay back the loan and remain a viable business beyond your loan servicing cost, and collateral for the bank to seize if you screw up too badly. 

They partnered with some transgender “ IT” in an ad campaign. It did not go well.

Got sucked up into the culture war jet engine something fierce. A little like the cancel culture mess of yesteryear. 

I’d wager that almost every business starts off as a lifestyle business. Apple, HP, all sorts of sizes and flavors started in a garage and grew from there. Some of the newer biz gets funded by VC, so they scale up quickly. I won’t pretend to understand how that works.

Bear in mind that I've never started a startup nor tried to secure VC funding, but here is my general idea of how it works in tech... 

• People come up with an idea. Typically it's an idea that they believe to be revolutionary or to be so amazing that it will take the entire world by storm. These are tech types who already know their industry and have some credibility in that industry, so it's not like they're complete unknowns. 
• They convince an "angel investor" to stake them. These are the very earliest of investments, very risky, and usually just enough money to get them off the ground. The business needs seed money to open, and the founders and early employees need income because the startup probably doesn't have any path to generate revenue this early. The payoff for an angel investor is equity in the company, so if it explodes, a small investment can have a massive payoff. 
• They start working on trying to make the idea a reality. Usually this will have various proof of concept points to show that the claims they made about their idea actually looking like they might come true and become a viable product. That said, they probably still haven't sold anything, and don't have anything at a stage that they could sell. If they're failing to meet those PoC targets, then they disappear and go back and get real jobs (or form another startup with a new idea).  
• At this stage they start looking into more traditional VC funding to start scaling up. Unlike the angels, these are bigger funding rounds. They're still risky, but because the initial proof of concept work has been promising there's enough "meat" there to justify the larger investments. 
• These later investments are often denoted by series based on how far they in and how much money they need, i.e. Series A will be when the idea is still in its toddler stage, they might need Series B when it's in its pre-teen phase, and might need to go back again for Series C in order to actually hit market. That said, some companies may actually be earning revenue but aren't profitable, and need the later series to scale up past the break-even point. 
• During the series funding you may hit a point where acquisition looks promising. This is often when a company has intellectual property that's very valuable but it no longer looks like there's a business plan that will allow them to exploit it. In this case the investors may sell to a larger company that wants the IP, knowing they're getting SOME return on their investment but not what they hoped for. 
• If the business gets to a truly successful, then the investors start looking to execute the exit strategy. In some cases this can be an IPO, in some cases this can be an acquisition. 

I don't think a lot of tech "startups" are meant to be lifestyle businesses if someone's trying to engage VC. Usually they need VC because the path to revenue can be years-long, and sometimes the path to profitability even longer. 

In my case, there were no investors. I saved up enough money to go without a paycheck for 2 years and started in 2001. Turns out it was only 6 months without a check, and with the remaining savings I invested more into the business to expand (buy equipment and hire people). The work was coming in, so it made sense.

Then we got 2008-ed. It was really starting over at that point as the company wasn't strong enough to weather that kind of storm yet. I think it is now, 15 years later.

Disney is the king (or maybe I should say queen) of this

Possibly, though slightly different mechanics. 

Interesting story. 

Yes,yes we do 30 pks,not because I'm afflicted with the thirst.But we'll be back eventually so why bother waisting trips so save gas/time/money better for the environment to

Well, with proper planning, you can work around this. Buy (2) 24 packs less often and you're good to go. Beer doesn't last forever in a can, but it lasts plenty long to sit in your fridge an extra week. 

But again, the point isn't actually the maximum packaging of 30 (and wasn't there a 36-can deal on the market way back when?)... The idea is that they want to make as many possible packaging configurations as possible, force the grocery store to carry ALL of them, and then that not only crowds out the room for competitors on the shelves, but it also makes the Bud Light (and Miller Lite and Coors Light) sections of the aisle much larger, much more prominent, and puts "Bud Light" front and center in your cranium. On top of crowding out competitors, it ALSO is a low-key form of advertising. 

That said, even with all this, they're still losing. Because consumers are slowly moving towards beer that tastes like actual beer. 

As the old one goes...

Q: What does American light beer have in common with sex in a canoe?
A: They're both f*****g close to water.