Every day more than 95 million photos are shared to Instagram. It's a juggernaut in the field of social networks, with more than 800 million monthly active users.

So it's noteworthy that an Instagram alternative called VSCO has surpassed one million paid users for VSCO X, its subscription service launched in early 2017.

The app's rapid trajectory makes it one of the fastest growing subscription-based businesses in the world, and has helped grow VSCO's revenue 91% year over year in 2017. It's on track to increase revenue 100% this year, according to the company.

A subscription to VSCO X, which unlocks exclusive photo-editing tools and tutorials, costs $19.99 a year. That might not sound like much, but consider that there are dozens of free apps like it, and Instagram has its own suite of filters and tools that let users play with their photos and share with family and friends without ever having to leave the app.

Advertisement

As it turns out, it's Generation Z that's helping VSCO X rocket up the charts.

People under the age of 25 make up nearly 75% of all VSCO users, with Generation Z accounting for the largest segment of paid customers on VSCO X, according to the company. The fastest growing group of VSCO users are between the ages of 13 and 17.

Courtesy of VSCO

There was a period of time when this surprised founder and CEO Joel Flory, a former wedding photographer who started the company in 2011 with an art-director friend.

"We were building [the product] for ourselves and realized that we no longer were the majority of users on VSCO," Flory told Business Insider at the startup's headquarters in Oakland.

Advertisement

From the beginning, VSCO set itself apart from rival photo apps and social networks by doing away with "vanity metrics," such as likes, comments, and follower counts. There are no ads or leadersboard, but instead, a feed of carefully curated content.

"For us, the only thing we wanted to show with the photo is the person who made it. That's really what we wanted it to be about," Flory said.

VSCO's app interface does away with "vanity metrics," such as likes, comments, and follower counts. Shayanne Gal/Business Insider

According to Flory, this focus on the creator really resonated with Generation Z. With the launch of a subscription service, VSCO learned that young people were even willing to pay for tools in an app space that let them "be who they are ... try new things," without the pressure and anxiety around building a following and collecting likes.

Born between the mid-1990s and early 2000s, Generation Z is building a reputation as the most socially conscious age group. A recent white paper from MNI Targeted Media Inc., a division of the Meredith Corporation, found that more than half of Generation Z say that knowing a brand has strong values and is "doing their part to make the world a better place" is important to them and directly influences their buying decisions.

Advertisement

"This generation makes sophisticated choices about identity, purpose, and values," researchers at the firm said. "They've spent their lives surrounded by digital content and they know how to filter anything that lacks the right tone, language, and relevancy."

Courtesy of VSCO

VSCO is the fifth most popular photo and video app for iPhones in the US, according to app market data company App Annie, behind YouTube, Instagram, Snapchat, and Google Photos, in that order. Its ranking by monthly active users has been rising over the last year, while Instagram's rank remains stable. Flory has largely Generation Z to thank.

The team at VSCO is constantly adding new filters, photo-editing tools, and educational content to the VSCO X platform so that the value of their subscription builds all the time.

"It's really about providing the ultimate experience for that creative," Flory said. "For us, it's not about some other company's way. It's about the VSCO way."

Change is coming for a small but blooming corner of the marijuana industry.

A compound in marijuana that's been linked to a range of potential health benefits — but doesn't cause a high — is increasingly being eyed for use in salves, oils, balms, and beverages. It's also the active ingredient in a new drug that's on the cusp of federal approval.

Cannabidiol, or CBD, is estimated to make up a roughly $1 billion industry. If and when the Food and Drug Administration approves the new CBD-based drug— a decision currently slated for the end of June— it will turn the compound into one that can be legally prescribed by a doctor.

That approval will also jump-start demand for products that have not been federally reviewed, opening up a huge opportunity for retailers and manufacturers to either work alongside the new regulations or take advantage of the legal grey area in which they're currently operating.

The move could unleash what Drug Enforcement Administration public affairs officer Barbara Carreno called a "sea change" for the existing market of less expensive but untested and potentially risky CBD products, such as those sold in convenience stores and marijuana dispensaries.

The drug that could revolutionize the CBD market

Courtesy GW Pharmaceuticals

Since at least 2017, drug company GW Pharmaceuticals has been presenting strong research data to suggest that its CBD-based medicine, a syrup called Epidiolex, can treat the symptoms of two rare forms of childhood epilepsy that are characterized by violent seizures (known as drop seizures).

Although the Food and Drug Administration is not slated to make a final decision on the drug's potential approval until June 27, experts say an official green light is likely.

"This is clearly a breakthrough drug for an awful disease," John Mendelson, a panel member and senior scientist at the Friends Research Institute, said during a public pre-approval meeting to discuss the drug's scientific benefits in April.

Orrin Devinsky, a neurologist at New York University Langone Health and a lead author on some of the GW Pharmaceuticals studies, told Business Insider, "I'd personally be very surprised if this drug was not approved."

If Epidiolex is approved, the DEA has 90 days to shift the classification of marijuana-derived CBD from the current categorization as something with "no recognized medical use" to either a Schedule 2 or 3 drug, much like the popular ADHD medication Adderall.

Once that happens, "all the [CBD] manufacturers have to be registered with us," Carreno said. "That's going to make a huge difference to the industry."

A legal grey area with unregulated products that range from teas to dog treats

Shutterstock But for now, thousands of CBD products exist in legal limbo.

That's because there are two main sources of CBD: marijuana (which includes the leaves of the plant), and hemp (just the stalks and sterile seeds).

While marijuana-derived CBD is only legal in the 28 states plus Washington, DC where marijuana has been legalized (as well as the 15 states where CBD alone has been legalized), hemp-derived CBD falls under a sizeable legal loophole: it is exempted from DEA regulation according to a 2006 law.

But there's a lot of confusion in the space about which CBD products are legal or not. That's made some CBD manufactuers skittish about selling products outside of states where marijuana is legal.

Even so, plenty of other CBD companies are looking to expand across the country, reasoning that because their products are hemp-derived, they're legally in the clear.

Denver-based company Phoenix Tears recently signed an agreement with MarketHub Retail Services, a distributor that works with 7-Eleven franchisees, to get its hemp-derived CBD products in up to 4,500 stores by the end of this year.

"This agreement confirms our belief that CBD's status as a mainstream wellness option has arrived," Phoenix Tears founder Janet Rosendahl-Sweeney said in a recent statement.

Regardless of where the product comes from, there's another pressing issue facing the CBD industry. The products are poorly regulated, and so there is wide variation in content, safety, and price.

For a 2017 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, researchers tested 84 CBD products purchased from 31 different online retailers. Roughly seven out of 10 items had different levels of CBD than what was written on the label. Of all of the items tested, roughly half had more CBD than was indicated; a quarter had less. And 18 of the samples tested positive for THC, despite it not being listed on the label.

"I've seen a lot of dirty CBD manufacturing facilities," said Kevin Harlyall, the CEO of a company called the CBD Palace that audits CBD companies and creates a list of vendors it deems safe for customers. "It's tough to know what you're getting."

According to the DEA, the approval of Epidiolex could change all of that.

"This is going to be a sea change if they approve it," said Carreno.

When Mathilde Collin, a 28-year-old entrepreneur, was ready to start raising venture capital for her company's series B round, she made a ground rule for herself.

Collin scheduled all meetings with investors for one week.

Having a short window creates a little competition among the venture capitalists, who might offer more attractive deals if the company is hot and time is wasting. For Collin, setting a deadline for herself was simply about speeding up the process.

"I don't necessarily like raising funding," Collin told Business Insider.

Advertisement

She might not like it, but she's arguably very good at it. In January, her company, the shared-inbox platform Front, raised $66 million in a series B round led by Sequoia Capital. During her five-day fundraising binge, Collin snagged 10 term sheets, or investment offers, from 11 of the investors she pitched — an impressive achievement for a first-time founder.

Front has raised a total of $79 million to change the way teams get work done. The startup makes an app that lets teams handle messages from email, texts, Slack, and social media, all in one place. More than 3,000 businesses around the world use Front.

Raising venture capital for a startup is no cakewalk. There are high stakes, probing questions from investors, and pressure from employees to return to the office with a term sheet.

Collin said that before an entrepreneur takes the plunge, they should think critically about whether they're ready to raise funding.

Front wasn't strapped for cash. The company managed to burn only $3 million from a $10 million series A round in 2016, and Front is already making money as a paid service for enterprises.

Front makes a shared-inbox app that lets teams handle messages from email, texts, Slack, and social media, all in one place. Melia Robinson/Business Insider

Still, Collin said she wanted to grow Front more quickly and hire a significant number of engineers. She decided she was ready to raise when Front ended three consecutive quarters during which revenue, app usage, and employee headcount all increased and sustained their growth — though Collin admits that part of the decision came down to a feeling.

Advertisement

She worked with employees on the data and business operations team to put together a pitch deck, a presentation that entrepreneurs give to investors when seeking a round of funding. In about 24 slides, the pitch deck told the complete story of Front. It addressed the pain points that Front aims to solve, the achievements of the company so far, and the long-term vision of how Front wants to reinvent email.

The pitch deck was also chock-full of data and insights, such as annual recurring revenue, the number of employees who have left Front so far (zero), and its marketing spend.

According to Collin, the investors she pitched seemed to be most impressed with three key metrics: efficiency, consistency, and net retention rate.

With these facts and figures in mind, Collin wowed several Silicon Valley investors. Participating in the company's series B round was actually so competitive that partners of Sequoia Capital built a custom Lego set to persuade Collin, a known Lego enthusiast, to accept their offer. The top-tier venture firm wound up leading the $66 million round.

Collin said that ultimately she was successful in fundraising because Front is a good idea.

Advertisement

"Investors are driven by the fear of missing out — and if Front is successful, then Front will be very successful, because everyone uses email," Collin said. "Everyone needs a tool like this."

Amazon is the largest property taxpayer and private employer in Seattle. Since 2000, the metro area has added nearly 100,000 new jobs, leading to an influx of high-skilled workers and a thriving tech industry.

But some residents and local officials believe Amazon's growth has been the catalyst for several problems, including affordable housing and homelessness crises, since its arrival in the late 1990s. To ease those issues, the Seattle City Council unanimously passed a "head tax" in May requiring large businesses to pay $275 per employee for the next five years. The money would go toward affordable housing and homelessness projects.

The city received pushback from Amazon, which at one point threatened to halt construction of a 405,000-square-foot office tower. Following the tax's passage, Amazon, Starbucks, and other large companies also quietly poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into a signature-gathering campaign, called No Tax on Jobs, for a referendum against the tax on November's ballot.

Fearing this and more pushback from Amazon, the city repealed the tax.

Advertisement

While Amazon may have won its battle, there could be more Big Tech head taxes to come. Multiple Silicon Valley cities are considering similar taxes, and Amazon's win in Seattle doesn't seem to be stopping them. The decision to repeal could set an anti-tax precedent in Silicon Valley cities that are considering similar legislation.

Mountain View, California — the home of Google, LinkedIn, and Symantec — may tax big companies like Google, which has 23,000 workers in the city, $150 per employee. On June 26, the city council will decide whether the initiative will appear on the November ballot.

Less than 10 miles away, Cupertino — the city that houses Apple's headquarters — is also polling the public on reopening a head tax proposal after one was shut down by business interests in 2016.

Mountain View Mayor Lenny Siegel — a proponent of the proposed head tax — told Business Insider his city is dealing with affordability issues that mirror what's happening in Seattle. Mountain View's tax would go primarily toward transit projects, and a sliver of the revenue would help finance affordable housing developments.

"It's hard for people in other parts of the country to visualize what our situation is," he said. "Everyone else wants to be in a position of having lots of good jobs, but they bring their own problems. And it's up to cities working with our business communities to solve those problems or we will kill the goose that laid the golden egg."

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

If the head tax passes in Mountain View, Google would need to pay up to an additional $3.45 million annually, based on its current number of employees.

Advertisement

The rate for large companies in Cupertino is not set yet, but in 2016, former Mayor Barry Chang angled for a $1,000-per-employee tax that was struck down. Siegel considers these figures a drop in the bucket for the two companies, which collectively generate more than $300 billion in revenue each year.

Siegel predicts that Mountain View will pass the tax, since Google — its largest taxpayer — has not tried any intimidation tactics in the city. Since the city has been considering the tax for three years, Siegel said it's hard to compare what happened in Seattle to the debate in Mountain View.

However, an earlier version of Mountain View's head tax would have required Google to pay $300 per employee — double what the city is planning now. In early June, after Amazon halted construction on a Seattle office tower pending a vote on the tax, City Council members decided to lower the rate to $150 per Googler (The timing may be coincidental).

Google has stayed silent on the tax

According to Siegel, city officials have a relatively pleasant relationship with Google, which has a history of funding public works projects.

Since 2014, the tech giant has given more than $14 million to Mountain View nonprofits, including a $1 million grant for homelessness prevention and rehousing. In 2017, Google funded 2.5 miles of bike, pedestrian, and infrastructure improvements in the city.

Advertisement

In September, Mountain View's city council had a brief spat with the company over an approval to create nearly 10,000 units of affordable housing on Google property. The next morning, an executive from Google called Siegel to apologize.

Siegel said Google has stayed silent on the subject of a head tax, which he interprets as an optimistic sign. (Google declined to comment on its policy position to Business Insider.)

"They just keep saying, 'We'll get back to you,'" he said. Siegel acknowledges that other large, local employers have openly opposed the tax. "Although we don't agree on everything, we have a long history of working with employers."

An aerial view of Apple Park in Cupertino, California. Google Earth

Siegel argues that Google and other Silicon Valley giants could benefit from the legislation, because it would allow more workers to commute into the city from elsewhere. One project Mountain View may pursue is a bus line that would connect downtown to Google's campus, he said.

Advertisement

When asked whether he fears Google would move if Mountain View passed a version of the tax, Siegel said it would be unlikely. In any case, Siegel said, Mountain View's housing and infrastructure struggles are acute enough that "it wouldn't hurt if [Google] moved."

Apple has a history of pushing back against Cupertino

In Cupertino, Apple has not been as accommodating to the city, according to Siegel. The company has made few announcements of local philanthropy beyond its "Global Volunteer Program," which launched in 2011 to encourage employees to volunteer in local communities. The company has also planted over 9,000 trees at its headquarters.

Cupertino may have fewer bargaining chips than Mountain View in a head tax battle, because Apple accounts for an even larger share (three-fourths) of the workforce. That means the city is more dependent on the company for tax revenue.

Cupertino has paid a firm to begin polling residents about the tax and explore how the city could spend the revenue, City Manager David Brandt told The San Francisco Chronicle.

City of Cupertino/YouTube After former Cupertino Mayor Chang's head tax proposal was struck down in 2016, he told The Guardian that the legislation faced a great deal of opposition from Apple.

"Apple is not willing to pay a dime [for public projects]," Chang said. "They're making profit, and they should share the responsibility for our city, but they won't."

Siegel shares a similar view.

"Apple, unlike Google, doesn't donate a lot to the community," he said.

Apple did not respond to Business Insider's request for comment, but the company's past views on corporate-civic responsibility may offer a clue regarding its future attitude on a head tax .

In a now-infamous video from 2011, Steve Jobs presented his vision for a new headquarters (which opened in January 2018) to Cupertino's City Council. At one point, a council member asked how Cupertino residents would benefit from the campus, and whether Apple would consider granting the city free public wifi.

Jobs denied the possibility.

Advertisement

"As you know, we're the largest taxpayer in Cupertino, so we'd like to continue to stay here and pay taxes," he said. "Because if we can't, we'd have to go somewhere like Mountain View, and we'd take our current people with us and over the years sell the land here. The largest tax base would go away. That wouldn't be good for Cupertino, and that wouldn't be good for us either."