Beauty Independent reported on 25 September that Sarelly, a make-up brand founded in Mexico City, projects $15m in sales this year. Source: https://www.beautyindependent.com/sarelly-projects-15m-sales-this-year-goes-mexico-world/.
Roughly $10m of that is expected from Mexico and $5m from the US. This month the brand launched in more than 600 Target stores through Target Beauty Studio, where its Cow Lashes mascara is the No. 1 SKU. In Mexico it sells through Sephora, Ulta Beauty, Costco and TikTok Shop, and Cow Lashes has ranked as the No. 1 mascara across those retailers.
It is a good story, and most coverage will tell it as a story about identity. Co-founder Anna Sarelly was one of Mexico's original beauty YouTubers. The brand's short-form series, Drama en la Chamba, has drawn more than 40 million organic views this year across TikTok and Instagram. Rémi Martini, the co-founder and CEO, frames the mission as building a brand that starts from the Latina consumer's unmet needs rather than adapting one designed elsewhere.
All of that matters. But the most useful paragraph for a founder is the one about money.
How the Target launch was paid for
Sarelly has raised $7.5m in total: a friends-and-family pre-seed in 2024, a $3m seed round in 2025, and a bridge round in 2026 from Silas Capital, Siddhi Capital and Pentland Ventures.
Martini told Beauty Independent that the bridge round was "primarily working capital for production financing to fulfill Target's orders."
He was candid about the trade-off. Raising equity to fund stock is "not the most healthy or scalable way to fund a business because the more you grow, the more equity you give up." He added that Target subsequently helped the brand access inventory financing instead.
He also described the parts of the launch nobody puts in a press release. Some vendors paid late. Packaging that had to be reworked for regulatory reasons, which meant rebuilding secondary packaging and fixtures. Formulas reworked for US testing and substantiation standards. Fixtures built at a completely different scale from the 60 doors the brand had at Sephora Mexico. And, at one point, Martini personally covering payroll.
Why a big yes is a cash problem first
Every founder who has landed a major retailer knows the feeling. The order arrives, the numbers are larger than anything before, and the business suddenly needs more money than it has ever needed.
The mechanics are simple and unforgiving. You pay your manufacturer for the stock, usually with a deposit up front. You pay for packaging, fixtures and shipping. Then the retailer pays you on its terms, which often means weeks or months after delivery. The bigger the order, the bigger the gap between money going out and money coming in.
A brand can be profitable on paper and still run out of cash in that gap. Sarelly started out determined to prove it could reach $1m in revenue and be profitable before leaning on outside money, and it still needed a bridge round to produce a 600-door order.
For a £500k to £5m brand, the same pattern applies at a smaller scale, with less room for error.
The four ways to fund an order, and what each one costs
Equity is the first option many founders reach for, because investors are already in the conversation. It is also the most expensive over time, for the reason Martini gave. Every pound raised to fund stock is ownership you do not get back, spent on something that will turn into cash within months.
Purchase order or inventory financing is designed for exactly this problem. A lender funds the production against a confirmed order or the stock itself, and is repaid when the retailer pays. It costs fees and interest, but you keep the equity. Martini's comment that Target helped the brand access inventory financing suggests the retailer saw the value too.
Supplier terms are the quiet option. Negotiating a smaller deposit or longer payment terms with your manufacturer and packaging supplier shifts part of the gap onto partners who want the volume as much as you do. It only works if you ask early.
Sizing the order is the last lever. A launch into fewer doors, or with a tighter range, needs less cash up front and gives you sell-through data before you commit to the full roll-out. It is not always on offer, but it is worth asking.
Most brands end up using a mix. The mistake is reaching for equity by default because it is the most familiar.
The hidden costs that arrive with the order
Sarelly's list is a useful checklist for anyone entering a large new retailer or market.
Formula changes. If the new market has different testing or substantiation expectations, some products may need rework before they can be sold.
Packaging and fixtures. A retailer's fixture standards, and packaging rules in a new market, can mean redesign, new tooling and new print runs.
Scale. Producing for hundreds of doors rather than dozens changes your minimum order quantities, your freight costs and your quality control workload.
People. Someone has to manage the account day to day. Martini described Target's buying director for colour cosmetics reviewing every packaging detail and checking in daily. That is support worth having, and also time your team needs to give.
The plain version
Sarelly's story is a strong one: a brand built on a clear point of view, proven in its home market, now carried by a mass US retailer with a hero product at No. 1.
The part to learn from is how honest Martini was about the cost. The order had to be financed before it could be earned, and the first way the brand found to do it cost equity it would rather have kept.
If a big retail yes is in your plan, model the cash before you celebrate the account. Then choose how to fund it on purpose.