
How He Started a Business With Over $1 Billion in Sales
Steve Magami grew up in a "wellness-oriented" family, and early on, he experienced the frustration shared by fruit consumers across the U.S.: the pervasive game of "berry roulette," where there's no guarantee that the carton of berries pulled from a grocery store shelf will actually taste good.
Image Credit: Courtesy of Fruitist. Steve Magami.
The issue often stems from a scattered supply chain, wherein the product cycles through disparate growers, packers, distributors and retailers before it reaches the consumer. "The produce space went in the direction of commodity agriculture, which is an extreme focus on cost and yield to bring cost per kilo down," Magami tells Entrepreneur.
Magami wanted to start a berry business with a vertical supply chain that would raise the bar for product quality. He and his co-founder, Thomas Snyder, founded Agrovision, a Los Angeles-based agriculture company specializing in berries, in 2012, and introduced its berry brand Fruitist in 2020.
Related: A Cambodian Refugee Paralyzed By Polio Says 'Not Much' Was Expected of Him. He and His Wife Built a Multimillion-Dollar Business That Beat All Odds.
The brand has been making its mark on the massive global berry market ever since. Fruitist's flagship product is its jumbo blueberries, but the company also sells blackberries, raspberries and cherries. Today, Fruitist's sales generate over $400 million a year, and the brand just surpassed $1 billion in lifetime sales. The parent company officially changed its name to Fruitist on April 16.
"We knew we needed a name that reflected our mission, identity and where we were going," Magami says.
Image Credit: Courtesy of Fruitist
"I saw an opportunity to use these microclimates with a new model to solve that 'berry roulette.'"
Magami was working in private equity, looking at microclimates for large-scale biofuel development and deployment, when inspiration for Fruitist struck.
"I saw an opportunity to use these microclimates with a new model to solve that 'berry roulette,'" Magami says. "I saw an opportunity to truly inspire healthy and enjoyable snacking."
The berry industry might not be widely recognized for its potential for disruption, but as Magami and Snyder built their brand "brick by brick," they managed to attract notable investors, including the family office of Ray Dalio, the billionaire founder of Bridgewater Associates.
Related: 4 Strategies for Creating a Compelling Business Plan That Actually Attracts Investors — and Secures Funding
"It's so unique because we're disrupting this sleepy industry, the fruit aisle," Magami explains. "This is a high-impact play. There's a lot of sustainability around this, and it gives you the ability to play outside of tech but in a high-growth, disruptive way."
Fruitist has raised a total of $693 million between equity and debt, per the company. These days, Fruitist has to turn interested investors away, Magami says.
"They're making more money per square inch of the shelf. There's virtually no shrink with us."
Fruitist relies on technology and data analytics to achieve its consistent product quality. The company has invested more than $600 million since its founding to build precise, high-tech production operations in seven countries in addition to the U.S.: Peru, Mexico, Chile, Morocco, Egypt, China and India.
The plan was always to start with a differentiated product and secure buy-in from retailers, which would then get consumers on board in just "a matter of time," Magami says.
Customer demand across the more than 12,500 U.S. retail stores where Fruitist is available, including Costco and Whole Foods, proves that assessment out. "Our retailers are making more money with us," Magami says. "We're driving foot traffic, [and] they're making more money per square inch of the shelf. There's virtually no shrink with us."
Related: 5 Business Truths I Wish Someone Had Told Me Before I Built a Startup
Fruitist's commitment to product quality has also helped Fruitist position its berries for U.S. snacking culture.
"Obviously, the trend is towards healthier, nutritious, convenient, grab-and-go," Magami says. "Blueberries are already so healthy, but to have blueberries that are so good and so consistent is a massive unlock. Because now you're hitting everything that you could want in a snack."
Image Credit: Courtesy of Fruitist
"The dollars will come. Don't cut corners prioritizing cost over consumer experience."
Magami is determined to build Fruitist into a generational business — not one that "stops growing after five years" — and to continue amplifying its brand messaging.
Magami is especially excited to continue that work through the world of sports. Fruitist became the official snack partner of D.C. United, announcing a multi-year partnership in February 2024, and partnered with the University of Southern California's (USC) Trojans last October.
What's more, Fruitist is particularly keen on capturing the attention of younger generations. Magami is encouraged by the positive response from his children and their friends to Fruitist's berries and strives to get the product into the hands of other young snackers.
The brand's forthcoming snack cups, which will retail for about $3, are another step toward increased accessibility, Magami says.
Related: How to Master the Art of Brand Messaging With Clear and Consistent Communication
Despite the company's impressive track record to date, Magami believes that Fruitist has "only scratched the surface" of what's possible — and notes that other founders considering the produce space should embrace the chance to fill gaps in quality.
"There's so much opportunity across the produce aisle, in our view, from what we've seen outside of our products that we're focused on, which is berries and cherries," Magami says. "I would encourage entrepreneurs to focus on controlling the quality consistently and delivering an experience on the shelf, and the dollars will come. Don't cut corners prioritizing cost over consumer experience."
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Bloomberg
21 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Stocks Hit Highest Since February on Jobs Surprise
Bloomberg Television brings you the latest news and analysis leading up to the final minutes and seconds before and after the closing bell on Wall Street. Today's guests are Bloomberg Television brings you the latest news and analysis leading up to the final minutes and seconds before and after the closing bell on Wall Street. Today's guests are Katie Nixon, Northern Trust, Betsey Stevenson, University of Michigan, Dan Dolev, Mizuho, Rashad Bilal & Troy Millings, Earn Your Leisure, Matthew Griffin, Bloomberg News, Barry Bannister, Stifel, Jess Menton, Bloomberg News, Ed Ludlow, Bloomberg News, Stacy Rasgon, Bernstein Research, Frances Katzen, Douglas Elliman, Brett Winton, Ark Invest, Tony Zaccario, Stretch Zone, Nicole Camarre, 43North. (Source: Bloomberg)


Washington Post
24 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Federal judge approves $2.8B settlement, paving way for US colleges to pay athletes millions
A federal judge signed off on arguably the biggest change in the history of college sports on Friday, clearing the way for schools to begin paying their athletes millions of dollars as soon as next month as the multibillion-dollar industry shreds the last vestiges of the amateur model that defined it for more than a century.


New York Times
31 minutes ago
- New York Times
Historic House v. NCAA settlement gets final approval, allowing schools to pay college athletes
By Ralph D. Russo, Stewart Mandel and Justin Williams A federal judge Friday granted final approval of the House v. NCAA settlement, a watershed agreement in college sports that permits schools to directly pay college athletes for the first time. The settlement, which resolves a trio of antitrust cases against the NCAA and its most powerful conferences, establishes a new 10-year revenue sharing model in college sports, with athletic departments able to distribute roughly $20.5 million in name, image and likeness (NIL) revenue to athletes over the 2025-26 season. Previously, athletes could earn NIL compensation only with outside parties, including school-affiliated donor collectives that have become instrumental in teams' recruiting. Advertisement The NCAA and the power conferences (ACC, Big 12, Big Ten, Pac-12 and SEC), as defendants in the settlement, also agree to pay nearly $2.8 billion in damages to Division I athletes who were not allowed to sign NIL deals, dating back to 2016. The damages will be paid out over 10 years, with most of the money expected to go to former power-conference football and men's basketball players. Universities can begin directly sharing revenue with college athletes starting July 1. Judge Claudia Wilken of the Northern District of California, who previously ruled against the NCAA in the O'Bannon and Alston cases, granted approval roughly a year after parties agreed to settlement terms and nearly two months after a final approval hearing on April 7, where Wilken heard testimony from more than a dozen objectors. Lawyers for both the plaintiffs and defendants noted that the number of objections and opt-outs in the settlement represent a tiny fraction of the nearly 400,000 athletes in the certified class. However, some of those objectors delayed approval, largely citing the settlement's new roster limits. These limits, which replace sport-by-sport scholarship limits, cap the maximum roster size per team while allowing for every roster spot to receive a scholarship. Schools can offer scholarship funds — partial or full — as they see fit, which creates more potential opportunities. But as schools preemptively prepared to comply with those new limits, they removed roster spots for thousands of walk-ons, particularly in football, and partial scholarship athletes in non-revenue sports. In late April, Wilken offered an ultimatum, instructing the settlement parties to revise the terms in a way that mitigated any lost roster spots as a result of schools preparing for the new roster limits, or she would deny the whole agreement. Settlement lawyers responded with an amendment that allows for voluntary 'grandfathering' of any athletes who lost roster spots as a result of the roster limits, a status that will follow those athletes through the remainder of their eligibility, whether they return to their original school or transfer elsewhere. Advertisement The initial House v. NCAA case — brought by plaintiffs Grant House, a former Arizona State swimmer, and Sedona Prince, then an Oregon women's basketball player — was filed in June 2020. It challenged NCAA policy at the time that prohibited athletes from being compensated for the commercial use of their NIL rights or from sharing in the revenue generated from NCAA and conference television contracts. The case was later consolidated with two similar suits, Carter v. NCAA and Hubbard v. NCAA. The cases had not gone to trial. The NCAA and Power 5 conferences, fearful a verdict might result in much higher damages, agreed to a settlement in May 2024. Wilken granted preliminary approval in October 2024. The NCAA's traditional amateurism model, in which athletes could not receive any compensation beyond a scholarship, began to crumble in 2014 when Wilken ruled against the NCAA in a suit brought by former UCLA star Ed O'Bannon, who objected to his image being used in an EA Sports video game without his permission. Wilken ruled for the plaintiffs, but after an appeals court struck part of her decision, the only tangible effect was that schools began offering cost-of-attendance stipends. The next major case, Alston v. NCAA, made it to the Supreme Court, where the justices ruled 9-0 against the NCAA. Often mischaracterized as a case about NIL, Alston's main impact was that it allowed schools to provide athletes $5,980 a year in academic expenses. However, the lopsided decision left the NCAA vulnerable to additional legal challenges regarding rules that limited compensation, and it was delivered on June 21, 2021, nine days before numerous state laws allowing NIL payments were set to go into effect. The NCAA quickly scrapped most of its intended restrictions on NIL. In the years since, many athletes have entered into deals with local companies and struck lucrative endorsement deals with national brands like Gatorade and New Balance, as intended. But a far more common practice involves boosters using purported NIL deals to lure recruits or players from the transfer portal to their favorite school. The NCAA's enforcement division initially sought to punish schools that used NIL as a form of 'pay for play' or recruiting inducement, but when the University of Tennessee came under fire in early 2024, the state's attorney general sued, and a judge issued an injunction prohibiting the NCAA from enforcing those rules. Advertisement The amount of money being spent in the NIL arena has skyrocketed since 2021. Last year, Ohio State athletic director Ross Bjork said the Buckeyes football team — which later won the national championship — was earning $20 million in NIL. CBS Sports recently reported that a number of men's basketball rosters have already topped $10 million for next season. To this point, collectives supporting specific schools have ruled the market, but administrators are hoping the House settlement will curtail that influence. In addition to schools being allowed to make NIL deals themselves, the new model also requires all outside NIL deals of more than $600 to go through a clearinghouse that will determine whether the payments are for a valid business purpose and reflect fair market value. Meanwhile, the settlement establishes an enforcement arm that will penalize schools that go over the $20.5 million cap. All of this will be overseen by the newly established regulatory body, called the College Sports Commission, which is in the process of shifting considerable oversight and control of college sports away from the NCAA and to the power conferences. The NCAA's Division I Board of Directors recently approved a series of proposals, pending settlement approval, that will strike 153 rules from the association's handbook and clear the way for the settlement terms to be implemented. The settlement represents a significant shift in college sports, but it will not mark the end of the NCAA's legal challenges. Among numerous ongoing cases, Johnson v. NCAA was filed in 2019 in Pennsylvania and seeks to have athletes classified as employees who are entitled to minimum wage compensation. The NCAA's efforts to dismiss the case have thus far been denied. Revenue sharing and third-party NIL constraints could also invite additional lawsuits on the basis of Title IX, antitrust violations and conflicts with state laws. NCAA and power conference stakeholders continue to pursue antitrust exemptions in the form of Congressional intervention, in hopes of codifying the settlement and its effectiveness moving forward. President Donald Trump has explored a new commission focused on the issues facing college sports, led by former Alabama head coach Nick Saban and billionaire Texas Tech board chair Cody Campbell, though it is paused as members of Congress pursue legislation.