4 ms·
What makes the comparison to Pets.com for you appropriate here? Pets.com was insanity. It IPOed 15 months after it was founded and had no fundamentals of any k
by econner 10y ago
What makes the comparison to Pets.com for you appropriate here?
Pets.com was insanity. It IPOed 15 months after it was founded and had no fundamentals of any kind. Snap is 6 years old and has hundreds of millions of retained users.
From the wikipedia page for Pets.com:
Despite its success in building brand recognition, it was uncertain whether a substantial market niche existed for Pets.com.[5] No independent market research preceded the launch of Pets.com.[5] During its first fiscal year (February to September 1999) Pets.com earned revenues of $619,000, yet spent $11.8 million on advertising.[5] Pets.com lacked a workable business plan and lost money on nearly every sale because, even before the cost of advertising, it was selling merchandise for approximately one-third the price it paid to obtain the products.[5]
- toomuchtodo 10y ago> Pets.com was insanity. It IPOed 15 months after it was founded and had no fundamentals of any kind. > Snap is 6 years old and has hundreds of millions of users. When you say fundamentals, that usually goes hand in hand with a business model that will promote profitability, which Snap has been unable to prove. EDIT: They incurred a net loss of $514.6 million ending 2016. That is not a sound business.