2 ms·
WebVan[0] and Pets.com[1], two of the most well known busts of the dot-com era, did not use ads. Ad-based-internet became a big thing many years later, I belie
by riffraff 6y ago
WebVan[0] and Pets.com[1], two of the most well known busts of the dot-com era, did not use ads.
Ad-based-internet became a big thing many years later, I believe.
(I do agree that TSLA is different, anyway.)
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webvan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webvan
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pets.com https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pets.com
- wilg 6y agoStrange that you would say Pets.com didn't use ads given in your link there is a section about their famous sock puppet mascot with the following quote: > Pets.com hired the San Francisco office of TBWA\Chiat\Day to design its advertising campaign. Also here's a collection of Pets.com TV ads: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sICSyC9u5iI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sICSyC9u5iI And Webvan did ads too: https://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2001/03/05/daily23.html https://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2001/03/05/da...
- benmller313 6y agoI think you misunderstood, the point was that pets.com's revenue model wasn't based on free services supported by advertising sales.
- riffraff 6y agothey advertised, sure, but were not "propped by ad revenue". Advertising was a cost for them, like it is for Tesla, they weren't in the business of _selling_ ads, like Google or Facebook.