Slashdot Mirror
'90s Dot-Coms — Where Are They Now?
An anonymous reader writes "The Industry Standard has put together a list of 10 dot-com stars from the Internet bubble of the late 1990s, and tracked down what happened to the services and their founders. A lot of the services are still around, albeit under new ownership, including eToys, Garden.com, and DrKoop.com. Others have been completely reinvented — Boo.com, an online clothing retailer that burned through $125 million in funding in the late 1990s, is now an online travel community. Of the founders, many were able to cash out early and/or achieve later online success. Excite's Joe Kraus and Graham Spencer later started JotSpot, which was bought by Google, and Kraus now directs work on Google's OpenSocial initiative. Others did not fare as well, such as two of the co-founders of Garden.com, who declined to cash out at the height of the bubble, and are currently 'between business ventures.' The insiders' post-mortems of the failed dot-coms are interesting — several suggest the concepts were good but too early for their time, while others identify specific factors that led to the failures — ranging from a lack of advertising to 'intense' greed."
Thats pretty much standard for conventional underwriting. That all went out the door in the dot.com era. Valuations switched to revenue streams, which meant much less. Google waited until it had profits.
It sold for $345 million last year, so sounds like a smart investment.
Actually, yes, I did. Once you get past the first 3 or 4 pages which actually had a product, you run even there into examples like TheGlobe.com who had _no_ business plan other than being a social site, and no way to monetize on the user base. Other than serving ads on their web pages, there was no other source of income. In Paternot's own words, and it's right in TFA, " way too little advertising revenues to support everyone ". So there you have exactly what I was saying, right from TFA, and from the horse's mouth.
Later in the list: DrKoop.com. From TFA: " DrKoop.com's business plan rested on advertising, and in 1999 there weren't enough healthcare advertisers to support it and the many other healthcare dot-coms trolling for ad buyers. "
Those are the only ones explicitly mentioning advertising as a factor, and they're both in the "we didn't get enough ad money" category I was describing. Neither of them says that they themselves didn't advertise enough.
But anyway, that's one list, and it just presents a debatable sample of it all. The "we'll get billions in ads" plan, although somewhat under-represented in that particular list, was actually the story of about 90% of the dot-coms back then. And as I was saying, I had the pleasure of actually working for one which had even less of a business plan.
Lack of their _own_ advertising? Heh. Where did you get that idea from TFA? The companies picked there are the ones which were maybe the best known back then, precisely because they advertised and built a lot of hype. The Pets.com sockpuppet from their ads is pretty much _the_ reason we all remember that one, out of the tens of thousands of dot-con flops.
So, heh, did _you_ read TFA? Doesn't sound like it.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.