Why Pets.com Failed: Lessons From the Dot-Com Bubble

Pets.com rose to fame during the late 1990s dot-com bubble, when it launched its initial public offering (IPO). Despite backing from investors like Amazon and support from major underwriters, the company collapsed within a year. Its flawed business model made it impossible to profit, and it also had to compete with established brick-and-mortar pet stores. Pets.com also faced problems managing costly shipping for heavy, low-margin products. The Pets.com story is a warning for future online ventures about sustainable business strategies and realistic market execution.

The Initial Success and Public Fascination of Pets.com

Pets.com was based on an Amazon-style internet purchasing system where users ordered pet supplies from the website and the company arranged the delivery. During the dot-com bubble, Pets.com was one of five online pet stores that popped up during this time.

Pets.com stood out thanks to its stock puppet mascot and catchy slogan. The Pets.com's sock puppet was so popular that it was a balloon in the 1999 Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade.

Pets.com completed an IPO despite the issues or red flags with its business model, including how to economically ship large dog food bags. Still, it garnered investor's attention, including Amazon, who owned about 50% of the company.

The company raised $82.5 million in its February 2000 IPO. The shares debuted at $11. However, the company failed to earn revenue and by the end of October, Amazon's share had dropped to 30%. In November, the company declared bankruptcy and closed its doors, with its stock trading at $0.22 a share the day of its bankruptcy announcement.

Challenges in the Pets.com Business Model

The problem with the company's business plan was that pet supplies of all types—food, toys, clothing, and so on—could be found easily at the nearest grocery or pet store. Given the choice between ordering online and waiting for delivery or walking into the nearest store to buy the product and take it home immediately, the majority of people preferred the latter. Granted, Amazon has made a gigantic business of doing just that today. Pets.com was perhaps a bit too early on this idea.

Nine months of straight losses convinced the company to fold and sell its assets before more losses were incurred. To Pets.com's credit, it used the funds raised by the fire sale to pay back investors what they could. Although Pets.com tried to do the right thing in the end, questions remained about how they ended up conducting an IPO with a questionable business plan.

Behind the fall of Pets.com, the darker story of underwriting banks and their analysts loomed during the internet boom. Even as Pets.com posted losses and the stock price dropped, the issuing firm's analyst, Merrill Lynch's Henry Blodget, did not change his buy rating until the summer.

Keeping Pets.com in business for as long as possible was in Merrill Lynch's best interest, as the bank was collecting millions in investment banking fees, regardless of the company's condition. This is an example of where the investment bank and equity sides of a bank can play favorites and protect each other. Granted, the idea of a Chinese Wall, which is meant to limit this type of collusion, has grown since the dot-com bubble.

The Bottom Line

Pets.com failed largely because of its unsustainable business model and poor market timing. The company spent heavily to attract customers and lost money on every sale, something investment banks and investors overlooked so they could capitalize on the dot-com boom. Unlike the few internet companies that survived the crash, Pets.com’s rise and fall exposed the dangers of hype-driven investing and the need for real value and profitability in online businesses.