HOME / moneybox: Daily commentary about business and finance.

The Puppet That Ate a Dot-Com

The good news for Pets.com is that everyone loves the puppet. This fact isn't lost on the pet-product retailer, which sells a wide range of "gear" featuring the smart-alecky sock puppet mascot, from caps to watches to food and water bowls. In fact if you go to Pets.com you'll see that the most prominently featured item for sale is not, say, dog food or flea collars, but rather sock puppets, for $20 a pop. The puppets will start shipping June 13, but you can preorder now. (Limit three puppets per order, friends. Step right up.)

The puppet is the centerpiece of Pets.com's unavoidable ad campaign--which included a Super Bowl spot--and it appeared as a float in the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade. (You can check out a bunch of Pets.com ads via Adcritic.com.) It has been interviewed on Good Morning America and in Time magazine. The puppet is a sensation, easily the most successful spokesthing of the dot-com era and arguably the most high-profile addition (along with Budweiser's "Wazzup!" campaign) to the pop culture pantheon of the new century. "This is a company's dream," the CEO of Pets.com recently told Forbes. "It's amazing how quickly this character has captured people's hearts. We're happy because he's captured their pocketbooks, too."

Really? That bold statement brings us to the bad news for Pets.com, which is that it's losing buckets of money, shows no particular signs of reversing that trend anytime soon, and its stock stinks. In some quarters, in fact, the whole notion of selling pet supplies online has become shorthand for the kind of idiotic thinking that used to attract investors in the long-ago days of last year, when e-commerce was still in fashion.

True, Pets.com had sales of about $7.6 million in the first quarter of 2000, which did represent a big jump. But those revenues are still a long, long way from, say, the $2 billion-plus annual sales of a big chain like PetSmart. And more to the point, the cost to the company of the goods it sold for $7.6 million was around $12.5 million; the company attributes its operating loss to shipping costs and discounting. Pets.com's spin on this in its quarterly report was that its gross margins improved from negative 124 percent in the prior quarter to negative 64 percent. Impressed? Anyway, figure in marketing and other costs, and Pets.com had a net loss of almost $40 million in the quarter. The company went public earlier this year, peaking at $14 a share, and now trades at about $2.50. So put that in your sock puppet.

It's possible that the company will eventually build a big and loyal customer base that will allow it to gradually boost margins and become a great business. (Among the believers are famed venture capitalist Ann Winblad, whose firm is an investor; Amazon.com, which is its largest shareholder; and well-known Internet bull Henry Blodget of Merrill Lynch.) But a more likely, and more interesting, scenario is that the company has successfully promoted its brand all over the place with an authentically popular campaign--and it doesn't really matter.

On the plus side, Pets.com's three top online competitors all seem to be doing even worse, in some cases announcing layoffs, and a couple of cases postponing IPOs, probably indefinitely. On the minus side, that's happening in part because everyone has figured out that shipping huge bags of dog food doesn't sound like a great profit opportunity. Selling pet supplies in general is not exactly a killer business offline: Even the superstores have thin operating margins, and PetSmart actually lost money last year.

This goes a long way toward explaining why Pets.com shares are in the doghouse. And maybe it explains why we're seeing a curious reversal, in which a company is hyping its mascot rather than the other way around. Pets.com seems to have built a good brand, but it looks an awful lot like they've built that brand for a lousy business. What do you do if you find yourself in such a situation? I guess you sell puppets.

Print This ArticlePRINTEmail to a FriendE-MAILShare This ArticleRECOMMEND...Get Slate RSS FeedsRSS
Rob Walker writes the Ad Report Card for Slate.
COMMENTS

Reader Response from the Fray:

[Nearly all the Fray postings on this article fell into one of three categories, so we're giving you one sample from each category.]


1. We like Pets.com:

Pets.com's prices are the lowest around. They have a wide selection. The items are delivered to your door, so you don't have to haul around a 20 lb. bag of dog food, and you can even enroll in a program that automatically sends out food every x weeks. Their customer service responds in a hurry. And their generous coupon-giving helps customers get started. Their wish list and past purchases list store all of your favorite items, so reordering is a cinch. And they have lots of helpful information. Great site. People with pets should try it.

--E.F.Wilkins

(To reply, click here.)
[This post had the title Low Prices and Excellent Customer Service, and for a wild moment there before we opened it we thought it might be a response to Moneybox's article about AT&T--but no.]


2. We like pet stores:

Bricks and mortar pet shops will always have the upper hand over online e-pets type retailers. I normally remember their food on a Saturday morning when they are bugging me and I'm trying to sleep-in, only to find that I've run low and I've got to get it now. This is reality I suspect for most folks too. Pet shops win my heart when I'm in that warm fuzzy mood and want to see the cute puppies and kittens. Plus I love the sounds and sights of all those rows of fish tanks...Then I get in the mood to buy those pet treats and toys for my beasties. Nope, no reason to e-commerce pet stuff. My advice, sell that tanking pets.com stock and put it in wireless stock or in real estate whick I've done for 10 years and have pounded the stock market with better results, but that's another story.

--Mike

(To reply, click here.)


3. We like stories about puppets suing each other:

Nice article, but how could you not mention the Triumph/Conan O'Brien lawsuit? I refuse to buy anything from a company idiotic enough to sue another puppet for defaming its sock puppet. There's a name for this kind of lawsuit: frivolous. Plus, it suggests a company with no sense of humor or business judgment. Did anyone in management or legal consider how this lawsuit would make Pets.com look?

--Fiasco

(To reply, click here.)

(6/9)

What did you think of this article?
Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES
TODAY'S PICTURES
TODAY'S CARTOONS
DOONESBURY FLASHBACK
TODAY'S VIDEO
Black Friday.12/TP.jpg
Cartoonists' take on Thanksgiving.69/091125_TC.jpg
Speaking of setups.52/DoonesburyPlaceholder.jpg