Republic of the Philippines

ISABELA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF BUSINESS, ACCOUNTANCY, AND
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Echague, Isabela

CASE STUDY
(Pets.com)
Presented to the
Faculty of the College of Business, Accountancy, and Public Administration
ISABELA STATE UNIVERSITY
Echague, Isabela

In partial fulfillment
Of the Requirements for the Degree
BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTING

Besa, Kelly Pauline F.

Domingo, Maritess D.
Gaspar, Kathrinah Joy I.
Ordinario, Novamia R.
Valencia, Mira Angelica R.

A.Y. 2024 - 2025

1|Page
 Republic of the Philippines
ISABELA STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF BUSINESS, ACCOUNTANCY, AND
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Echague, Isabela

I. BUSINESS OVERVIEW
In 1994, Greg McLemore, a 31-year-old California entrepreneur, registered the domain
name Pets.com and created an online community for pet owners. The location lasted until
various entrepreneurs and investors saw its potential. Pets.com was a San Francisco-based e-
tailer that operated only online, providing consumers with pet items, information, and
resources. By November 1998, Pets.com had expanded into e-commerce and appointed web
veteran Julie Wainright as CEO. Her first move was to give a 50% interest in the firm to
the formidable Amazon.com. Jeff Bezos, Amazon's CEO, used the chance to transition from
books, films, and CDs to giving users "anything they might want to find online." About the
same time as numerous other internet businesses selling pet items like Petstore.com,
Petopia.com, Petsmart.com, and PetPlanet.com were some of the key rivals in the online pet
sector, but Pets.com had a first-mover advantage because it was the first virtual pet store to
enter the market. By December 1999, blue-chip venture capitalists Hummer Winblad Partners,
Bowman Capital, and Catalyst Investments LLC had secured roughly $110 million in four
rounds of private placement investment alongside Amazon. This funding enabled Pets.com to
invest in the infrastructure and human resources required to operate a viable e-commerce
website.

Pets.com provided users with a diverse product selection, large-scale inventory, low
prices, and professional guidance from a team of pet-industry experts and veterinarians. It also
offered a well-designed website that drew a large number of clients. One issue with Pets.com's
business plan was that it was not distinctive and did not differentiate itself from other online
pet supply suppliers. Each of the pet e-tailers is readily mistaken with its competitors.
Pets.com stated that it intended to utilize the funds acquired from investors in November 1999
to boost marketing and distribution capacities.
Pets.com aimed to become a "one-stop shop for pet supplies, offering a wider range
of products than any of its competitors, including products carrying its own product label"
(Wolverton, 1999). Although Pets.com, along with three of its primary online competitors,
got significant venture capital backing to stay in business, the problem for Pets.com was to
separate itself from competitors. Another issue Pets.com had was that it entered a business of
selling low-margin food and supplies that are exceedingly expensive to send to customers.
Many customers simply opted to purchase at local discount stores, such as grocery stores,
where they would normally shop for groceries. Pets.com, as well as other online pet supply
companies, failed to provide clients with a superior option to what they already had.
Shopping online for these types of things was no more convenient for them than shopping in
a physical retail location.

Pets.com had the benefit of holding the most valuable domain name in the internet pet
business, but its competitors had additional advantages. For example, Petsmart.com built its
website on brand familiarity. Pets.com's confidence grew after it got linked with Amazon.com
and obtained access to Amazon's huge database of customer buying behaviors. Pets.com had
a competitive advantage over other e-tailers in the pet sector due to Amazon's widespread
2|Page
 Republic of the Philippines
ISABELA STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF BUSINESS, ACCOUNTANCY, AND
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Echague, Isabela

awareness and popularity. Unfortunately, this advantage was not fully utilized, and
Petsmart.com continued to lead Pets.com in internet traffic and income. Despite the fierce
competition, Pets.com stayed in the "dog-eat-dog" online pet industry (Wolverton, Nov. 11,
2000) and maintained negative gross margins for months. This meant that Pets.com was
selling its items for less than it would have cost to buy them from suppliers. Despite losing
$7.6 million in revenues since its beginning, Pets.com elected to go public in February 2000,
when it began trading on Nasdaq (Wolverton, November 10, 2000). When Amazon went
public, its share in the e-tailer fell from 46% to 30.1% (Wolverton, Nov. 11, 2000).

In June 2000, Pets.com decided to acquire the assets of its competitor Petstore.com.
Pets.com purchased Petstore.com's customer information, domain name, trademarks, live fish
business, and many important supplier relationships (Olsen, June 2000). This purchase came
as no surprise in the internet pet business, since consolidation had been predicted for some
time. Although Pets.com's shares were approaching an all-time low, the company's executives
felt confident in their choice at the time. "By acquiring these key assets and strategic
relationships, we expect to reap the benefits of consolidation and thus strengthen our position
as the online pet category leader," stated one of Pets.com's executives.

Pets.com struggled with the fact that it was not generating a profit, therefore in
September 2000, the decision was taken to relocate part of its operations from San Francisco
to a cheaper site in the Midwest to assist reduce operating expenses. The new location offered
a cheaper cost of living, allowing Pets.com to reduce salaries in order to save expenditures.
Another method Pets.com was recouping its massive advertising costs was by selling its sock
puppet mascot in retail stores. Over 35,000 puppets were sold in the first month of availability
(Olsen, July 2000), which was a nice surprise in the new brick-and-mortar market. Pets.com's
sales income began to rise, but excessive marketing expenditures drove the stock below its
initial trading price.

Pets.com made various significant moves in 2000, including becoming public in

February, acquiring Petstore.com in June, entering the brick-and-mortar business by selling
its puppet mascot in June, and moving part of its operations to a new site across the United
States in September. Unfortunately, this is the same year when the e-commerce company
shuttered its doors in November. Pets.com had grown to become the top online pet store, but
after months of attempting to cut expenses, recoup declining stock prices, and turn a profit,
the online company had no other option than to close its doors. Pets.com, the online pet shop,
employed 320 people at its peak, including 250 warehouse workers. In November 2000, the
firm announced its closure and lay off 255 staff.

3|Page
 Republic of the Philippines
ISABELA STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF BUSINESS, ACCOUNTANCY, AND
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Echague, Isabela

II. INDUSTRY (EXTERNAL) ANALYSIS

Pets.com operated in various industries that shaped its business model and competitive
positioning. First, it was part of the e-commerce industry, which was rapidly growing during
the late 1990s. The company leveraged the internet to sell pet products, tapping into the rising
trend of online shopping. Second, the company competed within the pet products and services
industry, which catered to the needs of pet owners. This sector included items such as pet food,
toys, grooming products, and healthcare supplies. Third, Pets.com relied heavily on the
logistics and supply chain industry for its operations. As an e-commerce business, the
company depended on efficient delivery services to meet customer expectations. Lastly, the
technology industry, as its business depended on advancements in web development, payment
systems, and cybersecurity. These interconnected industries—e-commerce, pet products,
logistics, and technology—were critical to Pets.com’s operations.

A. Major Drivers that Affect the Company’s Performance

Consumer demand. Played a big role in Pets.com's business. At the time, more people
were treating their pets as family members, which led to increased spending on pet
products like food, toys, and accessories. Pets.com sought to fulfill this demand by
presenting a wide variety of goods on its website, but customers had high expectations
for convenience, competitive pricing, and timely delivery. Although Pets.com catered
to many pet owners who sought convenience, the costs associated with fulfilling such
demands, like free shipping and discounts, made it challenging for the business to
generate a profit.

Future Supply. Pets.com relied on having a stable and efficient supply chain that could
deliver products to customers. The company had to stock pet food, toys, and other
items and ship them as soon as possible to meet the expectations of customers.
Delivering heavy items, such as pet food, can add to their cost. Additionally, because
they didn’t manufacture the products themselves, they had to compete with other
retailers to get supplies at acceptable prices. This made it difficult for Pets.com to lower
costs while still keeping customers satisfied.

4|Page
 Republic of the Philippines
ISABELA STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF BUSINESS, ACCOUNTANCY, AND
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Echague, Isabela

Competition. Petco and PetSmart, who dominated the industry with physical
storefronts that offered fast product availability and individualized customer service,
are just two of the many competitors competing for market share over the time that
pets.com has been in operation.

Macroeconomic Drivers. The whole economy was also affected by Pets.com's

success. Throughout the time of the dot-com boom, many investors were eager to fund
online businesses, including Pets.com. These opportunities helped the company grow
quickly, but it also created pressure to expand and attract customers at any cost.
Unfortunately, when the dot-com bubble burst, investor confidence dropped, and
Pets.com was one of the businesses that faced difficulties in securing enough funds to
keep operating. On top of this, the internet was still new to many people, so not
everyone was comfortable shopping online. For that reason, it led pets.com to have a
limited number of potential customers.

Pets.com, an e-commerce entity that is now defunct and specialized in pet products,
involves understanding both the broader dynamics of the pet industry and the specific
challenges faced by Pets.com before its demise. In doing so, we also need to look at how the
company's drivers, such as e-commerce adoption, consumer behavior, and operational
challenges, could affect growth and potential risks in the present context, even though
Pets.com no longer operates.

B. Outlook and Key Trends

1. E-commerce Growth and Pet Industry Expansion

The pet industry is expected to continue growing, driven by increasing pet ownership,
particularly in the U.S. According to the American Pet Products Association (APPA),
U.S. pet industry expenditure is expected to surpass $100 billion annually in the coming
years (APPA, 2024). The rise of e-commerce platforms for pet supplies remains a central
growth driver. Digital adoption by consumers is a long-term trend that has accelerated
with the pandemic and the comfort of online shopping. E-commerce has now become a
huge chunk of pet supply sales, with Chewy and Amazon leading the pack and seeing

5|Page
 Republic of the Philippines
ISABELA STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF BUSINESS, ACCOUNTANCY, AND
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Echague, Isabela

massive growth (Cummings, 2023). Any business like PetOvs.com that will thrive today
needs to keep an efficient digital presence and customer service infrastructure.

2. Changes in Consumer Preferences

Within the pet industry, consumer preferences are shifting toward premium and health-
conscious products. Consumers increasingly look for better quality foods for pets,
supplements, and wellness products. All of these provide room for expansion. With an
interest in more tailored and niche items - for example, those being sold as green, organic,
or by breed - the business has to modify its assortment of products and promotional
messages. Failure to keep up with these trends may expose a firm to loss of market share
(Cummings, 2023).

3. Supply Chain and Fulfillment Obstacles

Pets.com, at the time, faced severe supply chain management and fulfillment problems.
A key factor that led to its failure was its failure to set up effective logistics. While
companies such as Chewy and Amazon have streamlined their logistics networks, the
geopolitical and inflationary headwinds and labor shortages are threats to growth
(Cummings, 2023). Any company looking to capitalize on the pet market will need to
make significant investments in supply chain infrastructure to meet the demand increase
while keeping costs under control.

4. Competition and Market Consolidation

The pet products market is very competitive, with the big players dominating the
market. Chewy, Petco, and Amazon have very robust customer bases, and the market
continues to see consolidation as larger entities acquire smaller, specialized players. New
entrants, such as startup DTC (direct-to-consumer) brands, will face stiff competition not
only from these giants but also from established pet supply chains expanding their online
offerings.

6|Page
 Republic of the Philippines
ISABELA STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF BUSINESS, ACCOUNTANCY, AND
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Echague, Isabela

For such a company like Pets.com to remain competitive, it would need constant
innovation and proffer distinct value propositions such as unique products or superior
services (Smith, 2023).

Impact on Growth and Risks Growth Potential

Market Expansion. More growth in the pet industry - especially in the e-commerce
space - brings opportunities for growth. Companies willing to adapt to the emerging
waves of personalization and sustainability shall have an upper hand. Market
expansion into other economies outside the U.S., perhaps in Asia and Europe, will aid
businesses in tapping new revenue channels (Smith, 2023).

Technological Integration. Adoption of new technologies like AI-driven inventory

management, personalized marketing, and improved customer engagement through
apps or subscription models can also promote growth. Companies that optimize their
operations and enhance the customer experience will be likely to have long-term
growth.

Risks

Supply Chain Risks. As already discussed, supply chain risks are substantial. Any
disruptions in sourcing products or delivering them, especially in a highly competitive
market, can impact profitability and customer loyalty.

Brand Loyalty. The low barriers to entry in the digital landscape may lead to constant
customer churn. A company like Pets.com would have to ensure that it develops strong
brand loyalty and high customer retention through effective service and product
offerings.

Economic Volatility. A decline in the economy or inflation may force consumers to

reduce spending on discretionary products, which includes pet-related products.

7|Page
 Republic of the Philippines
ISABELA STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF BUSINESS, ACCOUNTANCY, AND
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Echague, Isabela

Companies with an e-commerce model will have their profit margins squeezed if
operating costs rise and demand slows.

C. Frameworks

Framework 1. PETS.COM SWOT ANALYSIS

Pets.com has established a firm position in e-commerce through its brand equity and
brand awareness. Pets.com emerged as an early adopter of the market for online supplies of
pet requirements, which served as an advantage in gaining market leadership over most other
segments and marketing in several of them. Through its range of products, the company can
reach its diverse target market, therefore, establishing and maintaining its business in this
competitive market. However, despite these strengths, Pets.com suffers from low return on
investment (ROI) because of the cost of operations and difficulties in converting customers
profitably. Furthermore, as an online-only retailer, Pets.com faces logistical issues in fulfilling
orders efficiently. The heavy reliance on online marketing and promotions also brings in
financial pressures, and lack of outlets limits its breadth and appeal to customers. Moreover,
the lack of diversity in the workforce may hinder the company's innovation and flexibility in

8|Page
 Republic of the Philippines
ISABELA STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF BUSINESS, ACCOUNTANCY, AND
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Echague, Isabela

meeting global market demand. On the opportunity side, Pets.com has the opportunity to
capitalize on its relationship with Amazon through the vast customer base and credibility that
Amazon has in e-commerce domestically and internationally. The increasing trends of e-
commerce create a massive market for online pet supplies, and with access to international
talent, Pets.com can make its offerings more comprehensive and operational efficiency better.
These opportunities may help the company overcome the challenges it faces and propel
growth. However, Pets.com is facing a great threat from established players like Amazon.
Other economic volatility, such as consumer spending shifts, would have an influence on the
sales, and new entrants in the market driven by reduced costs and increased efficiencies, poses
an ongoing challenge.

Framework 2. PETS.COM PESTLE ANALYSIS

Pets.com's business environment had several problems and opportunities, including

political uncertainty, economic insecurity, social trends, technological constraints, legal issues,
and environmental concerns. The unclear e-commerce rules at the time—around taxes and

9|Page
 Republic of the Philippines
ISABELA STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF BUSINESS, ACCOUNTANCY, AND
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Echague, Isabela

consumer protections—left companies like Pets.com exposed. It couldn’t lean on regulations

to build customer trust or manage international operations effectively, which added to its
growing list of problems. Economically, the company took advantage of the financial
excitement during the dot-com bubble but focused more on rapid growth rather than making
profits, which led to financial instability. On the social front, potential trends emerged from
an increase in pet ownership and a growing demand for high-quality pet products; however,
consumers still did not fully trust online purchasing. In terms of technology, Pets.com faced
challenges in expanding its operations because of limitations in its website technology and
logistics systems. Legally, the company had to navigate through changing e-commerce laws,
including issues related to intellectual property rights and unclear client protection policies.
Environmentally, the company's activities resulted in a significant carbon footprint and waste
from packaging materials.

Framework 3. PORTER’S FIVE FORCES

Pets.com faced tough competition from established companies like Amazon and
PetSmart. They were engaged in price wars and had similar products, which made the rivalry
even more intense. The e-commerce industry had low barriers to entry, meaning new

10 | P a g e
 Republic of the Philippines
ISABELA STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF BUSINESS, ACCOUNTANCY, AND
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Echague, Isabela

competitors could easily enter the market. However, it was challenging for Pets.com to
maintain customer loyalty and benefit from economies of scale in the long run. Pets.com relied
heavily on third-party suppliers, which limited their ability to control costs and made them
vulnerable to suppliers bypassing retailers. Customers had significant power because it was
easy for them to switch to other options and many alternatives were available. This reduced
pets.com's profitability. Strong substitutes such as traditional stores and other e-commerce
platforms posed a threat to Pets.com. These alternatives offered immediate availability and
had established customer trust, making it difficult for the company to compete sustainably.

III. FINANCIAL ANALYSIS (1999-2000)

This report presents a financial analysis of Pets.com, focusing on the horizontal and
vertical analysis for the years 1999 and 2000, along with a breakdown of key financial ratios
and observations.

i. Horizontal and Vertical Analysis

Horizontal analysis compares financial results over a series of periods, helping evaluate
growth trends, and performance changes. Vertical analysis, on the other hand, expresses each
line item as a percentage of revenue for each period, providing a clear picture of the proportion
of expenses relative to revenue. The analysis below includes both horizontal and vertical
assessments for the years 1999 and 2000.

a. Horizontal Analysis (1999 and 2000)

Line Item 1999 ($) 2000 ($) % Change (2000 vs. 1999)

Sales 5, 787 25, 780 345.5%

Cost of Goods 13, 412 32, 670 143.7%

Sold (COGS)

Gross Profit -7, 625 -6, 890 9.6%

Marketing & 42, 491 60, 654 42.7%

Sales
Product 6, 481 7, 211 11.3%
Development
General & 4, 254 8, 855 108.1%
Administrative

11 | P a g e
 Republic of the Philippines
ISABELA STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF BUSINESS, ACCOUNTANCY, AND
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Echague, Isabela

Stock-Based 2, 118 3, 136 48.1%

Compensation

Operating 55, 344 79, 856 44.3%

Expenses
Operating Loss -62, 969 -86, 746 37.8%
Interest Income 1, 191 1, 876 57.5%
Net Loss -61, 778 -84, 870 37.4%

b.1. Vertical Analysis (1999)

Line Item 1999 ($) % of Revenue (1999)

Sales 5, 787 100%

Cost of Goods Sold 13, 412 231.3%

(COGS)

Gross Profit -7, 625 -131.8%

Marketing & Sales 42, 491 734.9%

Product Development 6, 481 112.0%

General & 4, 254 73.5%

Administrative

Stock-Based 2, 118 36.6%

Compensation

Operating Expenses 55, 344 955.3%

Operating Loss -62, 969 -1082.3%

Interest Income 1, 191 20.6%

Net Loss -61, 778 -1067.5%

12 | P a g e
 Republic of the Philippines
ISABELA STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF BUSINESS, ACCOUNTANCY, AND
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Echague, Isabela

b.2. Vertical Analysis (2000)

Line Item 2000 ($) % of Revenue (2000)

Sales 25, 780 100%

Cost of Goods Sold 32, 670 126.6%

(COGS)

Gross Profit -6, 890 -26.7%

Marketing & Sales 60, 654 235.4%

Product Development 7, 211 27.9%

General & 8, 855 34.3%

Administrative

Stock-Based 3, 136 12.2%

Compensation

Operating Expenses 79, 856 309.2%

Operating Loss -86, 746 -336.1%

Interest Income 1, 876 7.3%

Net Loss -84, 870 -329.2%

ii. Financial Ratios

Here are the financial ratios calculated based on the available data. These ratios provide
insight into the company's profitability, financial health, and operational efficiency. Financial
Ratios for 1999 and 2000

1.
Net Income Margin (1999) = (-61,778 / 5,787) = -1067.5%

Net Income Margin (2000) = (-84,870 / 25,780) = -329.2%.

The company losses 10, 675 in the year 1999 and 3, 292 in the year 2000 for every 1, 000 in
revenue. This indicates that Pets.com lost more money than it earned from sales in 2000, a
concerning sign of financial instability.

2. Return on Equity (ROE)

13 | P a g e
 Republic of the Philippines
ISABELA STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF BUSINESS, ACCOUNTANCY, AND
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Echague, Isabela

Without specific equity data, it's important to note that a negative net income results in a
negative ROE. Therefore, the company is unable to generate returns for shareholders.

3. Earnings Per Share (EPS)

EPS would also be negative in this case, as the company was operating at a loss.

iii. Observations and Assessments

Sales Growth

Pets.com demonstrated a remarkable increase in sales from 1999 to 2000, growing by

over 340%. This kind of growth is usually a positive indicator of strong market demand and
effective customer acquisition strategies. However, this growth did not translate into
profitability, which raises questions about the efficiency and scalability of the company’s
operations. While rapid revenue growth can signal a potential for success, it must be paired
with cost management and profitability to sustain the business.

Cost Control Issues

One of the major challenges. The company allocated a substantial portion of its budget
to marketing and sales efforts, which, while essential for driving growth, far exceeded what
the business could afford. Additionally, other operating expenses, such as general and
administrative costs, also grew significantly. These cost-related inefficiencies indicate that the
company was spending more than it could earn, creating a widening gap between revenue and
expenses.

Sustainability Concerns

The company’s negative profit margins and rapidly rising operating costs suggest that
its business model was fundamentally flawed. For any business to succeed in the long term, it
must find a way to balance revenue growth with cost control to achieve profitability. In the
case of Pets.com, the continuous losses and negative operating margins indicate a lack of
financial sustainability. Without addressing these critical issues, the company was bound to
face financial difficulties.

Investor Risk

The excessive spending without corresponding profits likely raised red flags for
investors. Pets.com’s inability to demonstrate a clear path to profitability, coupled with its high
cash burn rate, would have shaken investor confidence. This uncertainty may have been one
of the key factors that contributed to the company’s eventual collapse. For investors, the risk
of continued losses and the absence of a viable strategy for turning the business around would
have been major deterrents.

14 | P a g e
 Republic of the Philippines
ISABELA STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF BUSINESS, ACCOUNTANCY, AND
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Echague, Isabela

Pets.com’ s case is a classic example of how rapid growth alone isn’t enough to sustain a
business. While the company managed to significantly boost its sales, its inability to control
expenses and turn a profit led to its downfall. The mismatch between revenue and skyrocketing
costs made the business unsustainable. This highlights the importance of balancing growth
with smart financial management. For investors, it’s a reminder to look beyond big numbers
and flashy growth to assess whether a company has a solid plan for long-term success.
Pets.com serves as a valuable lesson in the risks of prioritizing speed over stability.

IV. CONCLUSION/ RECOMMENDATION

Probably a classic example of the rise and fall of Pets.com is one such instance that
initial successes alone will not ensure long-term survival. As one of the early internet-based
retailers specializing in products for pets, the firm was seen as poised to revolutionize the
industry, but when conditions became tougher, some cracks began showing in its strategy.
Instead of selling heavy, low-margin items like dog food, Pets.com could’ve focused on
lighter, higher-margin products, like premium toys or organic treats, which would have been
cheaper to ship. They also went overboard with expensive celebrity endorsements. Instead,
they could’ve used targeted online ads or worked with influencers who genuinely loved the
brand, which would’ve helped them connect with customers on a more personal level without
breaking the bank.

For modern businesses, it’s not just about growing fast—it’s about growing smart.
Cutting costs, standing out with unique offerings, and keeping customers happy should be the
main focus. If Pets.com had done that, we might still be talking about it as a success story
instead of a cautionary tale. Hence, Businesses must be able to plan ahead, optimize their
operations, cut out unnecessary spending, and deliver real value to customers to succeed. One
of the major problems that Pets.com had was that it could not differentiate itself in the
marketplace. In a competitive market, one has to stand out. Companies have to be able to be
unique to compete by offering environmentally friendly products, superior quality
merchandise, or niche requirements.

The second lost opportunity in Pets.com was the partnership deal with Amazon. It
could have been a turning point for the company if it had gained more mileage of recognition
and credibility. Unfortunately, the partnership was not maximized. Companies that engage in
strategic alliances should focus on maximizing those alliances as a strategy to enhance their
influence and strengthen their position in the marketplace.

Some of the most vital learning outcomes relate to consumer loyalty. Consumer
services that meet par, loyalty schemes, and the personalized shopping experience all
contribute towards increasing the likelihood of revisiting stores by the consumer. In addition,
a kind of consumer culture and consciousness over the need for increasing demand for
sustainable or healthy products can help businesses to remain in resonance with their fast-
changing marketplace.

15 | P a g e
 Republic of the Philippines
ISABELA STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF BUSINESS, ACCOUNTANCY, AND
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Echague, Isabela

Pets.com did not fail due to a lack of trying. Its demise is instead the result of a string
of poor choices. The story of Pets.com provides a great lesson for modern companies: focus
on strategic growth, make intentional decisions, and focus on sustainable longevity in order
to create a long-term brand.

REFERENCES:

➢ Gershman, J. (2000). Pets.com: A Cautionary Tail. The Wall Street Journal.

➢ Statista. (2023). Pet Care Industry in the US - Overview.
➢ Cassidy, J. (2002). Dot.Con: The Greatest Story Ever Sold on Wall Street. Harper
Business.
➢ American Pet Products Association. (2024). Industry statistics & trends.
➢ Cummings, T. (2023). The future of the pet care industry: Growth trends and
opportunities. Pet Industry Insights Quarterly, 12(2), 45-59.
➢ Smith, R. (2023). Competitive dynamics in the online pet supply market. Journal
of E-commerce and Retail, 18(3), 101-115.
➢ Finkle, T. A. (2001). The collapse of Pets.com: A case study of the dot-com bubble.
Journal of Business Research, 47(1), 19-27.
➢ O'Rourke, P. (2000). The dot-com disaster: Pets.com and the future of internet
businesses. New York Times.
➢ Zengler, T. (2002). Why Pets.com failed: Lessons in business. Harvard Business
Review.
➢ Kollewe, J. (2017, December 17). The rise and fall of Pets.com. The Guardian.
Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com
➢ Sadler, D. (2020, November 9). Pets.com: Lessons from the dot-com bubble.
Techstory. Retrieved from https://www.techstory.in
➢ Anonymous. (n.d.). Porter’s Five Forces explained. Management Weekly.
Retrieved from https://www.managementweekly.org

16 | P a g e