Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Mahajan, V.
Right arrow Articles by Wind, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

The Dot.com Retail Failures of 2000: Were There Any Winners?

Vijay Mahajan

Raji Srinivasan

University of Texas at Austin

Jerry Wind

University of Pennsylvania

In the year 2000, several dot.com retailers filed for bankruptcy, shut down their operations, or faced the riskof their stockbeing delisted on the stockmarket. But did any dot.com retailer do it right? Were there any winners? If yes, who are these winners? What is the product and firm profile of these winners? What lesson, if any, can be learned from these winners and losers? This article addresses these questions based on a study of 48 dot.com retailers, conducted in December 2000. The study identified 1-800contacts.com as the sole winner, using two performance indicators: percentage change in stockprice since the initial public offering and stockoptions underwater. Based on a proposed conceptual frameworkof product and firm characteristics, the profile of 1-800contacts.com is compared with the hypothesized winner, Amazon.com, and other dot.com retailers. Implications of the study and limitations and opportunities for future research are discussed.

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 30, No. 4, 474-486 (2002)
DOI: 10.1177/009207002236919
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Journal of Service ResearchHome page
S. A. Neslin, D. Grewal, R. Leghorn, V. Shankar, M. L. Teerling, J. S. Thomas, and P. C. Verhoef
Challenges and Opportunities in Multichannel Customer Management
Journal of Service Research, November 1, 2006; 9(2): 95 - 112.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Journal of the Academy of Marketing ScienceHome page
A. Saini and J. L. Johnson
Organizational Capabilities in E-Commerce: An Empirical Investigation of E-Brokerage Service Providers
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, July 1, 2005; 33(3): 360 - 375.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Journal of the Academy of Marketing ScienceHome page
A. Parasuraman and G. M. Zinkhan
Marketing to and Serving Customers through the Internet: An Overview and Research Agenda
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, October 1, 2002; 30(4): 286 - 295.
[Abstract] [PDF]