[dragontamer]

Pets.com is probably the wrong example from the 90s. Webvan.com is a bit better: hundreds of millions spent on actual warehouses, trucks and more.

Pets.com clearly overspent on advertising, but I don't think they risked too many assets on the line. So when Pets.com eventually died, it wasn't a big deal. Its funny, because they had superbowl commercials and huge outreach. But nothing like like Webvan's huge warehouses or fleets of trucks.

[__jal]

I recall Webvan well. Still have a few of their crates holding stuff in my attic[1].

No idea what it looked like elsewhere, but their spending blitz in the Bay Area was incredible. Everywhere you looked, there was their name. For a little while...

[1] When they first launched, they used really high-quality, solid crates for deliveries that were well worth the too-cheap deposit.

[dragonwriter]

Pets.com was a potent and visible symbol that the money for nothing dotcom era was over.

I suspect that the upthread poster picked exactly the right 90s example for what they wanted.

[kuschku]

Or take a look at Cargolifter. They wanted to carry goods with Zeppelins around the world. Their facilities are still the largest free standing buildings on the planet, with an entire tropical resort in the former main hangar.

[michaelt]

Advertising seems like a good description of the subsidy applied by Uber and Blue Apron?