[riffraff]

WebVan[0] and Pets.com[1], two of the most well known busts of the dot-com era, did not use ads.

Ad-based-internet became a big thing many years later, I believe.

(I do agree that TSLA is different, anyway.)

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webvan [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pets.com

[wilg]

Strange that you would say Pets.com didn't use ads given in your link there is a section about their famous sock puppet mascot with the following quote:

> Pets.com hired the San Francisco office of TBWA\Chiat\Day to design its advertising campaign.

Also here's a collection of Pets.com TV ads: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sICSyC9u5iI

And Webvan did ads too: https://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2001/03/05/da...

[benmller313]

I think you misunderstood, the point was that pets.com's revenue model wasn't based on free services supported by advertising sales.

[riffraff]

they advertised, sure, but were not "propped by ad revenue".

Advertising was a cost for them, like it is for Tesla, they weren't in the business of _selling_ ads, like Google or Facebook.