[scott_meade]

Their's was not the Amazon model. Amazon has always had a gross profit http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Amazon.com_(AMZN)/Data/Gross_... and http://www.nasdaq.com/markets/ipos/filing.ashx?filingid=4268....

The more product Amazon sold, the more money they'd make (or more accurately, the less money they'd lose).

On the other hand, Ecomom never had a gross profit. The more product they sold, the more money they lost. This is the situation you describe in the gasoline scenario. I suspect the gasoline model was not their strategy by choice, but by accident. The controller's assertion is that it's the runaway discounts that did them in. 50% discounts intended to be for one-time-use-only were used on almost all orders.

Whether it was a long-term strategy or a fundamental mistake, whatever they did is not the Amazon model.

Compare.

  $000's

  Amazon - Quarter ended March, 1996

    Net sales:            $875
    Cost of sales:        $695
                          ----
    Gross profit:         $180
    Gross profit %:      20.6%


  Ecomom November, 2012

    Net sales[1]:          $52
    Cost of sales:        $548
                        ------
    Gross profit/loss:   -$496
    Gross profit %:       -45%





  [1]
  Sales:       $1,089
  Discounts:    $(751)
  Warehousing:  $(152)
  Freight:      $(134)
               -------
  Net sales:      $52

[hncommenter13]

Thanks for digging these up. These numbers may not be fully representative, however: http://www.cfo.com/printable/article.cfm/2987898

Rather famously, Amazon in its early days included the cost of fulfillment (shipping, warehousing, etc.) in Sales and Marketing expense, not COGS. As a result, gross margins were thought to be somewhat inflated.

Apparently they also counted their equity investments in the stock of companies including Webvan and Sotheby's as cash and marketable securities.

At the time, analysts were worried about what all this implied for operating cash flow and gross margin.

[LanceH]

The numbers are crazy.

What they were selling was $40 gift certificates for $20. Then they sold a $30 good for a $40 gift certificate.

They recorded this as a $40 sale with a $30 cost and $20 marketing. The implication that you can eventually cut back on the marketing, which is obviously false.

IMO, the $40 should never appear in anything that could be construed as revenues. Sure, you can work it such that you'll end up with the proper ($10) loss, but they never received an actual $40, their only (well, majority) revenue appeared in the form of $20 payments from the group selling the gift certificates.