10 empresas tecnológicas que implosionaron por completo

La industria de la tecnología parece tener una inclinación por generar negocios que crecen increíblemente rápido y luego colapsan y se queman espectacularmente . en una especie de frenesí por aferrarse a la próxima gran cosa. Muchas de estas nuevas empresas se hicieron públicas y recibieron aún más dinero de inversión. Se prestó más atención a la exageración que a los planes comerciales sólidos. Las acciones se dispararon a alturas increíbles (e infladas) y todos los involucrados esperaban convertirse en millonarios. En algunos casos, los primeros inversores cobraron y se embolsaron algunas monedas dulces.

Pero en marzo de 2000, cuando estalló la burbuja tecnológica, aquellos que no salieron lo suficientemente pronto se quedaron con nada más que sueños destrozados. Muchos de los fracasos de la compañía siguieron un patrón: el incipiente negocio recibió cientos de millones a través de capital de riesgo y ofertas públicas iniciales (OPI), superó la mayor parte a través de un gasto desenfrenado y una rápida expansión, se quedó sin reservas de efectivo cuando los ingresos no lo hicieron. alcanzó los niveles esperados, no pudo obtener fondos adicionales debido a las condiciones del mercado y se declaró en bancarrota solo uno o dos años después del lanzamiento.

Las siguientes son historias de 10 implosiones financieras tecnológicas. La mayoría fueron derribados por la quiebra de las puntocom, directa o indirectamente, aunque algunos fueron destruidos por adquisiciones imprudentes, juicios o actos nefastos. Podemos dar crédito a estos primeros empresarios por sentar las bases de nuestras vidas modernas conectadas las 24 horas del día, los 7 días de la semana, y también por proporcionar algunas lecciones valiosas sobre cómo no administrar una empresa de tecnología, pero eso probablemente sea un pequeño consuelo para quienes quedaron arruinados a raíz del desastre. .

1. Boo.com
2. La empresa de aprendizaje
3. Webvan
4. mascotas.com
5. Kozmo.com
6. Flooz
7. juguetes electrónicos
8. Napster
9. GeoCiudades
10. infoespacio

Este sitio minorista con sede en el Reino Unido, Boo.com, fundado en 1998 por empresarios suecos, pretendía mostrar tendencias y ofrecer ropa y accesorios de moda y deportivos a clientes de todo el mundo. Se contrataron cientos de empleados y muchos recibieron beneficios como teléfonos celulares y Palm Pilots. Boo gastó $42 millones en una campaña publicitaria que incluía la contratación de Roman Coppola para dirigir sus comerciales de televisión. Se esperaba que el sitio se pusiera en marcha en mayo de 1999, pero se lanzó con seis meses de retraso, en octubre de 1999. El sitio presentaba una asistente animada llamada Miss Boo y la capacidad de arrastrar ropa a modelos, acercar artículos y verlos desde todos los ángulos. .

La tecnología detrás del sitio era impresionante, pero era demasiado lenta y torpe para las computadoras y las conexiones de acceso telefónico de la mayoría de las personas. Los usuarios también tenían que descargar software para ver la mercancía y era incompatible con las computadoras Macintosh. Muchos posibles compradores tuvieron problemas para realizar sus compras. Los costos del sitio fueron asombrosos: solo fotografiar la mercancía costó $ 200 por artículo [fuente: Chaffey]. El sitio tenía que mantener versiones en varios idiomas y lidiar con monedas, impuestos y envíos para regiones de todo el mundo. Boo.com no pudo generar ganancias lo suficientemente rápido como para seguir siendo solvente. Debido a la crisis de las puntocom, la oferta pública inicial prevista se suspendió y la empresa no logró recaudar suficiente capital a través de nuevas inversiones para mantener el sitio en funcionamiento. Cerró y quebró en mayo de 2000. La tecnología detrás del sitio fue comprada y utilizada por Venda, una compañía dedicada a poner a los minoristas en línea, mientras que el sitio Boo.com fue comprado por Fashionmall y relanzado como un portal a otros sitios minoristas. (Desde que desapareció). Boo.com gastó $ 185 millones antes del cierre, pero la venta a Venda y Fashionmall generó menos de $ 2 millones [fuente: Sorkin ].

The Learning Company era una empresa de software educativo que creó títulos tan populares como "Myst", "Reader Rabbit" y "¿En qué parte del mundo está Carmen Sandiego?" La compra de The Learning Company por parte de la compañía de juguetes Mattel en mayo de 1999 por $3.6 mil millones vive en la infamia como una de las adquisiciones más desastrosas de todos los tiempos. Mattel lo compró con la esperanza de reforzar sus propias ofertas de software, pero The Learning Company, que no había desarrollado un nuevo éxito en algunos años, perdió casi 200 millones de dólares a los pocos meses de la venta. Esto convirtió las ganancias proyectadas de Mattel en una pérdida de $ 86 millones ese año [fuente: Doan ]. Las acciones de la compañía, que habían alcanzado un máximo de alrededor de $ 46 por acción el año anterior, se desplomaron a alrededor de $ 12 por acción [fuente: Bannon ].

El presidente y director ejecutivo de Mattel, Jill Barad, se vio obligado a renunciar por el fiasco. Barad se había abierto camino desde gerente de producto en la división de Barbie, donde mejoró enormemente las ventas. Mattel vendió The Learning Company a Gores Technology Group en 2000 por lo que se creía que era aproximadamente una décima parte de su precio de compra. Gores escindió la división de entretenimiento de The Learning Company a Ubi Soft Entertainment y vendió la división educativa a Riverdeep, que luego adquirió Houghton Mifflin. The Learning Company es ahora una división de Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Webvan, que se lanzó en junio de 1999, permitía a los clientes ordenar sus compras en línea y recibirlas en sus hogares. Era una idea popular, pero probablemente se adelantó a su tiempo dada la baja saturación de Internet del momento. Webvan recaudó alrededor de $ 800 millones en capital de riesgo y $ 375 millones en una oferta pública inicial en noviembre de 1999. Sus acciones alcanzaron los $ 34 el primer día de cotización [fuentes: Stross, Delgado , Goldman]. Las operaciones de Webvan comenzaron en San Francisco y se expandieron a otros ocho mercados urbanos. No solo recogía y entregaba comestibles, sino que almacenaba toda su propia mercancía; tenía los problemas de una cadena de tiendas de comestibles tradicional y un servicio de entrega. También requería mucho personal y gastó una cantidad enorme en cada almacén para la automatización de vanguardia y los servidores para manejar los pedidos. En lugar de buscar un crecimiento lento, Webvan invirtió mil millones de dólares en almacenes de última generación para una expansión planificada en 26 ciudades que se completará en 2001 [fuente: Goldman ].

Como muchas otras puntocom, la empresa fue víctima de un gasto excesivo y una expansión precipitada. Antes del final, Webvan cerró en sus mercados de Dallas y Atlanta para reducir costos. También cometió algunos errores de principiante, como reducir la calidad de los productos en algunas áreas para ahorrar dinero, lo que molestó a los clientes. La empresa tenía 750.000 clientes en los mercados restantes, pero no podía atraer suficientes nuevos negocios para alcanzar el punto de equilibrio. Las acciones de Webvan finalmente cayeron a 6 centavos: despidió a alrededor de 2,000 trabajadores, quebró y cerró en julio de 2001 [fuente: Lanxon ]. El nombre de la empresa, el dominio y el logotipo parecen haber resucitado como una tienda web impulsada por Amazon que vende productos no perecederos.

Pets.com, founded in 1998, was an online seller of pet supplies including food and accessories. It received more than $100 million in venture capital, and went public in February 2000, raising another $82.5 million [sources: Wolverton, Tarsala]. Its mascot was a cute and popular dog sock puppet that, in commercials , talked to pets in the street, and the catchy tagline was, "Pets.com. Because pets can't drive." The company spent many millions on marketing, including a multi-million dollar Super Bowl ad, resulting in a much higher than normal per-customer acquisition cost (possibly as much as $300) [source: Machan]. Pets.com acquired its competitor Petstore.com, and partnered with Amazon, which in the end owned a 30 percent stake in the company.

At their highest point, Pets.com stock prices were $14 a share, but dropped to less than a dollar, all within the same year [sources: Goldman, Wolverton]. The site never managed to get beyond the point of losing more than it was making on every sale. Pets.com posted a $147 million loss in the first three quarters of 2000, and after the dot-com bust, it was unable to raise the further funds it needed to keep operating [source: Goldman]. It closed down in November 2000. Notably, after failing to find a buyer, the company declined to file for bankruptcy and instead decided to sell off its assets and distribute the money to its shareholders so that they weren't left with nothing.

Kozmo.com, started in March 1998, offered various items like convenience foods, drugstore items and videogame and movie rentals online, promising delivery within an hour with no delivery charge and no minimum order. You could get electronics like game systems and movie players (to play the rentals), but you could also just order a single pack of gum or a candy bar, and a Kozmo bicycle courier would deliver it to your door for the face value of the item.

Amazon invested in Kozmo to the tune of $60 million, receiving a 31 percent stake in the company [source: Sandoval]. Kozmo also partnered with Starbucks, paying them for the privilege of locating Kozmo video drop boxes in their stores and providing a limited selection of Starbucks goods for delivery. The service was convenient and popular with customers, but the business model proved unsustainable as most orders cost more to deliver than they made back. Every market required warehouse space and lots of workers, and they also suffered for expanding into multiple markets too quickly. Kozmo eventually implemented a $10 delivery fee, and was beginning to make a profit in three of its nine urban locations, but it came too late to save the company. It postponed an IPO that had been planned for June 2000 due to the poor state of the market, and finally closed its doors in April 2001. Chris Siragusa, Kozmo's former Chief Technology Officer, started a similar delivery service in 2005 called Max Delivery. It has served lower Manhattan for years, has reasonable delivery fees and is only now beginning to work on expansion to other parts of New York City. By concentrating on a single location and slowly working out all the pricing, product offering and customer service kinks, a small but profitable company sprang from the Kozmo idea.

Flooz allowed users to buy a virtual currency (also called flooz) that could be used online in lieu of credit cards at dozens of retailers' sites, such as J. Crew, Barnes & Noble, Restoration Hardware, Starbucks and Tower Records. It was comparable to a gift certificate that could be used at multiple online stores. Companies like American Express even gave out flooz as loyalty rewards. The company raised more than $43 million in investment funds and was endorsed by Whoopi Goldberg, who was paid for a successful ad campaign with a stake in the company [sources: CNET, Trager]. Customers purchased around $28 million in Flooz over 1999 and 2000. But Flooz shut down operations abruptly, and from its customers' point of view, unexpectedly, during August 2001, and shortly thereafter filed for bankruptcy .

People who had purchased but not yet redeemed their flooz were left in the lurch with retailers no longer accepting them as payment. Though things like the low number of retailers accepting the currency and the dot-com bust likely contributed to the company's financial woes, it was also reported that Flooz may have been crippled by criminal activity. An overseas credit fraud ring apparently bought $300,000 worth of Flooz with stolen credit cards, prompting Flooz's own credit-card processor to freeze its accounts. Like many start-ups, it didn't have a lot of capital to fall back on, likely making it difficult for the company to pay out to retailers for customer purchases and hastening its demise [sources: Enos, Tedeschi, Wearden].

EToys, founded in 1997, had every intention of dominating the online toy market. When it went public in May 1999, it raised $166 million [sources: Gentile, German]. The company spent massive amounts on marketing to try to compete with retailers such as Toys R Us, Wal-Mart and Amazon. It also signed deals with America Online, Discovery Toys and Gap Inc. to increase its exposure. EToys managed to gain around 2 million customers and started a successful U.K. branch. The company suffered a public relations blow due to a slew of late deliveries for the 1999 holiday season, but did beat Toys R Us's online sales. It then laid out $150 million to build new distribution centers in Virginia and California. Despite sales increases, eToys was losing tens of millions of dollars each quarter and had worse than projected revenues during the 2000 holiday season. It had also accumulated $247 million in debt [source: Goldman].

The eToys stock price went from around $86 per share at its peak to 9 cents per share in the end [source: BBC News, Gentile]. Competitor Toys R Us partnered with Amazon to bolster its online sales. In a familiar story, eToys was unable to find enough new investment capital to keep things going after its spending spree and the dot-com went bust. It closed its U.K. site at the beginning of 2001. The company filed for bankruptcy in February 2001, shut down in March 2001, and laid off around 1,000 workers between January and its closing. KB Toys bought and resurrected eToys, paying $5.4 million for roughly $40 million in inventory, and an additional $3.35 million for the eToys site, name and logo [source: Saliba]. KB Toys went under at a later date, but eToys.com is still around -- under new ownership.

Napster was different: It wasn't the bust that killed it, and the site re-emerged, albeit in an altered form. Launched in 1999, Napster was an early peer-to-peer music sharing facilitator that indexed sites of users who hosted music on the Web. It allowed users to easily search for and download all kinds of music for free. It was wildly popular in its heyday, reaching 80 million users [source: King]. The company ran afoul of the music industry and its major trade organization, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA ), which tried to sue Napster out of existence for copyright infringement, but the company struggled on for a little while in litigation. A German media company called Bertelsmann paid millions to Napster for development of a secure music distribution system, which led to Bertelsmann being embroiled in some of the anti-Napster lawsuits for helping to keep Napster going. (Ironic twist: A music division of Bertelsmann was also suing to kill Napster.)

Legal injunctions finally made Napster shut down in July 2001. The company tried to stay afloat as a secure and legitimate file trading service, and had a purchased offer from Bertelsmann for $20 million, but internal politics nearly destroyed the company and the deal never went through [source: King]. The company was relaunched by Roxio as a monthly subscription service in 2003, and was purchased by Best Buy for $121 million in 2008 [sources: Pepitone, Reisinger]. In 2011, Best Buy sold Napster to Rhapsody, another music subscription service. Napster co-founder Sean Parker is now an investor and board member of Spotify, a Rhapsody competitor. Despite the fact that Napster allowed for illegal download of music, it single-handedly popularized the ability to download songs online, something we take for granted today. Napster ultimately helped usher in changes to the music industry that led the streaming and sale of music online through services like Rhapsody and Spotify, and retail sites like the iTunes Store and Amazon.

Founded in 1994, GeoCities gave users free real estate on the World Wide Web on which to create their own personal Web presences. Each user was allotted 6 Megabytes of space in the beginning (15 Megabytes in later days), and the company raised revenue via advertisements scattered throughout the pages. There are many fond (and horrific) memories of this once sprawling landscape of bad 1990s Web design perpetuated by its mostly amateur users. And these land metaphors are not for nothing, since GeoCitieswas themed as a virtual city grouped into neighborhoods built around various topics, like entertainment, arts, sports or fashion, to name a few. At its peak, GeoCities had around 35 million users and was the third most-visited site on the Web. In a way, it was the closest thing we had back then to the blogging and social networking sites of today. In what was possibly a case of dot-com overvaluation, Yahoo purchased GeoCities for $3.6 billion in January 1999 [sources: CNN Money, Goldman, Schroeder].

GeoCities' decline was more of a slow fizzle than a swift crash, however. The site trudged along for a decade, but declined in popularity due to growing competition from newer, more user-friendly free hosting, blogging and social networking sites that developed over the years. Yahoo decided to discontinue the service, encouraged remaining users to move to one of its paid Web hosting services, and deleted all GeoCities hosted sites in 2009. Thankfully, some kind souls calling themselves the Archive Team saved a 650 Gigabyte copy of a good many of the GeoCities sites for historical purposes before the shutdown. Some other groups made similar efforts, and you can still peruse a lot of the old pages today.

This last one's a little awkward. Today, InfoSpace is part of Blucora, which announced that it was acquiring on April 21, 2014. So, this one feels like airing out the family's dirty laundry ... but InfoSpace's 2002 implosion was too dramatic to ignore.

InfoSpace, founded in 1996 by former Microsoft employee Naveen Jain, provided a variety of Web-based content and services including phone directories, weather information, stock quotes and search engines. It first made money from ad fees and then made a foray into providing cell phone Web content, intending to make money through charges to cellular customers. Wall Street analysts spoke highly of the company, and it was often touted as the next Microsoft. At its peak in early 2000, InfoSpace stock was worth more than $1,000 a share. It dropped drastically after the dot-com bubble burst, but even a year after the crash, its stock fluctuated at respectable levels above the initial offering price of $15, unlike the pennies of many failing companies.

But it turned out that the company's worth may have mostly been smoke and mirrors. InfoSpace apparently used accounting tricks and shady business deals to mislead investors and analysts into thinking it was doing better than it really was, while many of its executives were dumping their own stock [source: Heath and Chan]. That's where InfoSpace's story diverges from most of our other tech company implosions: Insider trading and other nefarious activity were going on behind the scenes.

After revelations emerged of how the company was really doing, its stock plummeted to just a little more than $2.50 a share in June 2002, wiping out a lot of investors and making employee stock options worthless. Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen lost hundreds of millions of dollars because of his investment in Go2Net, which had merged with InfoSpace in October 2000 [source: Heath and Chan]. Despite all the apparent wrongdoing, no one went to jail. There were lawsuits over the insider trading, one of which Jain lost, but the judgment against him was drastically reduced on appeal. Court records were sealed by the presiding judge.

InfoSpace se sometió a una limpieza y reestructuración total a partir de diciembre de 2002, cuando la junta directiva despidió a Jain como presidente y director ejecutivo y lo reemplazó con Jim Voelker. Se recuperó y se volvió rentable bajo un nuevo liderazgo y después de despojarse de muchos de sus negocios. En su nueva forma, InfoSpace todavía existe como parte de Blucora, brindando servicios de búsqueda y monetización.

Nota del autor: 10 empresas tecnológicas que implosionaron por completo

Este artículo me trajo recuerdos. Vivíamos en las afueras de una de las ubicaciones urbanas a las que prestaba servicio Webvan. Recuerdo haber pensado en lo genial que sería si pudiéramos recibir nuestros alimentos y estar triste cuando se hundieron antes de expandirse a nuestra área. Aunque resulta que la expansión aceleró, o incluso provocó, su desaparición.

Es una pena que algunas de estas geniales ideas no se convirtieran en realidad, especialmente cuando se les arrojaron cientos de millones de dólares y cuando, al menos en algunos casos, fueron condenados por un mal momento. Pero el ciclo de auge y caída es uno de los peligros de nuestra economía.

La visión de fines de la década de 1990 del comercio minorista en línea finalmente se está haciendo realidad ahora. Puedo pedir comida para perros, juguetes, comestibles (al menos la variedad no perecedera) y muchas otras cosas en la Web. A pesar de que la mayoría de las personas todavía hacen la mayor parte de sus compras en tiendas físicas, muchas de ellas usan Internet para informar sus elecciones. Y aquellos de nosotros que estamos conectados hasta los dientes estamos pasando menos tiempo en la tienda y más tiempo de calidad con nuestras pantallas brillantes.

Artículos relacionados