Ding!
Time's up for the illusion that dotcom guarantees success. If you're still in the game, lucky you. If you're not, take solace in knowing the rest of us are learning from your mistakes.
Gail Klein Bentley was on top of the world—actually, way
higher than that. The 30-year-old Charlottesville, Virginia,
entrepreneur had zoomed out of nowhere to land $1.2 million in
angel funding in the fall of 1999, and her Web site,
WorkingWeekly.com, was the subject of heavy buzz. It had quickly
grown to 60 employees and had a potentially huge customer base
because its focus was on the changing workplace—on helping
people find meaning and fullfillment in their working lives. How
could it fail? Then one day the bottom fell out. "I had a commitment for
$2 million in additional funding. The day they were supposed to put
in the money, they withdrew the offer," recalls Bentley. Not
good—and the ride became stomach-turning bumpy. "Of
course I went to other funders, but nobody else would invest,"
says Bentley, who served as chair, president and publisher. "I
had to lay off all 60 employees. I had never failed in my life.
That was just a terrible time." As we've all seen in the news, Bentley's pain isn't
all that unique. Last year, the talk was about the mushrooming
number of dotcom millionaires. These days you hear more about all
the dotcom disasters. Even big names are among the casualties:
Living.com, Boo.com (although Fashionmall.com did buy and reopen
it), Pets.com and even ToySmart.com, a onetime Disney subsidiary.
But countless lesser-known companies went under, too. Entire Web
sites have sprouted to do nothing but maintain death watches on
sputtering dotcoms. The upshot is that what had seemed a no-brainer
route to riches suddenly looks more like a dead end. But is it? Is
dotcomming only for kamikazes determined to flame out? Is there
still money to be made online? Content Continues Below
Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4
|
What makes a good client gift?
What guidelines do you follow when buying gifts for your clients? Have you ever received an unusual or inappropriate gift?
|