Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill Harmond who wrote (113383)	12/24/2000 3:14:43 PM
From: Glenn D. Rudolph	Respond to of 164684

>>The reason is obvious. They were able to raise more cash than any other so they have not burned all of it yet More importantly their customer acquisition costs have been the lowest. Bill, I am not sure that statement is accurate. Their bookeeping does not breakdown promtions to acquire customers from fulfillment costs. Anyway, let's say that as a pure play, their acquisition costs are the lowest as you stated. Their acquisition costs are still far too high to make them ever be profitable. This would indicate the other pure plays were even more off base. Amazon never defined an active customer. I believe they claimed 15+ million active customers at the end of Q3 2000. They also claimed 25 million cumulative cuctomers. I can't draw too many conclusions based on these numbers without a definiton of an active customer but if they are defined as they for "regular" retailer, the loss of 10 million in such a short time is far too high. This should be a non issue because you do not view them as a retailer but as a technology firm. Glenn