← all stories

After the Web · Era 4 · Dot-coms and the crash

1998–2000bankruptcy 2000-05-17/18; the brand and domain were bought…

Boo.com

Boo.com was a London online fashion store that in November 1999 opened in 18 countries at once, with a heavy website and a virtual shop assistant. Six months later, on May 17/18, 2000, the company went bankrupt, having spent, by press estimates, between £80 million and $135 million; the brand and domain were bought by Fashionmall.com, and the technology by Bright Station.

Founders Ernst Malmsten · Kajsa Leander
Domains boo.com
ecommercefashiondotcominternational-launch

In brief

Boo.com was a London online store for designer clothing that in November 1999 opened in 18 countries at once, in six languages, with a virtual shop assistant, Miss Boo, and items tried on 3D models. Six months later, in May 2000, liquidators shut the company down; the press put its spending at anywhere from more than £80 million to $135 million estimate. The story is worth telling because it shows the price of the decision to build everything first and look for demand later, on other people's money, and because what was left of the business turned out to be worth dozens of times less than it cost to build: the brand and domain went to Fashionmall.com for less than $1 million, and the technology for about £250,000.

How it started (the founders)

The founders were the Swedes Ernst Malmsten and Kajsa Leander; before Boo.com they had sold an online bookstore, Bokus.com, which Wikipedia and The Hustle call their first success, while the sources describe the deal amount as eight figures, with no primary source estimate. The Guardian writes that the company was founded in 1998, while Wikipedia gives March 17, 1999, as the incorporation date of the Dutch NV estimate.

The initial plan, according to the Guardian, was £20 million, 30 people, and three months to launch. By the launch the staff numbered 400 people in eight offices, and four times the original plan had been spent. The idea went beyond a store: a place where the fashionable crowd would spend time, with Miss Boo as a guide to the site. The investors, according to Time: Goldman Sachs, Bernard Arnault (LVMH), and Bain Capital; the Guardian adds JP Morgan and the Benetton family. The amounts by round are not confirmed by primary sources estimate.

Year-by-year timeline

Lesser-known but significant facts

  1. The main purchase of what was left of the business cost less than $1 million. Fashionmall reported that four purchases (Boo.com, mxgonline.com, itsybits.com, Beautyjungle.com) together cost less than $1 million in cash; the price of Boo.com was not disclosed in the press, only that Bright Station had paid more than £250,000.
  2. The buyer got the heart of the business and a light shell, but not the software platform: the domains, trademarks, content, site design, and customer lists; there are no physical assets on the list, and the software went separately.
  3. After the purchase the brand was turned into a catalog and guide earning affiliate commissions: traffic was sent to stores in exchange for a percentage of sales, and no inventory of its own was held.
  4. A trademark dispute arose around the brand at once: Minneapolis-based Boo Inc. filed suit in August 2000.

Legend vs. the record

  1. "Boo.com was killed by the founders' extravagance." Retellings describe lunches with fashion editors, promotional gifts, salaries, and the founders' personal spending. The documents in our sources show something different in scale: eight offices and 400 people by the launch, spending four times the plan, 18 countries and logistics for each of them, and advertising worth several million pounds. The size of the personal spending is not confirmed by any figure. Malmsten himself names the lack of a strong financial controller as the cause. Verdict: half true; the cost structure explains the failure better than "extravagance" does, and the size of the personal spending has not been proven estimate.
  2. "Boo.com was too early." Malmsten says that they were too early and tried to do too much; in 1999, 20% of British households had the internet, over dial-up. But Zappos launched in the same year, 1999, with a simple site and is still alive, and Nielsen wrote in December 1999 that the site supported 18 countries equally well in language and delivery, and criticized precisely the clumsy interface. Verdict: half true; the market was not closed, what proved closed was a heavy interface on the channel of the day, and the $30 million needed could not be found while the Nasdaq was falling in the spring of 2000 estimate.
  3. "$135 million spent in 18 months." The figure comes from retellings; a likely source of the confusion is a statement by the head of Fashionmall.com in 2000 that Boo.com had spent $200 million (£135 million) on the brand: £135 million easily turns into "$135 million." The documents of the era give something else: Time at the launch, "reportedly $125 million"; the Guardian, more than £80 million; E-Commerce Times, $120 million in capital; the privately held Boo.com has no SEC filings. At the exchange rate in that same 2000 article ($200 million = £135 million), £80 million is about $120 million estimate. Verdict: the order of magnitude is right, but the exact sum and the "18 months" are not confirmed; there is no primary source; "$135 million" may be £135 million mistaken for dollars.
  4. "The remains of Boo.com were sold for millions." The Hustle writes of less than $2 million for everything, to two companies; Wikipedia, of $250,000 for the technology (mixing up £ and $); a profile on a domain marketplace, of $375,000 for the brand. The documents: Bright Station, £250,000; Fashionmall, price undisclosed, but the four deals together came to less than $1 million. Verdict: the order of magnitude is right, the exact figures are not confirmed; $375,000 is a rumor.

The first growth lever

The lever was not a marketing funnel but the scale of the launch: 18 countries at once, six languages, and payment and delivery in each of them. It worked as a claim on the market (the company was called the next Amazon, and Fortune named it one of the coolest companies in Europe before it had made a single sale) and helped raise money. But it did not work as growth: after the launch there was neither demand nor traffic, with £200,000 in revenue and 300,000 visitors over the last two months, and, according to a Mori poll shortly before the collapse, only 13.2% of internet users knew the name. For comparison, Zappos made $1.6 million in gross sales in 2000 on a minimum of money. The lever did not fire because the bet was on breadth from the start, not on repeat buyers in one category in one country.

The paired story

The pair is Zappos (history-zappos). Both stores sold shoes and clothing online from 1999: Zappos launched in June 1999 (as ShoeSite.com), Boo.com on November 3, 1999. The bets were opposite: Zappos had starting capital of about $150,000 and a model of photos from stores, with the pair bought from the store after the order came in; Boo.com had a plan of £20 million that ended up four times larger, 400 people, and 18 countries. Zappos's sales for 2000 were $1.6 million gross; Boo.com's for its last two months, £200,000 in revenue. The same year and the same category, but a different order: Zappos first tested demand and then built a warehouse; Boo.com built everything ahead of demand. Zappos ended in a sale to Amazon in 2009, Boo.com in liquidation in 2000. The documents show no shared people or deals between the two companies.

Parallels today (projects from the catalog)

What a builder can take from this in 2026

Discrepancies and what we could not verify

Sources (primary first)

Internet History Keeper

Every historical dossier here is free and open, and it will stay that way. If you want the series to keep going (new dossiers, checks against primary sources, the English edition), support it with a subscription for $9.90 a month. It is support, not access, and you can cancel at any time.

Become a keeper — $9.90 a month →

The same thing, about today

The same breakdowns, but of projects launching right now: what the product is, where the first users came from, how they charge. The card is free, the full dossier is $5 (the dossier itself is written in Russian).

Browse the dossier catalog →