Editing Boo.com (section)

== Burn rate ==
Boo.com spent £125 million in just six months.<ref name="Firesale">{{cite news| url=https://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/02/business/international-business-fashionmallcom-swoops-in-for-the-boocom-fire-sale.html | work=The New York Times | title=INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS; Fashionmall.com Swoops in for the Boo.com Fire Sale | date=2 June 2000 | accessdate=5 February 2022}}</ref> Boo.com's sales did not match expectations, due partly to a higher-than-expected rate of product returns (a service that was offered for free, but charged for by their logistics supplier [[Deutsche Post]]). Poor management and a lack of communication between departments resulted in rapid growth in costs. The effectiveness of an expensive ad campaign was limited since the website was not ready in time, resulting in curious visitors being greeted with a holding page.

Staff and contractors were recruited in large numbers, with a lack of direction and executive decision about how many people were required, resulting in high payroll costs.