
NYTimes: Amid Conference Halls and Keynote Speakers, a Rivalry Forms - jkopelman
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/18/technology/18crunch.html?_r=1&ref=business&oref=slogin
======
pg
In this case Arrington is right and Shipley is wrong. Charging $18k to present
will weed out most good early stage startups. Maybe that wasn't true 17 years
ago when DEMO started, but the world has changed.

~~~
gojomo
The fee may weed out a certain breed of scrappy startups, but ability to pay
is an enduring fitness signal.

I have a hunch Demo will still be around after Arrington retires and
TechCrunch becomes a bubble-nostalgic brand like FuckedCompany or RedHerring.

~~~
pg
Ability to pay may be a sign of fitness, but willingness to pay is a sign of
wastefulness and desperation. If I were a VC I'd never want to invest in a
company that was willing to blow that kind of money to present to me.

~~~
gojomo
Certainly, Demo is not aimed at PG-style investors.

As enough time passes, it will be valuable to compare the relative followup
success of companies presenting at TC vs. Demo. For example, how do the
DemoFall2007 and TC40/2007 rosters compare, a year or two later? (I don't
know, but I hope the more-invested partisans of the two conferences undertake
the analysis.)

------
Mistone
my opinion on demo is that $18k is $18k: a lot of dough for a startup to spend
to get the word out.

I don't think its a waste for all becuase lots of successful startups have
come through DEMO, but I've always dismissed the notion outright based on the
upfront cost.

Startups come in all shapes a sizes and many are blessed out the gate with a
big VC check in the bank, if thats you, go ahead and spend, but for the rest
of us, $18k is a deal breaker at the startup stage, so TC50 is a welcome
entrant.

