

How TechCrunch must change to stay relevant to the startup community - sandimac
http://quibb.com/links/how-techcrunch-must-change-to-stay-relevant-to-the-startup-community

======
flyinglizard
TechCrunch has nothing to do with journalism. It's a startup tabloid. There's
nothing wrong in this and clearly there is a strong demand for that among
readers. If you want in-depth, read Ars or Wired or Inc. For tech trash? TC.

~~~
kmfrk
TechCrunch is definitely not a journalistic paragon[1], but I think the term
tabloid is misplaced. Valleywag was the definition of a startup tabloid back
in the days.

[1]: [http://www.realdanlyons.com/blog/2012/02/13/hit-men-click-
wh...](http://www.realdanlyons.com/blog/2012/02/13/hit-men-click-whores-and-
paid-apologists-welcome-to-the-silicon-cesspool/)

------
minimaxir
A couple weeks ago, I did an analysis of TechCrunch by analyzing the data from
its Facebook page: <http://minimaxir.com/2012/10/questions-equals-reponses/>

In that analysis, I found that month-over-month, response rate (in terms of
average Likes and Comments on news stories) seem to be stable, and increasing.
While an increase in pageviews may be caused by linkbait titles, if people are
_responding_ to articles more frequently, we can assume that they're
"relevant", in this case.

------
kmfrk
A lot of the link-baiting articles or headlines just seem to be gaming the
Hacker News hivemind. I don't know whether that's a problem with TC or HN,
frankly. Probably both.

------
chipotle_coyote
The article seems to suggest that the best way for TC to be relevant is to
post shorter bits and long form articles written by entrepreneurs. I believe
what's being described exists as "PandoDaily," which statistically speaking,
you are probably not reading.

Yes, it's true that most technology writers haven't gone out to try their hand
at founding startups. Most founders also haven't tried their hand at
technology journalism, and it's hard not to notice that guests posts on blogs
from founders are usually vapid cheerleading of the form "there is an
unaddressed market problem in field X and there is a lot of opportunity in
solving X," where "X" is whatever field their startup is in.

There are founders who are good writers, and people who write regularly will
get better at it. But there are also a fair number of journalists,
particularly in "new media" like, uh, websites, who have enough of a technical
background to have _some_ idea what they're talking about when they write. Is
it better to have articles written by solid writers with unexceptional
technology backgrounds, or articles written by people who've successfully
gotten money but aren't necessarily good writers (and might _still_ have
unexceptional technology backgrounds)? Personally, I'd rather go for the
former.

------
tatsuke95
I formerly read TechCrunch for Arrington and MG Seigler, since they were both
pretty "entertaining" (read: ridiculous).

With them and that drama gone, there's little reason left to visit.

~~~
markkat
I drifted away after they left too. There's not much personality there. It
feels like Mashable, a list of announcements and articles that don't provide
much insight. No soul.

------
rrhoover
As with anything that becomes popular, TechCrunch gets a lot of hate in the
tech industry. I scan through its feed almost daily, mostly digesting just the
headlines.

I find value and entertainment in its long-form, insightful content (typically
written by guest writers like Nir Eyal, Semil Shah, etc.), funding
announcements (knowing what's funded matters), and even its link-bait,
sensational articles. I don't think TechCrunch is trying or should be THE
source for deep analysis or discussion. There are other sources for that (e.g.
Quibb, Quora, individual personal blogs like Joel Gasconigne)... and that's
OK.

------
richardjordan
No mention of the number one issue. Stop writing about themselves. They think
they're the story half the time. Inside nods and winks. Crap back and forth
between writers. Petty little vendettas with other
writers/institutions/organizations/whatever ...it's pathetic and childish.

Shifting to Facebook comments shows they care more about the (in the long run
questionable) benefit of Facebook sharing, over quality of discourse. Once
upon a time the comments section of TC posts could be as good as the article.
Now it's spam, trolls, and "Johnny this is your mom, why don't you call me?".

~~~
wisty
It worked when Michael Arrington was there, because he was a bit of a
celebrity himself. Lots of people loved him, or at least loved to hate him.
Maybe that was just in the tail end of his time there, when he had established
himself as a celebrity by writing lots of controversial stuff, getting
publicly slammed for it, then firing back. But you can't leave out the first
step - writing an initial article which genuinely stirs things up a bit.

~~~
richardjordan
It also helped that Arrington was a brilliant writer with a real nose for a
tech story.

------
ilamont
Link bait is not going to go away as long as the standard metric for "success"
is page views. It's what blog sites and MSM sites tout to their investors,
board members, and advertising clients.

------
hristov
The first thing they should do is make sure their website stops crashing
tablets and smartphones. Rendering text articles should not be that difficult.

~~~
andrewflnr
It does seem to have stopped crashing my iPad at some point.

------
brackin
They shouldn't completely change what they do but focus on quality valuable
content. When I read something on AVC, Paul Graham's Blog or Ben Horowitz'
blog I find direct value. I learn something new or how to fix a problem I'm
facing. Many TechCrunch posts are "Is Instagram for Video a big market?" or
"Why the internet is dead?". You sometimes get clicks but it devalues the
content.

I don't mind funding announcements when they're mixed with product
announcements or are an overall profile. I like how Sahil did it with Gumroad,
he announced Gumroad has raised X amount of money and has launched our product
and the article included a video interview. Copying a press release or quoting
a company blogpost doesn't add value.

Many people still value TechCrunch, it's source for investors and influencers
too, to track companies they may be interested in investing in. If TechCrunch
just became editorial it would lose this and most of the value.

~~~
mgkimsal
You can say "add value", but a press release that was posted on my site
reposted on TC word for word _is_ adding value - or at least, potentially
adding value - to me. Just because it's published doesn't mean anyone had seen
it - getting it in front of a lot of eyeballs is a certain amount of value in
itself.

~~~
brackin
Adding value to the reader. Why the reader should read their post vs the
Venture Beat quote. As writers that should be their aim.

------
benologist
TC is going to get worse, not better. AOL hasn't even gone full retard with
them yet, this is all we can expect...

Tags: android, android 4.0, android 4.0.4, Android4.0, Android4.0.4, droid
razr, droid razr hd, droid razr maxx hd, DroidRazr, DroidRazrHd,
DroidRazrMaxxHd, google, Ice Cream Sandwich, IceCreamSandwich, ics,
mobilepostcross, motorola, motorola droid razr, motorola droid razr hd,
motorola droid razr maxx, motorola droid razr maxx hd, MotorolaDroidRazr,
MotorolaDroidRazrHd, MotorolaDroidRazrMaxx, MotorolaDroidRazrMaxxHd, review,
verizon, video

Pure Garbage, puregarbage, pure, garbage.

------
rhizome
Why should I care whether they are relevant?

~~~
gusfoo
Because the tech industry, like all others, has a large element of fashion -
and a lot of people (like it or no) are followers of fashion. The New New
thing, etc.

~~~
rhizome
That has nothing to do with Techcrunch per se. People will find something else
if TC dies. Big whoop.

------
michaelhoffman
I think that ship has already sailed.

------
Kilimanjaro
Easier for digg to come back to my bookmarks than techcrunch.

That means never.

