
Why TechCrunch is over - philipDS
http://yared.com/2011/04/why-techcrunch-is-over.html
======
TomOfTTB
There are a lot of flaws in this analysis...

1\. Yes Techcrunch's traffic is down according to Compete but so is the
traffic from other sites that cover the same space. In the last 6 months
Venturebeat for example is down 73%. ReadWriteWeb is down 38%. Even smaller
sites are down. CenterNetworks covers relatively the same space and they're
down 38%. By comparison Techcrunch is only down 29%.

2\. The author states Michael Arrington making increasingly inflammatory posts
as a reason why techcrunch will fail. But in my experience such posts tend to
draw traffic. More to the point Arrington has been at this for a while, he
uses analytics and he's not stupid. If the inflammatory posts weren't getting
results he wouldn't continue to post them.

3\. The author uses Wavii as an example of how TechCrunch is no longer a
"kingmaker" because they've pushed that startup and it hasn't gotten major
funding. But said product hasn't even launched yet so it's really too early to
receive more funding (they already got $2m in seed funding and that was only 9
months ago). So the example doesn't really hold.

4\. I actually kind of agree with this point in that I don't really enjoy Paul
Carr, Sarah Lacy or Steve Gillmor. But again the site has analytics so I
assume they'd be gone if everyone agreed with me. So clearly they're drawing a
crowd regardless of how I feel. The author needs to realize the same is true
of his opinion.

5\. The last point boils down to "the author doesn't like Arrington so he'll
fail". Well...a lot of people haven't liked Michael Arrington in the past and
he's succeeded in spite of it.

I'm not saying Techcrunch doesn't have its problems but they're far from
"over"

~~~
bambax
> _The author states Michael Arrington making increasingly inflammatory posts
> as a reason why techcrunch will fail. But in my experience such posts tend
> to draw traffic._

The article argues the opposite: Arrington is shouting louder and louder in
order to stop the traffic from hemorrhaging. Looks fairly true to me, too.

------
lachyg
I found this quote to be pretty good:

"If it was not for MG Siegler (Apple fanboyism aside) and Erick Schonfeld,
TechCrunch would be a content-free environment. The rest of the writing has
become incredibly self-referential and stale. Paul Carr has the magical
ability to consistently write articles that say nothing other than what he did
yesterday. Sarah Lacy keeps writing about startups in Indonesia that no one
cares about, because even startups in first world countries like France can’t
seem to make it. Alexia Tsotsis has no clue about underlying technology or any
context but continually injects her opinions and should instead write for
PopSugar. Steve Gillmor occasionally adds a rambling grandpa perspective.
Robin Wauters, Leena Rao and Jason Kincaid are all competent at summarizing
the news, and even add a bit of context, but their content is no different
than what you can read elsewhere."

~~~
mesuvash
Yeah sometimes i feel TechCrunch is biased. I am not comfortable with people
who write news on behalf of some company. We expect them to write the real
news rather than supporting some and reprimanding others.

~~~
cullend
Then you need to readjust your expectations from false idealism to Mike's
reality.

~~~
mesuvash
Yeah, i am in verge of adjusting my expectations.

------
arn
I hate how people cite Compete.com traffic graphs as "fact". Fact #1 is not a
fact at all.

Reference point: <http://siteanalytics.compete.com/macrumors.com/> (estimated
traffic, graph goes down) vs <http://www.quantcast.com/macrumors.com>
(measured traffic, graph goes up)

I also like how he cites Compete's numbers for TechCrunch (1 million uniques),
but doesn't use Compete's numbers for his own site PostPost. Compete says
PostPost gets 18k uniques/month yet he cites 100K uniques. Why not compare
apples to apples?

~~~
jggube
It's terribly inaccurate, based on my experience. For the Feb 2011 (most
recent available stat they have), they were wrong by -314%. They should make
the fact that their service is inaccurate obvious; otherwise, they're
misleading many people.

Their data points are from 2 million people. In the U.S. alone, there are 230
million+ interet users: [http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-
wdi&met=it_net_us...](http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-
wdi&met=it_net_user&idim=country:USA&dl=en&hl=en&q=internet+users)

I only took basic stats courses in college, but I know enough to know that's
nowhere close to a big enough sample size to be statistically significant.

~~~
edanm
"I only took basic stats courses in college, but I know enough to know that's
nowhere close to a big enough sample size to be statistically significant."

I am not a statistician, but I'm pretty sure you're wrong about that.

The real problem isn't the small sample size (2 million is really large), it's
probably that they're not representative.

------
TamDenholm
While I disagree with most of Arringtons written opinions I do respect the
fact he managed to build a highly successful blog. I do however think that the
quality has disappeared from techcrunch and 90% of the stuff that gets
published on TC is tabloid crap. This is why I've taken TC off my RSS reader
and now instead read The Startup Foundry.

------
nikcub
I worked for TC for a long time and lived and worked in the same house as Mike
for almost 4 years, so I know how he works very well.

First, Compete totally gets Techcrunch traffic wrong. Not only the numbers,
but the trends would totally not match up with our own internal Google
Analytics, and even the data such as top referrers etc. were way off. Compete
should not be used as supporting evidence that Techcrunch is fading.

The number of re-tweets, comments, referral traffic, twitter subscribers,
Techememe headlines, HN headlines, story leads etc. is as high as ever.
Monthly uniques are nowhere near the 1M compete would want us to believe they
are.

There are a few different types of blogger. Those who don't get access to
stories and rely on press releases, generally boring. Then there are those who
get access to information, but refuse to post about it for fear of pissing
somebody off, just as boring and probably worse than the first type. Then
there is the type of blogger who gets access to information, and has no
problem stepping on toes to get the information out.

Mike is of this variety. You could say that he is the prime example of the new
breed of process journalist - he would rather a (now rather low) error rate on
1-2% of stories in order to get the other 98% out there for the audience. I
have intimate knowledge of how he works and how he puts stories together - to
the extent that even now, with him on the other side of the world, I can read
a story on headline and put together what went on behind the scenes to get
this story out (such as the Facebook stock story). He is constantly on the
phone and emailing people. He literally has hundreds of people on speed dial,
on skype and in his email contact list - he would send dozens of single-line
emails each day building information up around the story, and over the years
has gotten very good at both extracting responses from people first, and then
figuring out what is really happening by triangulating.

Sometimes the stories are posted a little early, and you see that process play
out through a post being edited or through multiple posts that make up a
larger story (like Scamville, and almost certainly this Facebook stock story).
Arrington and his stories reflect the scene - if he is pumping a startup, it
is because through talking to dozens of investors he keeps hearing about it.
He rarely is the first to step out, but is a lot better at capturing mood and
opinion and then amplifying it. He can also put his finger on what is wrong
and what is right - and Angelgate was an example of that.

That also applies to this Facebook stock story. Do you really think he would
just pick on him for no reason? Or is it more likely that he got a tip about
it, confirmed it with one more person, phoned Facebook to talk about it (who
asked to be off the record), contacted the guy in question, and then posted
the story? A blogger who just makes things up and is wrong would never have an
audience.

You only ever have to talk to anybody who has worked with Mike, any startup
who has gone through the process with him, or any other blogger who respects
that process, to understand that there is something special going on there.
Mike has a lot of people he can count on in his circle and within the industry
because of that. I watched him approach almost every word in a post with a
lawyer's caution - he would constantly review even after a post is published
and the possibility of not getting something right totally eats at him (to the
point where he can't sleep). You have completely mischaracterized him as being
careless, from a guy who used to wake me up at 5am just to check the smallest
details of a story. Just shows that you totally do not understand what and who
you are trying to diss at.

If you don't like this style of story - then don't read it. There are plenty
of blogs that just churn out press release after press release and appease
those who don't want to see the boat rocked. But don't attempt to string
together poor traffic stats and two or three misses from a collection of
thousands of hits into some narrative about Techcrunch failing.

If Techcrunch earned a dollar for ever blog post that has been written about
it failing or jumping the shark then it could easily double revenue. Fact is
that right now it still dominates startup news, is one of the main outlets to
reach a startup audience if your are launching a product, and even with Mike
writing less it is not fading anywhere - since his style is contagious and has
been picked up by other writers.

I have seen this trend cycle of things being cool when new, and then suddenly
uncool when popular, play out too many times not to be wise to it. There is
nothing wrong with reading Techcrunch _and_ other blogs, this isn't winner
takes all. I enjoy reading HN, Reddit, The Startup Foundry, etc. This isn't
grade school where you need to pick a team to be on and do your best to fight
the other tribe (especially including personal attacks, which completely makes
you cheap) - if you think you can do better in any way, try it, keep writing
with Venturebeat and don't bitch about it - the readers and audience will
decide based on quality not on preaching.

~~~
lorenfeldman
Nick C. I know Mike pretty well too, including your history with him.He is a
shithead of the highest order. Just because he put up with your nonsense
doesnt make him special. The article is dead on.

~~~
nikcub
The irony in the OP is that he is a blogger criticizing another blogger for
poor quality and his own post is complete shit.

A proper critique of Techcrunch would look more like this:

Take some real traffic and social network stats

Take a sample of stories from 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 years ago and compare volume,
subject matter, stories about startups to show a trend in topics covered, etc.
Produce a nice graph showing how the # of startup stories has decreased.
Overlay it with traffic stats.

Show examples of startups that launched without Techcrunch

Show examples of other tech conferences, other sources of startup information
and how they compare, new upcoming blogs

Show examples of stale writing, poor writing, where tech issues were not
correct. Do this using quotes and links.

Substantiate each one of these points and conclude using all this data that
the influence of Techcrunch may not be what is once was, then pontificate what
the future may hold.

Writing a proper story would require effort - it is a lot easier to take a
screenshot from compete, call somebody a dick, submit it to HN and appeal to
the masses.

~~~
aristus
That is a much, much higher standard than TechCrunch itself seems to use.

On one hand you claim inaccuracies are "2%" and acceptable, and that a few
phone calls is enough research before going to press. On the other hand you
demand a 6-point research project before someone can even _begin_ to criticize
TC in turn.

Where is your six-point research project backing up why "his own post is
complete shit"? I have no opinion either way -- but I believe you're applying
very different standards of proof.

~~~
nikcub
his post was a poor personal attack with zero effort to back up any claims. I
outlined one of the ways it could have been a better post.

------
SandB0x
How about ignoring the tiresome commentators, and the tiresome commentators
complaining about other tiresome commentators.

~~~
Volscio
It's time to write your own blog post called "Why You Should Not Think That
TechCrunch Is Not Over And Also How I Built A Successful Startup" and then
submit it to hackernews under your own account. :)

~~~
humblest_ever
*How TechCrunch Is Not Over Is Over Launched After 24 Hours With 24K Users :)

------
markkat
Alexa shows something similar, but it's pretty noisy:
<http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/techcrunch.com#>

I don't think the content has changed much, and TC is still my preferred "big
tech blog". But FB comments decreased my visiting quite a bit. I used to
comment with Disqus quite frequently. Trolling is down, but the comments are
less interesting.

Think about what would happen to HN if we used FB profiles.

Comments are valuable content. They aren't just a widget. FB comments are
bland.

~~~
amanuel
Totally agree. I couldn't believe that TC decided to put the comments system
(the only reason visit TC) in a walled garden that is Facebook. I myself have
all FB widgets blocked at my proxy so it took me a while to realize why there
were no comments when I clicked through.

Delegating the primary form of participation on your site to an outside firm
strikes me as a bad idea. Maybe Facebook is paying TC to use their system?

------
ChuckMcM
I can't really say if TechCrunch is 'over' (and here I thought 'over' was over
(props to Portlandia)), but I can say that artificial viral marketing is a
very strange thing indeed. Reading TechCrunch stories always gives me a feel
for who is maneuvering and who isn't, and as with most blogs it seems there is
a certain 'shadows on the wall of the cave' kind of aspect to it.

As an entrepreneur, do you think it helps or hinders your efforts to be
"exposed" by a widely read blog? As a VC/Angel is this where you look for
insights into the 'next big thing' ? And what of Peter Yared or other folks
who write articles and give them away from free to various outlets like
BusinessWeek, AdWeek, CNet, and others?

One of the things this article illustrates is that the Bay Area, and
technology in general, is taking its lead from "Hollywood" rather than from
say "Detroit" or "Pittsburgh". Why the star culture? Why the hype? Does
Lindsay Lohan look like someone having fun? (I don't know but it doesn't look
like it to me).

Arrington appears to enjoy lightning rod status, and while he sometimes whines
loudly about getting wet he must be getting something out of going into the
storm. I'm curious about the larger question about what it means.

It used to be that presenting at Usenix was "cool" and presenting as Uniforum
was a "cop out." Why don't we have more of the 'serious' conferences any more?
More questions than answers that is for sure.

------
citricsquid
I have access to site analytics for 2 sites pushing 70 and 100 million page
views respectively, compete is HILARIOUSLY wrong, we're talking close to 1000%
off in accuracy.

There's a reason Alexa measures in percent.

------
tzs
I don't think the author is right in his assertion that collusion requires a
monopoly. A collusion to fix prices and exclude competition is a per se
violation of the Sherman Act regardless of the market power of the
participants or the actual effect on competition, I believe.

------
ig1
I presume it was accidental and not a purposeful but Yared (the author of the
article) should probably disclose that he knows Michael Brown (the FB guy
subject to the insider trading accusations made by Techcrunch).

~~~
apu
If this is true, then why would you presume that it was accidental? It seems
like a very major conflict-of-interest that should definitely have been
mentioned.

------
hendzen
Vivek Wadwha needs to start his own (regularly updated) blog, or start writing
posts for The Startup Foundry. His content is just on a whole new level
compared to the other posts on TC. Here is a recent post he wrote that
completely blew me away:

[http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/26/friends-
don%E2%80%99t-let-f...](http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/26/friends-
don%E2%80%99t-let-friends-get-into-finance/)

I've sent this article to numerous GSI's (Berkeley jargon for a TA) and
professors and they were blown away as well. Even my Dad, someone who is a
hardcore WSJ guy and doesn't read many blogs enjoyed it immensely.

I'm at Berkeley now, and I need to meet this guy, yet I have no idea how to go
about doing so. Perhaps I should just shoot him an email and let him know that
our passions are in line? Unfortunately he may be a little busy for 1 on 1
time with a freshman, but it can't hurt.

~~~
niketdesai
I think part of the reason he doesn't do that is so he can pop in his two
cents when he has time. Consistently blogging well is such an underrated and
difficult job. Agreed though - his stuff is quite awesome and at the very
least stirs a great discussion from which a lot can be learned.

------
jorde
I'm not taking sides but with Compete.com's history of bad data I wouldn't
trust it that much. Here's another reference from Google Trends for Websites:

[http://trends.google.com/websites?q=techcrunch.com%2C+readwr...](http://trends.google.com/websites?q=techcrunch.com%2C+readwriteweb.com%2C+venturebeat.com&geo=all&date=ytd&sort=0)

According to Google TC's traffic is down a bit but nothing as dramatic.

------
iamdave
_Completely off topic_

Can someone point me in the general direction of whomever started this "Why X
is X" headline meme, so I can hop in my 80's plutonium powered Eurocar and
beat the shit out of them?

It's lazy, it's trite, and it's poor form in writing.

------
ianl
The only thing on TechCrunch I religiously read/watch anymore is TC Cribs, I
just like to see how people work at companies in the valley.

------
jjm
Just like any other publication it has an audience. That is how I see
TechCrunch. There isn't a publication I know of that can be all things to all
people, less be correct about everything. Even the editors at Wikipedia fight
over content... Thus I accept the 80/20 rule on TC and basically any Internet
site.

------
insight
TechCrunch is not over. It's just that the great-stratups-are-everywhere
environment matured. It's less novel. And the marketing playground is for non
geeks = less tech blogs readers. These are all good news.

~~~
Garbage
The quality of good company is they should keep giving something new when
their "usual" business is saturated.

------
waterlesscloud
So clearly there's some discontent with startup journalism.

It would be hard for this to smell more like an opportunity.

------
elvirs
why did the guy include a link to his new app (postpost) in the first lines of
the post?

------
ascendant
People can argue back and forth over exact reasons why TC is or isn't "over",
but the fact of the matter is that at this time last year I found their
stories interesting and hit the site at least twice a day. Now I show up once
a week and I'm just not very excited about their content. How or why is for
other people to figure out. I just think it's boring and borderline tabloid
journalism now.

~~~
ianhawes
A year ago I would have the site pulled up daily.

These days, I'll view it once or twice a week.

------
ignifero
Techcrunch may be over because it has become irrelevant to the community of
entrepreneurs/developers. Michael sometimes writes an interesting column. The
rest is like a TMZ for the rich people of the silicon valley.

There are real issues like these:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2291336> which they refuse to cover

~~~
18pfsmt
This is crap. TC was always an extension of Arrington's personal connections.
He made friends in the valley 10 years ago which allows him access to info
that isn't available to others. He's not interested in the obvious crap like
that to which you link. Your misunderstanding sounds cultural. I'm not even
sure what to make of the "rich peoples" comment.

~~~
ignifero
So, he never writes about the Google/facebook rivalry?
[http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/24/take-a-deep-breath-
google-f...](http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/24/take-a-deep-breath-google-
facebook-isnt-doing-search-just-yet/)
<http://techcrunch.com/2010/11/04/facebook-google-contacts/>
[http://techcrunch.com/2010/11/09/facebook-slaps-google-
openn...](http://techcrunch.com/2010/11/09/facebook-slaps-google-openness-
doesnt-mean-being-open-when-its-convenient/)

Keep insulting

