Someone Should Explain the Rules of Highlander
04/02/2008, 5 months 1 week ago
When I saw the announcement for TechCrunch50 (or whatever number Michael Arrington and Jason Calcanis end up changing it to), I let out a little gasp, but I'm not sure why I was surprised. It took me a little while to digest that they were so blatant as to schedule the dates for their start-up launch event right on top of DEMO's fall dates.
It's taken me a few hours to digest it, really. I had to consider what this means for tech start-ups, what it means for launch events, and what it means for everyone who's going to be buried under the fallout.
On the positive side, there's the potential for an awful lot of companies to have a platform to launch at two very high-profile events. Unfortunately, the positive side ends about there. What Arrington and Calcanis have done here isn't good for anyone: not themselves, not for Chris Shipley and Carla Thompson, and certainly not for start-ups.
Arrington claims that the schedule conflict was unintentional, but I don't think there's a soul on Earth who believes that. Let's face it, both Arrington and Calcanis have found their niche as in-your-face sorts of people. Last year, TechCrunch40 was held within a week of DEMO and that was bad enough. Start-ups will, for the most part, have to choose between the two events: the trendy clout of TechCrunch or the established tradition of DEMO? Not to mention that by forcing start-ups to choose, you have to realize that the quality of start-ups at both events will decrease. Does anyone really think that there are over 100 start-ups who would launch at the same time who'd be worth looking at?
It also forces other outlets to choose what to cover when a start-up launch already stretches coverage very thin. The usual press coverage of these events will be greatly reduced, providing less of a boost to companies launching at either event. Will TechCrunch bother covering both events, or is a company's chance of getting TechCrunch coverage dependent on launching at their event and not DEMO?
It seems fairly obvious that Arrington has a plan for world domination: take down CNET; take down DEMO. The only problem with the mentality that you need to be the only one left standing in the end is that competition is what drives success. What would have been better for start-ups, better for TechCrunch, and yes, better for DEMO, would have been to schedule the TechCrunch event right smack in the middle between the DEMO events. They could have gotten companies that were ready for launch at a different time and improved the pool of companies that were launching at each event.
Now it turns into nothing more than a slapfest, and both events as well as start-ups are going to suffer. Arrington and Calcanis have the Highlander mentality that there can be one, but they might want to rethink that. In the Highlander scenario, one ends up without a head and the other one gets hit by lightning and ends up alone. I wouldn't want to be either one of them.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to profy RSS feed!
“Does anyone really think that there are over 100 start-ups who would launch at the same time who’d be worth looking at?”
Right now, I doubt there are 5 Web 2.0 startups that will launch in the next 6 months that will truly be worth looking at.
Oh Noes! Now budding Web 2.0 entrepreneurs will be distracted from things like revenue models and business plans by having to decide which startup event to attend! However will they become successful now?
@Drama I’ll see your 5 and raise you a ZERO. Even the “established” web 2.0 companies make no money… They seem to have the idea “You have to spend money to make money” but they’ve only figured out the “spend money” part, and ignored the “make money” side.
TechCrunch et al have no trouble breaking embargoes and other “stunts”, so why not this as well? Bad form of them all around.
@Drama Dude, you make me choke I laughed so hard. No, and it’s going to dilute the talent pool that shows up at both events. Based on the free is better mentality, I would guess that TechCrunch will end up with more of the lower-caliber sites, but I could be wrong. They also require that the whole COMPANY launch there instead of new products and initiatives, which may end up sorting in DEMO’s favor; they’ll land the established companies launching something new. I tend to believe that companies who have been-there, done-that have a better feel for longevity than many start-ups.
@Grendel The assumption is that valuation is money. You should really get with the 2.0 program.
@Leslie It all goes back to the cult of personality. Both Arrington and Calcanis are reveling in the fame that goes along with being the schoolyard bully. It’s depressing in a Lord of the Flies sort of way, because the mentality is that he who emerges the victor gets the spoils. But if you are stomping on companies along the way with the idea that it is better to win, what do you get? Polaroid did it in the 70s and 80s. They fought Kodak out of the instant camera business and never looked to see that competition was what drove everything. Where are they now? Playing catch-up in the world of digital photography because they figured once they were the only game in town they ran the show.
Personally Techcrunch has become overrated and both Arrington and Calcanis have become burned out has beens who are more about getting financially secure than producing relevant material. The “companies” they have are good sources but they are not the be all of tech and I truly think they lost sight of that.
@Cesar My issue is that I’m in the “more competition means better products” camp. You can’t continue to stay relevant when the goal is an end-game, because in business there really IS no end game. If you get to the top and then there’s no one left, eventually some upstart comes along with a better idea.