@Marshall - strange poem? That was 11pm poetry at it’s best. I was going for the creative angle….

Matt — I don’t know how intelligent my comments were. I was just peeved that they kept disappearing. I feel like a new person, complete with the full freedom to talk smack. Hooray.

Hey Mike, your friends at PPP already fueled the TechCrunch-beating for you a while ago:
http://startupcrunch.org/getti.....ur_startup

-Zaid

Sadly I received a pass to it but cannot attend.

I was bored this morning, figured I’d play your games..

http://www.daveberube.com/blog.....unch-1000/

In case trackback doesn’t want to work.

This is like the homeless guy on the subway that lets you yell profanities at him for $1…

“Adobe Apollo doesn’t quite cut it”
http://www.varunmathur.net/?p=24

Alaska Miller says-
You should give it to the following people:
1. Allen Stern
2. Drama 2.0
3. Me

Alaska - I (often) enjoy your posts, but I can’t picture you at the Web2.0 conf. “God, that’s so stupid. Wow that’s the dumbest idea I’ve ever seen. THIS is the future of the world? Before I attended this event I wasn’t sure, but now I can confirm it: Web2.0 Expo people are mostly idiots.”

My immense love for TechCrunch prevents me from saying anything bad about this website. I eat, sleep and drink TechCrunch. TechCrunch is my life, it is the sole reason I exist . . .

Michael, when should I send you my address for one of those passes?

Check mine out: http://beasyoube.vox.com/. This is my first official blog post. I think Steve will like it. I’ve been meaning to start a blog for a while and this finally gave me the motivation to do so. I have a couple ideas on my mind so I intend to keep it going.

Hey Thanks Amy! - I hope Mike will let me post my (fun) video

I’m a total suckup offline. As long as all the web2.0 companies keep feeding my stickers and tshirts I’ll be nice. Then I’ll come back here to post scathing remarks about how much their site sucks, how their dev could have been auctioned off for pennies on Rentacoder, and how their CEO is a pompous jackbutt that doesn’t know the value of a dollar or sleeping in a car because I went for broke and lost all my money trying to start a business.

Yah, the stickers helps keep in the insulation in my car.

TechCrunch has always been shortsighted in their coverage of DRM and its utility value in the digital media distribution model.

DRM has put the music industry back on the path to profitability. Most significant is that it has enabled the record companies to better control distribution and has given them a tool to implement a discount pricing model for their products.

A discount structure is the foundation of most retail pricing.

Applied to online music, some consumers will pay a higher price for a song because they must purchase it in multiple formats. Whereas a consumer who buys a song in a single format essentially gets it at a discount and receives a better value. DRM is the leverage tool that makes this arrangement possible.

In traditional retailing, discount models abound. Think rebates and late fees. Cell phone plans (overages). Customer loyalty cards at grocery stores.

Even Arrington favorite, Amiestreet.com, implements a discount model. Early purchasers get songs for pennies, while latecomers pay a premium of .98 cents.

EMI’s announcement this week to offer songs through iTunes without DRM illustrates the value effect DRM has had. By removing DRM and offering songs at a higher bit rate, EMI has created greater intrinsic value for these new issues and can justify the premium price.

iTunes music coupled with DRM has actually made music cheaper and more accessible than ever before! You need to be thanking DRM.

Remember there a winners and losers in retail. Those who get great value are inevitably subsidized by those who pay too much.

TechCrunch, be a music winner not a whiner!

Hi Michael,
Rather than trash your startup predictions, I trashed your post on Seth Godin’s “Big Moo” for not fitting in with the rest of the TechCrunch strategy.

http://www.businesspundit.com/.....course.php

One word, Michael: Zooomr.

I am sorry guys, but nothing compares to the ZapZap disaster, and Michael I apologize in advance about the picture joke, you said you were free game though, hahaha. Enjoy!!

http://falkininvesting.com/blo.....pzap-what/

My trackback isn’t showing up either. Woe!
If anyone’s still reading this far down in the comments, here’s my entry:

http://neomeme.wordpress.com/2.....echcrunch/

In it you will find:
-An idea for a brilliant new Web 3.0 TechCrunch/Greasemonkey mashup
-Advice on how you should read TechCrunch
-Groundbreaking analysis of the hitherto untapped demographic of dead British playwrights
-
-And so much more!
-Well, not too much more. That actually sums up the post pretty well. Don’t even read it, you won’t learn anything new.

I actually wrote this a while back:

http://punchfire.com/2007/03/c.....ne-tv.html

I’m all for User Generated Content but there’s no way I’d want my TV experience to be like my browsing experience. Sidenote: Doesn’t really seem like trashing you guys though.

Michael: Where’s the disclosure requirement for this PayPerPost opportunity?

Glad to see you are recognizing the value of sponsored blogging, but I’d honestly like to understand where you see the difference between this and PayPerPost advertisers who request feedback/coverage in hopes of generating buzz (aside from the fact that PPP requires disclosure and you didn’t)? Are all of your past rants just the difference between a $5 guaranteed payout/post that bring attention to PPP and a $1500 contest payout/post that brings attention to TechCrunch? Spill the beans…

Michael,

In the 11/13/06 comparison of Vox and Multiply on TechCrunch, Marshall writes “If you are looking to share text, photos and video with some control over who can see your content - these are two services you should check out. With the launch of version 3.0, I think Multiply has taken the lead.” He also writes “If you seek logical and robust privacy controls and shelter from an online world of strangers then Multiply is better designed,” and that “Vox is beautiful, Multiply is more functional.”

For anyone that doesn’t have a blog yet, Multiply’s approach merits a recommendation as well.

Thanks.

VC Dan - How in the world did you convince people to let you invest their money? I really don’t mean this in a mean way, but you just don’t seem to be very good with putting a logical argument together. Did you marry into or inherit money?

Seems my trackback did not take, either.

Link: To All The TechCrunch Haters.

Hi Michael,

I am just a guy who reads your posts. Thinks about them and says to himself. Damn that guy is good. Well I love Web 2.0. I have no money and I want to go so plain and simple choose me. I am the first person here who honestly and really really wants to go !!!! So again choose me.

So now some techcrunch trashing. April Fools Joke on March 31st. Hahaha. That is a bit premature. Would I call this a screw up. 251 comments + a posting from Mr. Arrington himself.

****Update (April 2, 2007): For those of you still sending in emails pleading with me not to stop writing about startups - this was an April Fools joke. I do not in fact believe that there “just isn’t anything left to invent.” Thank you.****

When I first read it I thought it was pleading Mr. Arrington to STOP writing about startups.

Mr. Arrington, I like you trying to pull off a “google april fools joke” hmmmm … but timing is what makes it gooooooooooooodddddd.

Me being a geek and loving what you write sooo much. I came across this post.

“”"”Redefining The IMG Tag”"”"” I was like WOW .. what just happened in the area of HTML. Let me go see. If Michael Arrington says its redefining then maybe it is. WOW.

This is what I get.

britepic_id = “297898″
britepic_src=”http://farm1.static.flickr.com/53/144942552_81a96c87cb_o.jpg”;
britepic_keywords=”Laguna, dog, pets, cute, perfect”;
britepic_show_ads=”1″;
britepic_caption=”Laguna: Attack Dog”;
britepic_width=”560″;

SCRIPT ?????????? hmmm …. No redefinition here. Disappointed. I closed the browser. Went to adbrite. Awesome product. But redefining tag Far from it Mr. Arrington.

Trashing Techcrunch over.

P.S. I love TECHCRUNCH. Techcrunch is my crunchymunchyNestleBar to Technology. Choose Me ! Choose Me !

No idea why the website didnt come up. Hopefully this will bring it

linked to the wrong place : (Direct Link here)

http://srininow.blogspot.com/2.....-expo.html

Manual trackback:
http://squash.wordpress.com/20.....echcrunch/

http://www.TrashCrunch.com

http://www.trashcrunch.com

@Michael: That’s the best answer you can come up with? Help me understand the difference you see between this offer and sponsored posting?

Well, Ladies and Gentlemen, keep on writing your entries, but I can now safely declare TrashCrunch the absolute winner.

Why? First, what better URL for the trash-TechCrunch contest?
Second, the secret sauce: dynamic content. I can redirect it to whatever the winning entry is

Oh, pleeeeeeeeze, VC Dan, do you really believe TC with 350K subscribers needs to raise buzz this way? Do you really think a 100 or so participants in this contest make change anything?

Mike did give away tickets / prizes on a contest bases in the past, why not have a little fun in the process?

Because I’m a moron and I’m not sure if the Trackback thing I put in Wordpress’s interface actually pinged this blog post, here’s the URL to my response:

http://metacircular.wordpress......-grandeur/

Mike, I’m not interested in attending the Web 2.0 Expo, but I do miss seeing Laguna. If I refrain from exposing some choice info relative to embarrassing mishaps in your younger years, can I swap the free Expo ticket for a visit with my favorite chocolate Lab and an IOU for you to call your mother more frequently? (Understand that when you don’t call her, she takes it out on me, saying that you are as inconsiderate as am I.)

Dad

@zoli: Don’t take my questions wrong. I know that sponsored blogging can be fun and I think this is a cool promotion. I’m just handing Mike a mirror and honestly want to hear how he distinguishes this from sponsored blogging.

VC Dan - I honestly believe you must have a very low IQ. At least DFJ doesn’t go around provoking fights. They quietly invested in the company and have kept a low profile. You should do the same, or at least show your ignorance on some other blog.

Only reason to go to this conference is to be able to rub Mike’s stomach for good luck.

Michael I accept the apology re swearing and 7 year olds.

Only thing is my son now associates graffiti with fuckedcompany.com as in “Dad, is that their website advertised on the wall?”

@Darren Stuart

That’s the first thing I thought of when I started to read this post! I took the idea and ran with it. Its not so much a “trashing of” but a parody of some Digg related posts. Ironically it came out very valleywag’ish Hope this counts!

http://socialham.com/2007/04/0.....iggcrunch/

Mike,

Look, you are right on the merits in this kerfuffle with VC Dan, but you break one of your own rules with an ad hominem attack.

Here’s what you might have said:

“VC Dan, I can see how a supporter of Pay Per Post would like to equate PPP with an open contest soliciting comments, but allow me to use an analogy:
Pay Per Post is like saying, “I’ll have sex with you for $5, and nobody has to know about the money part.”

This contest is more like a charity auction for a date with an eligible bachelor, everything is out in the open, and no money is changing hands between those going on the date.

So there, that’s my criticism of TechCrunch, combined with what would have been a much more effective way to undercut someone who makes his living with something so opprobrious. Attacking a guy personally, especially by bringing up his family, devalues your argument.

@Scott: Thanks, your analogy would work if PPP didn’t require disclosure and the whole TC contest happened here instead of spread across hundreds of blogs. However, those are not the facts.

Bloggers are being offered contingent compensation for creating linkbacks and TC buzz at their own blogs. There is no requirement for disclosure by the participating bloggers. Those are the facts.

This looks very similar to sponsored blogging transactions that Michael has attacked in the past. His ad hominem attacks instead of answering a direct question are eye-opening about him as a person, but don’t explain the distinction he sees between this promotion and similar ones via PPP.

Scott - I went personal with him with my eyes open. This isn’t our first exchange, and he tends to troll any blog that has anything negative to say about his precious startup. I tried the logical approach and it never works. Now I just want him to get the hell off my blog, and I’ll get mean to do it.

I’m not kidding about the IQ angle. He just doesn’t seem to be that smart, and I don’t have any more time to deal with him.

@Scott: I re-read your comment and realized I missed “no money changing hands between those going on the date”?? Did you miss Michael offering $1,500 tickets?

Using your analogy terms, this promotion is ““I’ll have sex with you for much more than $5 — I’ll buy you a $1,500 ticket(!), and nobody has to know about the paid part.”

Your direct answer is much better than Michael’s avoidance, but I think the details above get us closer seeing the same things…

Mike - Attacking a guy’s intelligence and his family on your blog is not going to get rid of him.

Here’s another analogy: He’s a lot like Ann Coulter on the right or Al Franken on the left. They both make a living by attacking much bigger names, and hoping that the bigger names take the bait and respond. That response raises the profile of the attacker.

You took Dan’s bait.

Your readers are savvy. The way I usually read the comments is to breeze over them and only really look at the ones you respond to. I never would have noticed VC Dan if you hadn’t responded.

I agree Scott, Ann Coulter is awesome.

VC Dan,

Getting in the math game may not have been such a good idea. You’re talking abut the $1,500 ticket as payoff, but it’s more like a raffle, since only one person will receive it. PPP may pay little (probably on par with the quality of posts) but it pays everyone, so it’s a direct deal.. and btw, they may very well spend $1500 or a lot more on a campaign.

Believe or not, a lot of those who responded (yours truly included) did it for the sake of doing a prank. In fact I spent the equivalent of your PPP payout just to buy a URL - again, for the fun of it.

Back to math - TC has 350K feed subscribers, at this moment 69,716 inbound links from 17,587 blogs: can you seriously believe that getting a few dozen links makes any difference?

The facts are so obvious, I can’t believe you don’t see them. Unlike Mike, I don’t draw conclusions re. your intellect, but that only leaves one other option: you chose to ignore the facts. And that requires thick skin.

I must have been having a bad day…

I forgot the small issue of content:

PPP posters talk up a product or service.

Those of us who “trashed” Mike responding to this call did not promote anything, and typically created humorous posts explaning what it was all about.

VC Dan says there was no disclosure requirement: guess what, posts without a link back to this article, which explains what it’s all about are actually harmful to Mike: Trashing TC, not being taken as humor does no good to him, why would he want that? Besides, they don’t generate a link, which is what you think this whole sinister act is all about

Dustin - Nice bait taking!

@zoli:

I believe the PPP issues Michael has raised in the past are 1) conflicted blogging and 2) disclosure of conflicts. This TC promotion contains both of those elements because 1) bloggers have a financial incentive to blog about TC ($1,500 tickets) and 2) Michael didn’t follow his own demands of PayPerPost to require disclosure (even though, unlike PPP as a marketplace, TC is the direct sponsor of this promotion). I’ve been asking pretty directly how Michael makes a distinction between the two.

As for the math, are you suggesting that it’s ethical for companies with plenty of traffic to generate buzz via sponsored posts, but not smaller companies? It’s possible that is Michael’s position, but I don’t know because he has yet to answer my direct question. I’d be interested to know if the whole debate is just about what a chosen few are allowed to do, but not the masses.

Oh, man, we’re getting into rhetorics. Others were right, this is anything but a conversation.
I’m done.