While writing my previous post and looking over comments from earlier today on other posts, I started thinking about bias. For just about every story we write, it seems someone always has either a comment or an email for us ranging from suggestions that we should also write about such and such company that is a competitor to the one we wrote about, to outrage that we didn’t mention the other said company. So why don’t we?
Well, for starters, it would be impossible to cover every company and each of their competitors, and give them each the same treatment. Not only are there not enough writers to do this for TechCrunch, if you put all the blogs together, there still would not be nearly enough. Further, and maybe more importantly, no one would want to read all of that coverage. A part of our job is to provide a filter to readers.
Some call that filter “bias,” and that’s fine except for the negative connotations associated with that word. While the idea of objective journalism is nice, if you go high enough, it really doesn’t exist. Somebody, somewhere at even the most exalted publications has to make a call on which story to pursue. There is always a flip side (or several), where another story is left out.
Others will be quick to jump on that saying something like, “yes, but you don’t have to do so many stories on X company while not covering Y company at all.” That’s true, but if X company is more worthy of coverage, shouldn’t that be the story to pursue? Not everyone will agree with that, but I think it comes down to a debate of what our role is: Are we kingmakers or are we prognosticators?
The people who think our so-called bias is hurting other companies, clearly will think we’re kingmakers; that we randomly or not-so-randomly pick companies that we want to see succeed and shower them with coverage. From my perspective, the reality is more that we’re prognosticators (or at least are trying to be). That is, finding cool companies that we think could actually have an impact in the tech sphere and covering why that may be the case, independent of caring about how many stories that might mean for any one company.
A good example of this in the past couple of years has of course been Twitter. From the early days of the company, many people could not see the potential of the service, and plenty still don’t. As such, some get really, really angry over the amount of coverage it gets. But what’s interesting is that this coverage is now happening across pretty much all levels of the press, it’s not just one site (though some obviously cover certain companies more than others). So either all of the press is colluding to bolster companies like Twitter, or they’re simply seeing a trend happening, that this company, for whatever reason is becoming important, and so they’re covering it.
Before you know it, the company that just a few years ago no one could understand why it was getting so much coverage, is now raising money with a billion dollar valuation. Did the early explosion of coverage make that happen? Or was the early coverage simply serving as a predictor that it would eventually happen? Kingmaker or prognosticator?
A more recent example of this that we’ve been seeing is with Foursquare. Many of the tech sites (including this one) have been covering the company quite a bit, and there are plenty of readers who have no idea why. But it’s one of those companies that myself and others saw potential in before it even launched. And so far, that prognostication has been slowly but surely been playing out, as earlier this month the company got a round of seed funding that several VCs were said to be fighting over the right to get involved with. Did they get the funding because of the early coverage? Or was the coverage there for the same reason they got the funding? Kingmaker or prognosticator?
The majority of complaints about Foursquare coverage seem to be that only a few early-adopter geeks and their friends are using it. Of course, the same exact thing was said for Twitter and for Facebook before that. It was also said for FriendFeed, which, while it never got the massive amount of mainstream users (though usage was way up right before the sale), still exited to Facebook to the tune of $50 million for one reason or another. Was that just the press coverage? Or did the press see the potential, especially with regards to Facebook (back pat)? Kingmaker or prognosticator?
With Foursquare, like Twitter before it, we aren’t writing about it because a group of geeks are using it. We’re writing about it because of the interesting use of gaming elements with a mobile app that propels usage. And because of the very interesting ramifications it could have on local mobile business deals. This is about seeing the start of a trend. Just as Twitter was about seeing the start of a trend.
That’s not to say that Foursquare will for sure go on to be a real success, it’s still a very young company, and has a very long way to go. And even Twitter at this point could still fizzle away over time. And of course it is always possible that everyone in the press is overlooking the next big company. But I believe that if a company is truly great, it will find a way to make itself known. Someone, somewhere will find it and start covering it, and from there, the product will speak for itself and garner more attention and coverage.
It remains, and will always be about the product. And we’re always out there hunting for the next great one. If you’re not getting the coverage you feel your product deserves, remain focused on improving it. Focus on making it better than the ones getting all the coverage. Don’t be bitter, be better. If you stick to that, eventually someone will find it. And then the complaints will start rolling in that your product is getting too much coverage. And that we’re kingmakers.
[photo: flickr/javier kohen]
was this written at 3am
are you up mg
nope.
bloggers never sleep. especially when Michael is making kings all night.
you can have the greatest promise and potential startup on the internet and be ignored by tc bias. i choose procrastinator but i think arrogant makes the most sense. kingmaker? no……….. hypemaker? yes.
I just put all the foursquare hype down to the founders being known for selling to google and google killing their product and them leaving and coming back again. I wonder if they would of gotten as much love if they were unknowns living in some random country.
It is clear to see that geoloc is the next facebook app/iphone app/twitter app/realtime app hypefest
well okay but people are already making a lot of money off of facebook and iphone apps. twitter apps perhaps not yet, but you can see it heading in that direction. so at what point does hype stop being hype and get legitimate?
I guess when the hype dies down and there are a load of businesses left standing and making money and not burning investment cash to stay a float.
The nature of tech news is always the next big thing and I for one am guilty of getting caught up in it but sometimes I do catch myself asking but does this actually do anything world changing.
you could certainly argue that companies like google have/are still changing the world. twitter? we’ll see, at least they believe they can, which beats not believing that you can.
“at least they believe they can, which beats not believing that you can.”
This is (sort of) a uniquely American take I think (not bashing – I’m married to one).
While it serves many great purposes (and is a reason why America got so rich), it also drives mindless investment, which is, IMO, a Bad Thing™ and a reason America may not stay so rich for much longer… Of course I could be hugely wrong.
agreed, I think twitter has potential to be the world message boards and help people connect but it needs to create a solid platform first. In poor countries where data costs and the networks are just not there, twitter could be huge to help spread news and keep in touch.
MG – it is truly nice to hear this viewpoint coming directly from a tc writer. My only comment would be related to the bias created by articles written about products that are just space fillers which many stories are even on tc. How do those find their way on the blog? There is def. a network behind tc that gives you access to these start-ups, so the opinions are not always about “product.” In many cases are people you know who can get easy coverage because they know you.
i thought about that too, but it was getting long. are there some silly, filler articles about companies like twitter? of course, i do many of them. but if they have absolutely no point, some are just quick posts meant to break up a string of more serious coverage. not required reading by any means
So I am assuming this article should be one of the required reads as it was an important article that I’ve been personally waiting for. I already guestimate over 200 hundred comments by tomorrow 5PM pst.
To all those “quick post” start-ups even though you’re covered on TC: as Ryan Biddulph stated in this thread… “Focus on what YOU have to offer. Do this and you’ll never have to beg for attention. You’ll naturally attract it.”
yes, this was a required read
MG, this was a great post, well thought out and articulate. Perhaps the most profound thing you said is that you at TC are “users too”. If a start-up gains even minimal traction you guys hear about it and post either up or down.
What is your opinion on why there is consistently so much bitterness and hate posted on TC comments? Over at HN the community is far more thoughtful and has manners…….TC deserves the same from it’s readership so people dont so often choose to skip reading the comments entirely.
To be totally honest I feel most of the companies covered are not great products just have well contacted and once successful people attached. The garage startups with no name founders get 2% coverage. But this is okay, because this is where the true innovation is created. These no name startups are hungrier. The Next Google can not be created by high money valuations and contacted press coverage. The users will truly determine the winner of this.
admittedly, that is mainly true of the companies i bring up (though not facebook). but there are plenty of success stories for companies started by no names as well. i agree that some of the true innovation happens there. it may be harder to find, but if it is really that good, i would bet that we will find it and yes, users certainly help. we’re users too, remember.
Most of your posts are on Twitter, Apple, Google, Facebook – all Bay Area companies with numerous connections to TechCrunch. Most of these are pointless articles (not required reading?) presumably to meet some sort of quota.
You (TechCrunch) didn’t ‘make’ any of these companies you just follow/cover them the same way a bunch of schoolgirls would gush over some boy band.
Maybe there was more innovation a few years ago, but I remember more start-up stories being broken on a daily basis back then. It’s not as if you’re not getting leads, Arrington is always complaining about receiving countless emails and being pitched everywhere he goes.
It probably just comes down to doing the least amount of work to get the desired number of eyeballs. That’s the way some businesses work, so you’re certainly not alone there.
Don’t kid yourself about TechCrunch playing any sort of role in making Twitter what it is today. Twitter started to hit the mainstream following its showing at SXSW in March of 2007.
Here’s your post http://www.tech...ball-vs-twitter (I think your first on Twitter) comparing Twitter and Dodgeball just after SXSW. Your prognosis back then on Twitter? Let’s see, “can’t see it maintaining much functionality out of a convention/festival environment”, “it’s really just a glorified Facebook status”, “the best player in this new arena is currently Dodgeball, but my eyes are on Facebook”.
Kingmakers? Prognosticators? I don’t think so.
I want startup coverage statistics!
John – if a startup really wants to be featured on TechCrunch, they can do it. It requires a bit of perseverance/creativity/marketing savvy (and a decent product). If the garage company wants to be on TC and can’t manage to do it, how will they cut above the noise when they want to market their product, acquire users, grow their audience? It’s not impossible, but it requires a skill that is important to have in a startup.
Of course, should a garage company even want to/need to be featured on TC? That’s another question altogether, and the answer is often “No.” I was speaking only about a company that *wants* to be featured here.
Wow Techcrunch is the bar for startups. Let me sound the horn and tell the troops. Yeah I am being funny no disrespect, but it is weird how everybody an expert on what works. The ironic things is the blow them away startups traditional don’t fit the mold.
We believe a rising tide lifts all ships. Yes, everyone wants and need press coverage, however what we appreciate most is the access to a variety of ways to get media coverage. Such as techcrunch and others, just keep the doors open to all of us and we will all be afforded an magical opportunity to obtain some level of success. http://www/kutro.com
This bitter/better line is what it’s all about MG. They story-makers, the movers and shakers, believe in themselve and their product. They don’t have to complain because they don’t have to rely on media. Their product is so good that it demands notice. Rare are the people who think this way; this is why there are so few ground-breaking companies.
Focus on what YOU have to offer. Do this and you’ll never have to beg for attention. You’ll naturally attract it.
RB
thanks ryan.
Is there any connection between companies and VC connection with TC50 ?
Mint got a lot of coverage and got acquired within two years ?
To be honest its not to obvious connection between companies and coverage like in SAI aka bussinesinsider. But still they get more coverage that they deserve …
those companies are getting investment (and in-turn, coverage) for a reason, they are floating to the top. its not all that we cover, but part of it. the vc’s gravitate towards startups getting buzz and companies get more buzz because of investment or more investment interest
more buzz you provide more value you drive to companies and eventually someone will get hooked and pay leverage created. sounds like win win situation
… when mentioning kings…
thanks for posting the picture of Czech king Charles IV. Its statue near Charles bridge in Prague.
http://en.wikip...y_Roman_Emperor
heh. nice.
And I’m proud to see one of my pictures in a TechCrunch article!
Now what if the real truth was Arrington has a secret buy in to twitter because he has a personal grudge against facebook and other reasons. Even though we all know facebook sucks and as a community are trying to do our best to rid them off the planet a bigger matter is at hand. How do we know techcrunch as part of their greater business model would not use their network leveraging capabilities to their advantage by helping the companies they vest in reach high valuation and eventually get acquired?
Sorry I leaked this information…
um, did you happen to read TechCrunch a couple months ago? something about documents?
lol, twitter is a big deal. i didnt realize it after reading TC. it helped cover some many current events. iran election, & MJ death, and maybe the kayne west incident
CNN is also good at covering current events.
Bias can be expressed on several levels. You refer to the disproportionate coverage of companies which are held dear by the media for one reason or another. However, volume aside, it is the skew of the reports themselves which perpetrates puzzlement and conspiracy theories. For example, if a company held dear by the press transgresses, the spirit of the reports would tend to be humoristic and nonchalant. Should a company not deemed worthy of admiration make a similar mistake, the ensuing coverage would tend to be sarcastic and venomous. The pendulum swings to the positive as well, so good news are exaggerated for one and downplayed for the other.
Lastly, the fillers, as you term them, featuring the same two or three companies over and over and over again tend to convey a sense of laziness and teenage-like adoration.
yes, we’ve already determined there is always “bias” though I don’t think it’s as evil as you make it sound.
the fact that hot companies get a lot of coverage really shouldn’t be a surprise. they won’t be hot forever, and then they won’t. that’s really what it boils down to, certainly with your last point.
Bias is inherent is nature, we all have a different perspective and frame of reference by definition, but that was not the point. My, and dare I say, some other people’s problem is not the volume, although it does become rather tedious at times, but actually the content itself. If, for example, a similar yardstick for positive and negative reviews was employed for both the dearly beloved and “others” then, I contend, the level of vehemence generated in response to such reporting would be somewhat, if not significantly, reduced.
Fascinating. Is it news because we report it, or do we report it because it’s news….
exactly.
A.K.A the chicken and egg dilemma…
Drink!
MG, it is so nice of you to write articles like this. You surprise us all and give something good to read usually about once or twice a week and I personally wish you would do it more. These kind of posts are some of the best on TC.
With that said, I see a lot of people complain about how companies in the Valley get more coverage because they are in the Valley. Or companies started by people who have already sold a company or was a big name at Microsoft or Google get more press coverage. It is called “networking”. People intentionally start their companies in the Valley because, well, it is the Valley. When you start a company you want to be where everyone else is. You want to be able to walk down the street and run into a VC in Starbucks. At TC50 I talked to so many companies in the Demopit from places other than the Valley and nearly all of them mentioned to me that they were considering moving here.
Now, as far as coverage goes, at least here on TC Twitter gets way to much coverage. I agree they are a game changing company right now and deserve a lot of coverage, but some of the post on TC are just not newsworthy. I for one would love to see TC hire a couple of writers to just review startups and that is it. Then we could see at least 3 or 4 small startup reviews a day. I am the kind of person who loves finding these small companies and taking their sites for a test drive so I would love to see TC telling me about more of these sites.
Thanks Travis, all good points, I think. Sadly the Valley thing exists I think mainly because it’s simply easier for us to meet with companies near where we all work and/or live. Over time that may change though as more and more bloggers start working remotely for a range of sites. But yes, certainly networking is a huge part of it too.
As for silly Twitter coverage, I mentioned it briefly in a comment above. I do believe it’s good to break up a stream of longer, serious posts with something fun/mindless every once in a while, people do seem to like reading them, or at least, they do read them whether they like it or not. Those are always done quickly and feel free to skip.
As for startup coverage. I think we still cover quite a few each day (not sure of stats for that), but that obviously remains a focus. And yes, hopefully we can expand that.
Thanks for reading and for the comment.
(I will keep my NYC temperament low on this response only because you addressed this subject head on and deserve a rational diplomatic response.)
Techcrunch are Kingmakers. The reason why this is true is the fact that TC has commanded the readership of not just general web business enthusiasts, but the daily attention of the people who make the business run. From the VCs to the top executives at the top companies, TC is on their daily reader list.
When you cover a company enough, these readers will take notice. It is similar to providing a “tip” as to what companies are hot and any company not making the lines of TC are not.
Techcrunch is nothing more than a modern web version of Studio 54, or (for the west coast people) a Viper Room. TC has an electronic red rope and journalistic equivalent to bouncers, with Mike playing the role of Steve Rubel. If you do not know the story of Studio 54, there many Google search results for it, but in short, people would put on their best clothes and stand on line for hours hoping to get in the club. The “in crowed” was able to skip the line and go right in, you know the celebrities and people of “significance”. Sometimes Steve would peer out to the line and individually point out people that caught his eye, or even sometimes just at random. This narcissistic strategy worked, Studio 54 was the hottest club in history.
TC exercises the same narcissistic strategy. Many (non Valley) aspiring companies get the cold shoulder in favor of a zillion Twitter posts. I personally think Twitter is ok, but I don’t believe 140 characters can save the world, but TC has blown this thing up so much, you have taught your readers to believe Twitter is a billion dollar operation, even I catch myself believing it at times due to my loyal reading of TC daily news.
But then I realize that when you guys make your way to the local Starbucks, your rubbing elbows with the very companies you cover daily. Maybe these companies use this as a strategy to get coverage. The way things are done in the Valley are not how they are done in Chicago, L.A., Florida, Boston and in New York. You guys seem not to seek anything outside of the Valley, but then at the same time complain when you can’t find innovation.
Sure you have Sarah or Roi that may go international once in a while, and Eric seems to cover events in New York, but when wielding the power of influence, there are a few lucky recipients to the TC lotto. But as a constellation prize we get to list in Crunchbase, which having your company not listed there shuns you as irrelevant.
But in turn I do understand this places a ton of pressure on TC because a start-up can get millions overnight from a VC off a TC post. On the other hand, I’ve seen companies destroyed over a TC post. If Mike bad mouth a company, it is similar to Caligular Ceaser calling for the death of his loyal patrons.
I am happy when a new company gets exposure here, and it does happen often. But the ratio of great new stuff out there are pounded by what you guys favor or a derivative of it. I have seem more Twitter API connected startups on this site that what makes human sense, but none of them, and not even Twitter are making any money.
Like Michael Jordan said: “We now pay on potential and not on actual proven talent”.
Being able to edit responses would be great.
WP-Ajax-Edit-Comments
it works.
http://wordpres...-edit-comments/
MG, I’ve read TC for years, and you are the most biased writer on the team. Your bias is what psychologists call an ‘endowment effect’, resulting in confirmation bias and selective perception.
In simple English, you support companies you like, and ignore or denigrate companies you don’t. For example, you blatant Apple fanboisim is really irritating, because there is no modicum of journalistic objectivity to it. In your eyes, Apple can do no wrong, which is nonsense.
You’re an Apple evangelist, not a tech journalist.
Where are your positive reviews of the things Microsoft does right, ike Zune HD, Windows 7, Office Web Apps, or the recent Courier tablet?
Where is your criticism of the current iPod touch, which was universally lambasted by even Apple fanbois, because it has no camera added. Or the latest iPod nano, whch was criticised by the Apple worsjippers because it takes videos but not pictures?
You’re also a blatant Google fanboi. Writing a TC post when Google adds a trivial feature to Gmail is laughable. Yahoo just upgraded the entire UI of Yahoo! mail- where is your report on that? Where was your report when Microsoft transformed the entire Hotmail UI into the current Live UI?
Your bias is ‘evil’ (to use your word) because it means you fail on the most basic journalistic oblication- to inform. Anything you write leaves out what you dislike and boosts what you do (and exaggerates the virtues of the latter). As such, we’re not getting information on tech- we’re getting your severely biased view of the world.
lamia, your comment was really good and imma let you finish but
http://www.tech...-poach-workers/
http://www.tech...-please-fix-it/
http://www.tech...hint-they-dont/
http://www.tech...p-store-anyone/
http://www.tech...n-app-for-that/
http://www.tech...ually-lets-not/
http://www.tech...alamine-lotion/
http://www.tech...cial-profiling/
http://www.tech...ys-bings-twice/
http://www.tech...-still-failing/
http://www.tech...te-still-sucks/
I could go on, but won’t.
obvious fanboi.
Lamia: TC is a blog. There are plenty of tech sites that report and inform in the unbiased manner that you want. Even the tech news section of plain ol’ Yahoo has such stories (from NEWS organizations such as the AP and Reuters and whatnot). While I also sometimes disagree with TC’s coverage and perspective on things, accusing them of being opinionated seems misguided. That’s their job. In newspaper terms, this of TC as the editorial page, not the news section. Editorials can drive and shape a conversation on a topic/company just like regular “news” can. And that’s what TC does.
@rimespsarse: I see your point regarding the newspaper analogy; and to a large part I agree. I guess the problem is that 90% of the sources for tech these days have become these editorials. To be perfectly honest, the reason I turn to sites like TC is because NEWS organizations are terribly sluggish in getting initial information out. Sites like TC, Giz and Engadget all have thier finger on the pulse of tech, which makes it the only real source to stay current.
I do read the AP articles once they’ve discovered something, but that’s usually months later. I guess my expectation is unrealistic: to want balanced reporting that’s current.
In terms of balance, I’m not expecting miracles from TC (or anyone else), but it would be nice to point out when interviewing a company with a really cool product (say Twitter), that they have presented no real business model for making a profit. This should be part of the base Q&A for any product maker. iPhone app makers can be excluded because their revenue model is volume, hope and magic.
What’s wrong with showing a personal vision in what one writes? What’s the definition of journalism? Is “objectiveness” real? Is “bias” evil? Is it possible not to be “biased”? Is “journalism” the only social science that “should” be as . Good blogging is, to me (that’s “my” opinion), not different than journalism.
Not even maths are objective. I don’t want to talk here about “bias” in 0 and infinite definitions. Not interested in jerking.
My point: “New Journalism” was born in the counterculture of the 60’s because by then *everybody* knew “bias” is in journalism since rhapsodes have been around. Don’t let me talk about philosophy, please. Anyway, Hunter S. Thompson, Tom Wolfe and the like were trying to say with their work: “the journalist affects the story anyway, so let’s be rational and at least let’s appear ourselves in the stories we tell.” That means that we write, or should write, about what we know and are passionate about.
Disclosures: I don’t buy Apple. I don’t buy Microsoft. I use Google Apps. I appreciate the Ubuntu effort so much that I’m using it even acknowledging that sound in Linux is still *not good*. Or total crap. Or “the worst shit”, quoting Arrington (when he Twittered about his experience with the HP product.)
Nicolas wrote: “What’s wrong with showing a personal vision in what one writes? What’s the definition of journalism? Is “objectiveness” real? Is “bias” evil?…the journalist affects the story anyway, so let’s be rational and at least let’s appear ourselves in the stories we tell.”
These questions are broad; as is the topic of journalism. There are a variety of styles, methods and outlets for writing. My thoughts are that the appropriateness of ones style or method depends upon the subject matter and the outlet in which they have chosen to write. Bias is not evil, but can be inappropriate if placed within the context of an outlet that touts impartiality. (TC is not that outlet)
When asking is objectivity real, my opinion of would be it is not something that can be measured in terms of “is” or “not”, but rather by what measures one takes to achieve it. By this I mean, that as humans we view everything from a certain perspective, so we can never be totally objective. A writer bringing their unique perspective, does not mean omitting others. Objectivity represents an attempt to provide as close to the complete story as possible. When you willingly omit that which is known to be possible, this is (in my opinion) where bias comes in.
edit:
When you willingly omit that which is known to be TRUE, this is (in my opinion) where bias comes in.
(sorry, I’m at work and my attentions were divided)
I’m with Lamia on this. MG it’s interesting that the articles you list are the same ones you would refer to as being “not required reading”. At least I hope you would. They don’t disprove your lack of objectivity. But they’re certainly an indication of your high ‘fluff to substance’ ratio.
it’s ok to be a kingmaker, if you are picking the right companies for it.
but there is an undeniable mob-mentality among news organizations. and that is to write what they what they want to read. because going against the grain takes effort – analyzing the facts and forming an opinion is so much harder than the other way around.
check out some of mike’s posts on hulu. there was a time, i believe, he wasn’t seeing beyond his bias. other examples abound.
I think you are both
Have you ever heard of self-fulfilling prophecies?
i totally agree. there’s a saying where i’m from that translates to (more or less): you can’t make it right for everyone…
there will always be people calling TC biased. nevertheless, journalism can only be biased, true objectivity is a myth, it just does not exist. no matter hiow good (or bad) your writing skills are, someone will always feel you left something out, forgot to mention XY or were just plain wrong.
your traffuc though prooves you right! the people who rant on TC obviously are not of the same calibre, or are they? TC is one of the biggest tech bligs around, they must be doing something right…
Your point about journalism being inherently bias is flawed. What you seem to be referring to is more perceived bias, rather than an actual bias. Journalism is, however, subject to perspective. Every story comes from a certain perspective. It is the job of the author to choose the one that gives the widest view of all available information.
You are correct, in that someone will inevitably claim a reporter is bias, regardless of what they write. However, in the case where that person can present evidence that a fact presented was incorrect, misrepresented, or intentionally overlooked, it should be the responsibility of that writer to update their work with the correct information. This can and does happen quite often, on this site and others.
excuse them typos, writing on my iPhone while eating a pizza
MG:
As someone on the other side of the equation here for my career, the biggest predictor of coverage for a startup by a journalist in my opinion is their personal use of the product, followed closely by observed use of the product in their friends and associates.
If you are building products where tech journalists are the use case, you will do much much better with coverage. Twitter, hitting the bell hard here.
No smoking gun, it’s just human nature, and has always been so. TC covers more startups than any other top tier reporting agency in history — and a definite positive that you can get such coverage in this age of real time news.
If you want to have steady and maintained coverage, though, you had best be in front of all those reporters, which will happen much more easily if they use your stuff, or their friends do.
So, if your audience is ,say, small town local users, it will be harder, than if you are aiming at sleepless pub crawlers in urban areas (ie reporters).
So deal. It used to be you had to pitch that snotty reporter in NYC for one of the three spots a week. Things are better now.
Chris Tolles
CEO, Topix
Well here’s the thing: to prove you’re not a kingmaker, you should write about spaces in general, not about particular companies. For example, if you’re going to post every time Foursquare updates its website with a trivial redesign, then you should do the same for Gowalla and Going. Otherwise, yes, you’re biased, because the only reason Foursquare is on the radar more than the others is because of its early coverage from the tech press.
I’m a uk computer scientist, and what surprises me in the tech industry in general is the way media companies and blogs attribute innovation to a single company in a particular vertical; Take Twitter for example, as I have stated many times on this blog and others, their underlying technology is NOTHING new. Micro/Mobile Blogging (which is essentially the service twitter provides) had been around long before Twitter as had sending/receiving sms via blogging platforms. (I wrote one such project back in 2003).
When companies like Twitter are provided with vast amounts of media coverage and credited with being a “game changer” then this naturally over inflates their perceived value within the market place and leads to yet more bias coverage and ultimately huge unfounded exits and valuations.
You know, in the UK where the media is concerned the general consensus is not to believe everything you read and perhaps where Twitter and the like is concerned this has never held more true!!
I think you misrepresent a lot of the criticism regarding excessive coverage of certain companies.
For example, the debate isn’t so much over whether Twitter is important or not. It centers on the fact that much of the Twitter posts are over incredibly, mind-bogglingly trivial items. So if some Twitter client introduces some minor new feature, that is somehow deemed worthy of a post.
Reasonable agree can disagree over the type of coverage devoted to Twitter without disputing the importance of the company. To some degree, this post is based on a straw man attack.
From my personal experience, You may publish what you think is worth, even if the companies-projects you talk about are small & self-funded (Mike Arrington posted about us, http://faircompanies.com, recently; no PR engine pressured him, that’s for sure.) That’s probably good in order to keep in shape and avoid the process of “corporativism” some media experience as they grow up.
As long as there is no conflicts of interest between TC and a company in terms of investments, options or any quid pro for any coverage and if there is they mention that, I don’t see a problem with the type and volume of what TC decides to cover.
If people find the coverage tedious/biased, then TC stands to lose your audience and that will regulate it.
People just remember the success stories but if one were to evaluate the stories on TC, there will be “over-represented” companies that don’t make it either.
As to the original question, you ain’t no Oprah when it comes to making a company.
Excellent post, needed to be addressed. I Imagine its now in the Techcrunch FAQ archives… “If you bitch, please read…”
I am glad you addressed this, if it only says, yea, we know what it looks like, but here is how it is.
It is interesting to see that MG has to explain TC’s methods. TC is a prominent blog that brings good companies into light. If TC was not focusing on good companies, it wouldn’t have risen to being a top blog. I think a true indicator of good work is the number of visitors. But I agree that ratio of seriously good posts have declined in last few months.
Not sure TC can be blamed for the status it enjoys amongst VCs and journalists alike. If the latter refer to the former, there are fundamental reasons and likely TC has earned it in some way shape or form. So kingmaker or not, for me at least, is irrelevant: TC’s status was earned.
For me, TC seems to have been made king by its style and its direct involvement in the topics covered and, possibly, the speed of its reaction to events. When I see something interesting happening, then I figure someone is likely talking about it on TC right now. That doesn’t mean any of TC’s writings mean anything at all (in fact I often think TC is wrong), but I’ve got a forum that’s batting in the wrong direction and a lot of willing people who, like I’m doing now, are trying to correct the course of the discussion. None of these are right (including this post), but I get the “right-now” zeitgeist.
I’ve got an free/”open source” software background and was there much before Linux had any mainstream coverage and, for me at least, TC’s position today within the “2.0″ ecosystem is very much the same some “luminaries” had when Linux rose to fame. Sure, they were invited all over the place, they were like celebrities and everybody wanted to get their attention, but where are they today and how much influence did they really have on it all?
My guess is TC makes a difference if you’re looking for the first-hyped advantage. And surely TC’s kingmaking capabilities in that sense are real. If you’re more substance than fluff, TC will make no difference whatsoever.
Meh,
I don’t see any problem with an autonomous group of editors freely choosing who they will and won’t cover.
What is far more aggravating is sites who claim to be at the whim of their users, like Digg, who employ secretive tactics to feature websites that it finds more lucrative to deal with…
http://www.mepr...faux-democracy/
The main reason this is an interesting topic is because of Twitter. Twitter was entirely hype-driven, first from the bloggers and tech works, then by mainstream media and press. Sure, the product had to work and be useful, but hype creates a vicious cycle whereby blogs report on the next big thing, causing people to go to the next big thing, which causes more coverage, etc. Then, people go to the site, so it gets more money, and more features, and still more coverage.
Not to toot Scoble’s horn, but there’s no “reason” Twitter became the next big thing over FriendFeed, it just did. If the coverage shifted, things would turn out different.
You still need the backing, idea, and execution to get the hype. Hype alone can’t make you succeed. But if you have that team executing on a great idea, the hype is the match that ignites that powder keg.
So yes, you’re Kingmakers. However, only those of noble blood can become kings.
As far as i’m concerned, Techcrunch and her writers can feature, grease or de-grease any 2.0 outfits as they wish. It’s THEIR blog built grown up thru blood, sweat and tears and they can feature whoever they wish to at any time in any pace.
So stop giving TC the stick. If you are so worried about not getting publicity or the ramp-up by TC articles, then hire a bloody PR / Marketing team that will do the job for you. Or instead, why not just build something that resonates well with the web crowd that’s not only relevant and remarkable but one that generates viral buzz all over the web in order for it to be picked up and written upon willingly and passionately by writers without you lifting a finger or breathing down someone else’s throat?
Am i not right MG?????
This is the most arrogant post I’ve yet read on tech crunch (and that’s some feat considering that you have Sarah Lacy on staff).
To me – the rise of the blogger and the perception of a blogger as “kingmaker or prognosticator” is the most annoying, unnerving, frustrating component of ‘web 2.0′, the ’second bubble’ or whatever you want to call it.
Particularly bothersome are all of the bloggers who have ABSOLUTELY NO ENTREPRENEURIAL OR INVESTING EXPERIENCE (read: 90% of all staff at all tech blogs).
It doesn’t take courage to sit in your boxers and write blog posts. It takes courage to build companies and invest in those who do.
MG – you are a tool.