I just got back from SF, my second red-eye flight back in two weeks. I was invited to attend Tech Crunch 40, and I posted 40 reviews of 40 companies in real-time. That was pretty intense… here they are:
- Session # 1: Search and Navigation
- Session # 2: Mobile and Communications
- Session # 3: Community and Collaboration
- Session # 4: Crowdsourcing
- Session # 5: Productivity and Web Apps
- Session # 6: Revenue Models and Analytics
- Session # 7: Rich Media and Mash Ups
- Session # 8: Entertainment for All Ages
I actually have two more posts, one recapping the panels and one on my picks… those will come later today or tomorrow. I just want to thank Jason Calacanis, Michael Arrington and their entire team for inviting me to their inaugural conference.
The following is constructive criticism, feedback, and really more about the industry at large than TC 40. It’s basically me trying not to suck up and maintain some integrity.
Here is the good, bad and ugly of Tech Crunch 40.
The Good:
#1 - The Quality of the Panel Members Was Simply Amazing.
I cannot think of any occasion, time or place where I will be within a few meters of business legends Michael Moritz, David Filo, Marc Andreessen, Ron Conway, Yossi Vardi, let alone more recent successful entrepreneurs like Chad Hurley, Caterina Fake, Mark Zuckerberg, etc. The list goes in, it was also very nice to put a face to names like Roelof Botha, Brad Garlinghouse etc. I think that this is the one area that Jason Calacanis and Michael Arrington will have a very, very hard time at next year’s event (don’t doubt it, there will be one, if you want proof, the URL redirects to http://www.techcrunch40.com/2007/index.php).
Sure, Jason Calacanis’ relationship with Sequoia helped, as did Michael Arrington’s amazing platform at TC, but those are testaments to their hard work and determination, so more power to them.
# 2 - The Panel Topics
All panels were really good, in fact. From “Humble Beginnings” to” Getting Funded” and “Exit Strategies”, I can honestly say that as an entrepreneur, investor and writer, they were worth the price of admission alone.
# 3 - Arrington vs. Zuckerberg
Clearly, Michael Arrington was the man of the hour when he had Mark Zuckerberg alone, on stage, for 45 minutes. Zuckerberg doesn’t do too many interviews like that… I think that it could have been better, but I understand Michael being more of a product guy than a strategy person, that’s why he focused on product questions. That is not a knock suggesting that Arrington is not into strategy, it’s that he is more into product issues… I also think that Zuckerberg would have been less prone to talk sales strategy, M&A, etc., things that I am more into.
# 4 - 40 Launches in 2 Days
Regardless of everything else, TC 40 still saw 40 companies launch new wares in 2 days, in one city. That is very impressive and shows just how much muscle TC flexes in the Web space.
# 5 - Location, location, location
It’s a shame I booked late, because the Palace was booked… but it was a wonderful spot. Good eye to whomever picked it.
# 6 - Arrington and Calacanis
I’m not sucking up (just wait until you read the end), but the MCs were actually entertaining… Calacanis has the right mix of industry know-how and interviewer to pull it off… Arrington’s swagger and confidence was in full-effect, they played their roles perfectly… and I don’t for one second think it was role-playing.
The Bad
# 1 - Tech Crunch 40 Presentations
All right, I actually enjoyed the 40 presentations, don’t get me wrong here. I also like to think that I took a different route by not only sitting through all 40 pitches, but acting like a VC or angel and judging them on criteria an investor would. To see what the criteria was, click here. They were:
1 - The Elevator Pitch: Description of Company, Feature, Product or Service
2 - Reminds Me Of…
3 - Originality
3 - Validation: Biz Dev Deals, Potential Clients and Partners
4 - Income vs. Capital Gain: Will this company generate ad revenue beyond Google Ad Sense, or is it a burn through money and then flip it?
5 - Can it Raise VC or is their market closed (have VCs moved on?)
6 - Exit Options: who can buy them… and is an IPO likely in X years?
7 - Bottom Line…
# 2 - Products and Features, Few - If Any - Companies
The problem was that 40 companies to present for 6 or 8 minutes is fine, but they should have all had a consistent checklist of things to cover. After all, a VC asks entrepreneurs for 10 slides on topic 1 through 10, I really don’t see why TC40 was different. By allowing companies to present in any way they could - and the audience really not knowing much about any of the companies - it made it chaotic and ineffective.
My main problem with the TC 40 is not even with form but content. All of the companies were ultimately derivatives of 3 or 4 applications, but simply deployed to something slightly different. Entrepreneurs who recognize trends and build companies around them should not be blamed, but I did not see more than 4 companies, let alone 40… I saw features and products, or to quote Flickr’s Caterina Fake, “satellites not planets”. This is arguably the most dangerous thing of Web 2.0, and I was hoping for TC40 to mark a new era of Tech Crunch’s coverage but instead, it only reinforced the belief that Web 2.0 is more hype than substance.
Examples of this are ShakeMusic, Storyblender, Kerpoof, for example, being ultimately very similar. Also, on that note, I do not understand, for example, why ShakeMusic and StoryBlender made the Top 40, but Kaltura did not, even though they were picked as the Demo Pit wild card.
It would have also been good to explain what separated the 40 from the Demo Pit companies, because in my opinion, Kaltura was as good as some of the other ones that were in the Top 40.
# 3 - The Demo Pit
Again, nothing against the companies, I actually think some were better if not as good as the ones that made the Top 40, but it was an impossible task to get press, invitees etc. to pay attention to 40 or so more companies after sitting through 40 companies actually launch. The Demo Pit, in some ways, was more of a disservice than a service. Then again, tell that to Kaltura, who won the wild card and would certainly disagree with me.
# 4 - Disclosures
Ok, I’m not from San Francisco, but I get it: SF is all about conflicts of interest. Fred Wilson is from NY, he wasn’t there, but he always quotes Michael Moritz’s “no conflict, no interest” mantra. You know what, that’s a copout. Michael Arrington and Jason Calacanis could have added some great thinkers, executives who were not so conflicted… it was a cesspool!
There were two problems here:
- lack of disclosures (or disclosing conflicts started too late).
- everyone had a conflict on every panel, and some were glaring!
# 5 - The Judges Were Largely Too Nice
Apart from the panel consisting of Hammer, Brad Garlinghouse, Caterina Fake, Loic Le Meur and Sarah Lacy, I respectfully think the other panels were just way too nice. Om Malik showed signs of his usual professionalism (disclosure: I had supper with Om on Sunday evening - haha).
# 6 - Hum… the winner?
Mint.com seems like a good idea and all (and I actually think it shows off how much First Capital has done in such little time), but I am not sure if Mint.com was worthy of the top price. I’ll spare the details but read Allen Stern’s review of the shindig. I think Mint.com was interesting, top 10 perhaps, but winner? No, no way.
# 7 - 40 Selected Were Dubious
All right, I like Phil “Pud” Kaplan and all, but what is AdBrite doing amonst the Top 40? Ad Brite is a Sequoia company and Sequoia was co-organizer Jason Calacanis’ employer, current investor in his venture and oh yes, a major sponsor. That made the entire presentation seem odd, though I liked his observations in the follow-up. It was as ridiculous as putting Right Media up there, how would Pubmattic have felt?
#8 - Google, AOL, Yahoo!
All right, I’m not dumb, I know why they’re there and all (paid placement), but they just stood out like a sore thumb. I would have much rather see executives from these companies on a panel duking out the challenges they face from one another and then from upstarts.
The Ugly
#1 - Wifi
Wifi on Day 1 was pretty slow. At some times, trying to publish a text-based blog post was akin to push an elephant up a hill during a rain slide… but I digress.
# 2 - Demos Were Not All Real and Live
The bigger issue - which admittedly could be a result of the wobbly Internet or cell phone access was the fact that some of the demos were not even real. I mean, come on!
# 3 - How Can I Word This?
There were no companies from Kleiner Perkins, Sequoia’s rival. That is one very basic example. I can list a few other such coincidences that made TC40 feel a bit fake and phony.
I realize saying this might get me barred from an upcoming shindig planned by messers Calacanis and Arrington, and that is a shame, because what they should take away from my review is that the good was really good, the bad were things that ultimately were small and a matter of perspective and the ugly was either technical (easily fixed in upcoming years) or symptomatic of the SF culture that makes me look forward to arrive in town but more eager to get out of it.
All for all, I once again thank Michael, Jason, and their teams who really all worked very hard…
Lastly:
- Who do I think should have won?
- What lessons are to be learned from the wonderful panel experts?
Those are the last two posts from our coverage of Tech Crunch 40.
On a personal note, yes, I was there as a blogger and that is why I listened and reviewed all 40 companies, but I did please my alter ego, the web executive, and land a few major contacts for both business and corporate development deals…
Digg this Blog
Share on Facebook
WatchMojo on Twitter
WatchMojo on YouTube
Add to Favorites
WatchMojo Newsletter
PLAY
