Last week I wrote that mainstream media’s coverage of blogs, bloggers and blog networks was only going to accelerate, and indeed, that seems to be true.
Today both Wired and Newsweek write glowing pieces on Michael Arrington and Tech Crunch. Wired’s piece has a lot of good tidbits on Arrington, the landscape and the overall traits of entrepreneurship, and I could write a dozen pages right here, but the one thing that should be emphasized, really, in my humble opinion is this:
In 1999 — at the peak of the Internet bubble — Arrington took just such a chance himself. He left the law firm and went to work as head of business development at Real Names, a hot startup with an idea that seemed sexy at the time: Replace long, nonintuitive Internet addresses with simple, natural-language entries. Teare was the Real Names founder and CEO, and Arrington was captivated by both the idea and the entrepreneur.
Everyone talks about Tech Crunch’s overnight success, and indeed, its overnight success has been nothing short of mezmerizing and impressive… but when you consider that Arrington first left the corporate life in 1999 and did a bunch of projects, you have to add persistence and determination to some of the traits that explain TC’s success. Also, something I covered in Persist, Persevere, Profit.
Something that hit me though, it this passage:
Some TechCrunch readers, like Reid Hoffman, founder and former CEO of Linkedin, believe that Arrington may need to decide whether he wants his new blogs to be stocked with journalists working from the outside or players working from the inside. When you combine the two roles, Hoffman says, no one knows how to behave around you: Are you a journalist or a power broker?
That’s a conflict I face every day. I have always, always said that this blog gives readers a vantage point into an executive’s perspective. But as the readership grows and people ask me to write stories… should I maintain that role or does the baggage need to go?
I really don’t see myself competing with anyone, I compete with myself etc., but the second I write something on search, video etc., am I not blatantly conflicted (I do after all, run a company that has interests in these fields)?
Of course, on that I tend to agree with Arrington (did I just say that?) when he says: “”Human interaction is simply too complex to pretend that we are all objective.” On the surface that’s a lot of spin, but it’s true. Does it make us less conflicted when we disclose an interest. I don’t adhere to John Doerr’s “No conflict, no interest,” but all journalists seem to have some form of conflict.
My take is that what makes this blog interesting is that insider’s perspective; the Wall Street meets Madison Avenue meets Silicon Valley is not just a tagline, it’s a reflection of what makes this site unique… so long as the disclaimers and disclosures are there, it should not be an issue, I think.
In fact, if you’re honest and sincere in what you say, sometimes people would be surprised to hear you say something that goes against your interests. Take for example me bashing YHOO!, where I own shares, or mentioning the launch of SlateV.com or Revision3’s funding, both video producers who on the surface at least would be competing with our WatchMojo.com web video unit… The fact that I operate in the space only adds more street cred to what I say, because I know some of the details of operating in them.
I think ultimately, mainstream media is great in many ways and not so great in some, and if folks like Arrington, yours truly etc. can carve a niche to differentiate and offer a good product, the rest falls into place. In Arrington’s case, that niche has proven very profitable and influential. Whether he remains relevant (not a knock, just an observation) in 1, 3 or 5 years depends on how he lets his admitted “hotheadedness” get to him. Though surely even critics would admit that this is part of his charm.
Ultimately, phonies are easy to spot. Readers aren’t dumb in that regards, so so long as TC publishes good content, everything else is par for the course. Content is king, after all.
UPDATE: This is too funny.
Any thoughts?
Subscribe: