All Things Digital

“Demo needs to die,” said TechCrunch Editor Michael Arrington yesterday.

Oh, my. Oh, dear. Not more bloody tangoing!?!

The pugnacious tech blogger–who was last seen slapping around other tech bloggers who deigned to also raise money for their ventures, much as he has been doing–made this classy statement in an interview with Daniel Terdiman of CNET’s Geek Gestalt yesterday, about scheduling his TechCrunch 50 conference at the same time as the fall conference of the longtime leader in the start-up conference space, Demo, run by Chris Shipley.

(Shipley’s response is here.)

DemoFall is September 7th to the 9th, while TC 50 is September 8th through 10th.

“It’s just an old-school model,” continued Arrington to Terdiman. “It clearly involves pay to play, and what we’re offering is better.”

Not satisfied to just schedule his event at the same time as Demo–which is fine, I guess, given this is America and we all have the right to be aggressively, and even pointlessly, competitive–the second shot is at the $18,500 fee that Demo demonstrators pay, once they get invited to that conference.

TC 50 does not charge, which, to be fair, would be my choice too.

Still, given his inaugural TC 40 conference sold out and was, said Arrington to Geek Gestalt, profitable, the channeling of the Corleone Family in the online tech space seems a bit much to me.

After all, despite the fact that Arrington recently characterized tech blog sites as competing gangs (”You can do just about anything you want, but the politically savvy folks tend to arm themselves to the teeth and gang together to protect their property. Everyone else is in the middle of chaos, either fighting blindly for attention or politely asking–by linking early and linking often–if they can join the big Gang.”), let’s be honest.

The whole group of us together would lose badly in a fair fight with my son’s kindergarten class.

Of course, they bite. We should know better.

(Full disclosure: Walt Mossberg and I have been running a conference, called D: All Things Digital, for many years. D6 is in late May and is sold out. Nonetheless, full coverage of the event and also full video of the interviews with tech and media players on stage–including Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer, Jeff Bezos, Jeff Bewkes, Howard Stringer, Mark Zuckerberg and many others–will be on this site. We also do a few demos, so until then, we fervently hope to find no horse heads in our beds.)

So what prompted TechCrunch Editor Michael Arrington to pen a pugnacious piece on how blogs should not be raising so much venture capital and instead roll themselves into a “Dream Team,” with the unusual title of “More Bloggers Raising Money. Here Comes Politics. And Here Comes My Rant” yesterday?

Well, besides garnering Arrington a big dollop of traffic and attention, which is perhaps one of the blog entrepreneur’s most impressive talents, could it have something to do with the fact that he’s been busy recently talking to several well-known tech blogs about joining a roll-up organized by TechCrunch itself?

Or that he has told several people I spoke to that TechCrunch was considering doing this by raising as much as $15 million, giving it a $35 million valuation?

Reached by email last night, the voluble Arrington declined to comment.

Thus, a BoomTown translation of his TechCrunch piece is Job No. 1!

Arrington wrote: More blogs are raising venture capital, we’re hearing from people they’ve pitched. Newcomer Silicon Alley Insider is looking for a $3 million to $5 million round, if reports are correct. And paidContent is pitching for a second round in that same range (paidContent raised a round of “less than $1 million” in 2006). We’re also hearing that paidContent is trying to sell the company for $15 million or more, and just bail out with some spending money.

Translation: If that scalawag Henry Blodget thinks he can steal even an iota of my thunder, he better get ready to rumble. And while it is entirely incorrect that paidContent is selling itself or raising that much money, I love the smell of napalm in the morning and FUD in the blogosphere!

[BoomTown actually contacted paidContent’s founder, Rafat Ali, who strongly reiterated that the site might raise a very small amount of money, nowhere close to $3 million to $5 million, and was not trying to sell the company at all.]

Arrington wrote: These rumored deals come as funding for bloggers is heating up in general. Just a month ago VentureBeat reported a $320,000 raise. In 2007 we saw Sugar Inc. ($10 million), GigaOm ($1 million), Xconomy, Blogher ($3.5 million) and The Huffington Post ($10 million) raise venture capital. That’s at least $25 million in 2007 invested in blogs and blog networks.

As far as we know, no significant investments were made in blogs in 2005. Weblogs, Inc. raised around $300,000 in 2004, but before they got around to spending it they had sold themselves to AOL (TWX) for an estimated $25 million. The investors, including Mark Cuban, received 15x on their initial investment.

Translation: And if that elfin Jason Calacanis can score, where’s MY payoff!?! I mean, I am the Jason Calacanis of Web 2.0, aren’t I!? The Mac Daddy of the widget economy! The Sultan of Zing! And did Calacanis ever have the chutzpah to pose for a picture lighting cigars with a handful of crisp, flaming Benjamins! I think not!

Arrington wrote: But apart from that first 2004 investment in Weblogs, Inc., there haven’t been any sales or liquidity events to suggest these investments will be a success. And back then blogging was a cakewalk. Most bloggers linked to each other constantly in a state of brotherly or sisterly love. No one was making any money or getting much attention, so for the most part people got along (with notable exceptions like engadget/gizmodo, who play to win).

Translation: The rain may never fall till after sundown./By eight, the morning fog must disappear./In short, there’s simply not/A more congenial spot/For happily-ever-aftering than here/In Camelot.

Arrington wrote: Those salad days are long gone. Writers suddenly want to be paid market wages, far above the $5 per post that they received two years ago. No, we’re talking a big salary, with benefits, and stock options. There went half your margins at least.

Translation: Wages?! Big salary!? Benefits!? Stock options!!!??? Half your margins!!? Who do these people think they are? The Web 2.0 shooting stars I write about incessantly in TechCrunch?

Arrington wrote: And writing good content is only half the battle. You have to figure out the complex, dynamic web of politics between bloggers and mainstream media before you post to know where to get support. And you’ll need support in the form of links from other prominent bloggers. An early push can take a post and make it a headline on TechMeme, which leads to page views and notice by sponsors. But since blogging is almost by definition a conversation between bloggers, fights tend to break out over emotional issues. Cliques develop. Can you count on them to support you down the road?

Translation: TechCrunch is from Mars, Valleywag is from Venus.

Arrington wrote: Personally, I’ve found that if a fight is necessary, fight clean and fight hard. Make it as bloody as possible and end it fast, with no loose ends dangling about. Leave no lingering emotional stone unturned. When everyone gets up and dusts themselves off, the issue should have been resolved one way or the other, and both sides should be happy to shake hands and tango another day, even if the handshaking is done privately. Those that aren’t capable of doing that tend to push themselves to the outskirts of the blogosphere, where their main job is to lob in attacks at random intervals, pursuing long-forgotten insults.

Translation: Bloody tango? Ouch. Ew. Yuk. And handshakes after that seems unhygienic. But let’s solider on. Aha! Another Broadway musical clue! The Jets are gonna have their day/Tonight/The Jets are gonna have their way/Tonight/The Puerto Ricans grumble/”Fair fight”/But if they start a rumble/We’ll rumble ‘em right.

Arrington wrote: So today, at best, I’d describe the blogosphere as a frontier town with no lawman (I mean, O’Reilly has a badge on, but no gun and no jail). You can do just about anything you want, but the politically savvy folks tend to arm themselves to the teeth and gang together to protect their property. Everyone else is in the middle of chaos, either fighting blindly for attention or politely asking (by linking early and linking often) if they can join the big Gang.

Translation: Wait, now the metaphor has shifted to the Old West? OK, we can keep up: Anything you can do, I can do better./I can do anything better than you./No, you can’t./Yes, I can./No, you can’t./Yes, I can./No, you can’t./Yes, I can, Yes, I can!

Arrington wrote: And now that the big guys in the Gang are being injected with capital, hiring tens of employees and expanding their businesses, they suddenly have a lot more to lose. Linking is never done just because. Rather, links are your political capital that must be expended appropriately. Don’t link at the right time and in two weeks when you’re pushing your own headline, you’ll wish you had. When you stop seeing other blogs as people you admire and want to discuss things with, and start to see them as your competitor, your brain shifts and you stop linking the way you had previously.

Translation: Hey, how did we get to Washington, D.C. and the inside of Sen. Hillary Clinton’s cerebral cortex in the midst of yet another compromised political calculation? It’s like we’re on “Fantastic Voyage”!

Arrington: Luckily, the newbie bloggers are there to fill in the links when they’re needed. That’s why, if you are a mid-level blogger, you are likely courted by the bigger blogs looking to get your support. If you know what’s going on and are willing to play the game, you can see your blog rise very, very quickly. Choose the wrong blog, though, and you may find yourself alone and lonely in your forgotten blog.

As an aside, when I see a young but promising blogger, I’ll start linking to him or her constantly to build them up (others, like Winer, Scoble, Jarvis and Rubel did that for me). The goal is to help move them up to a position of influence as quickly as possible. The more non-crazy influencers in the game, the easier it is to ignore the noise generators and the better the overall conversation becomes. Over the last year, for example, Silicon Alley Insider, CenterNetworks, LouisGray and Mathew Ingram I’ve been pushing hard. These guys rarely agree with me, but when they talk I listen because they’ve put some thought into what they are saying and how they are saying it. Those guys haven’t hit the big politics yet, and tend to link out a lot to everyone. They are a very important part of the ecosystem–pushing their link votes toward stories they find interesting and helping those other bloggers get headlines and maintain their place in the Gang.

Translation: Next stop, the stylings of Mr. Michael Corleone! There are many things my father taught me here in this room. He taught me: keep your friends close, but your enemies closer.

Arrington wrote: So what’s the point of this rant? Well, all this money flowing into the blogosphere is disrupting the complicated and emotional, but also stable way things are done. Bloggers with money and employees and health care programs and boards of directors and shareholders have to play politics with a whole new group of people, splitting them away from what they do best–Fighting the Blog War. Their behavior can become erratic as they have to decide to tone down their writing to get a certain type of sponsor on board, which in turn lets them make payroll. Investors want to see growth, so more and more blogs are launched, but perhaps without the right talent to grow it into a long-term business.

If a VC hands you a check, their intention is not to hang around for 20 years while you build a nice lifestyle business for yourself. What they want to see is an exit, preferably a 10x or higher exit, within 3 to 4 years. But something tells me that few of these networks are going to be able to grow quite as easily as they think and reach those liquidity events. The talent is, increasingly, locked up. Even when new talent is discovered or trained, every niche has serious heavyweights already there with page views and advertising dollars to back them up for a long fight.

Translation: Finally, the point! Which is: Assimilate or Die!

Arrington wrote: At some point it’s going to become painfully obvious that the only way to get to a massive valuation is for the top talent to band together in a company where they each have an equity stake and therefore a reason to work all night on that next great story. They’ll each have their own space to stretch their legs and let their personality run around a little. Someone needs to pony up a big round of financing around an existing blog, or perhaps a new entity, and then start rolling them up into a big fat CNET-crushing $200 million/year in revenue business.

Translation: This is my sneaky but clever way of floating a trial balloon of an effort I am already trying to organize. The existing blog? Mine! The new entity? Run by me! The $200 million a year? Mine, again! Now, enough about me–what do you think of me?

Arrington wrote: It can happen. In fact it’s almost certainly going to happen. But if you bloggers go out there and raise $3 million to $5 million on say a $10 million valuation, you’ve just priced yourself out of the roll-up. That option will be closed to you, and you’ll be stuck out in the cold, taking life-support payments from Federated Media or another ad network, and having a generally awful time running your business.

Translation: Luca Brasi sleeps with the fishes.

Arrington wrote: What I’d like to see, and even be a part of, is the blogger equivalent to the 1992 U.S. Men’s Basketball Dream Team. That team could take CNET apart in a year, hire the best of the survivors there, and then move on to bigger prey.

Translation: After we are done bloody-tangoing with Neil Ashe at CNET (CNET), Owen Thomas and his evil overlord Nick Denton better sleep with one eye open.

Arrington wrote: Just the thought of being a part of something like that has held us back from raising any outside capital at all. I believe we have the beginning of a team that can play a role in this new Dream Team.

So think twice before taking that venture money, guys. You may be shutting more doors of opportunity than you realize.

Translation: By saying we have held back from raising any outside capital at all, what I really mean to say is that I am going to do it.

Resistance is futile.

I could not agree more with both Michael Arrington of TechCrunch and Valleywag’s Owen Thomas, an unlikely and motley trio we three, when I say: Leave Sarah Lacy alone.

OK, the interview she did with Facebook Founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg at SXSW on Sunday was a little silly at times and she probably annoyed people when she flacked her new book. (Full disclosure: I have written two books, so I can relate to the unfortunate impulse to do so.)

But to make such a big hairy deal in blogs and on Twitters seems a bit of overkill, doesn’t it?

Even including a wee bit too much girly hair-twirling by Lacy into the equation (which looked like simple nervousness to me), I just don’t get the uproar.

If Britney Spears had mounted a mighty steed and ridden naked down Hollywood Boulevard, trampling cute little bunnies as she went–it could happen!–it would not engender the level of vituperative online bloviating that the encounter of Lacy and Zuckerberg did.

Were there no other pointless blogging debates to be had yesterday? Aren’t there indignant Digg-for-sale stories to chew over? Wasn’t there a good open-source kerfuffle to get into angry exchanges about? Didn’t Robert Scoble do something that we can endlessly argue between and amongst ourselves?

I guess not and that’s too bad.

Arrington got it exactly right (except in singling out only journalists for the Lacy-bashing, since it was, well, everyone piling on), when he wrote:

“Perhaps they just got caught up in the fun of a witch burning. But whatever drove them to write those articles, it certainly wasn’t journalism. Nor was it professional. And, worst of all, it wasn’t accurate.”

And Thomas made the most salient point of who should have been the focus of the interview, when he wrote:

“I agree with the popular take on Sarah Lacy’s Zuckerberg interview at SXSW to this degree: The audience was revolting. Lacy threw an unbecomingly petulant tantrum onstage. But the Twitter reaction was equally self-indulgent. The debates over her performance obscured the man who should have been under the microscope: Mark Zuckerberg.”

Well, exactly.

I am, in fact, probably going to be interviewing Zuckerberg onstage at our upcoming D: All Things Digital conference in late May. I hope it goes well, but you never know.

But here’s an offer: If everyone promises to stop needlessly pummeling Lacy for her SXSW interview, I’ll consider twirling Zuckerberg’s hair during my interview with him.

Twitter that.

Also, here’s the video of the Lacy-Zuckerberg interview, so you can make your own judgment:

What a slimy mess the “Here Comes Another Bubble” is leaving in its wake as it travels all over the Web.

Today, Daryl Lang of PDNPulse, a blog from Photo District News, reported that it contacted more photographers whose pictures were used in the popular Web 2.0-mocking video by the San Francisco-based singing group, the Richter Scales.

Four of them responded that they also did not like the use of their work one bit, some objecting to the credit given, others to the non-payment and still others to not being asked for permission to use their photos.

Some objected to all three issues, all of which have to do with “fair use” under copyright law.

“I’m totally against the unauthorized use of my image,” said Ramona Rosales, whose picture of TechCrunch blogger Michael Arrington was used in the video and who said she was going to ask that the photo be removed, to PDNPulse. “I was never asked permission nor have I received any compensation for its use; furthermore I don’t feel it is justified simply because they gave me credit.”

Read more »

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

Good god, Google at $2,000 a share?

Oh, it’s just that Web sprite Henry Blodget (pictured here), at it again, over at his blog on his site Silicon Alley Insider.

The former Wall Street analyst enjoyed brief fame in the last Internet mania for predicting that Amazon stock would go to $400 a share (and it did–but not for long!). Then later, he got investigated for touting stocks publicly that he disdained privately and, thus, was barred from the securities industry for life.

Yesterday, the can’t-help-himself Blodget wrote a much-noticed post arguing that the search giant’s stock could go nuclear.

Wrote Blodget:

Remember a couple years back when some analyst floated the idea that Google could eventually be worth $2,000 a share–and was ridiculed from coast to coast? Well, first it’s worth noting that Google is now almost a third of the way there. Second, it’s worth noting that $2,000 a share would mean a market cap of about $750 billion, which–given a reasonable time horizon–just isn’t that far-fetched.”

Um, Henry, it is far-fetched, as to be borderline fanciful. So, please stop taking all those cold medicines that make you all fuzzy-headed, because your theory even makes Facebook at $15 billion seem reasonable.

Given my obvious link to Google (see my disclosure here again, if you did not click at the top), it might surprise you that I think the current price for Google–zeroing in on $600 a share–is moderately insane.

But it’s fueled by the fact that there is not a whole lot out there to invest in if you want to be in the Internet market. Yahoo? Maybe after that 100 days is up. eBay? Skyped! Microsoft? Zzzz. Amazon? Still, in the end, a retailer.

Thus, search behemoth Google, which keeps gobbling up share right in the middle of the boom in the search-ad business, wins the beauty pageant and the faux diamond tiara.

For now. While Google is a real star in its core business (and what a business it is–it’s like having the water franchise in the Mojave desert), there are a lot of obvious issues the company will be facing as it moves forward.

Not today maybe, but three or four years hence–and the seeds of trouble are already planted.

You could go on about the lack of stunning success in its diversification efforts–admirable as some of them are. You could wonder, whither YouTube? You could worry about that DoubleClick deal getting slowed down or even stopped by the government.

You could focus on too-high development and employee costs. A downturn in the economy and the ad market is a recessionary nightmare all around and especially for Google. And did we mention the potential power of social networking?

Or that Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin might soon have to return to the alien planet from whence they came, taking with them those big-brained, bike-riding, solar-power-generating Googlers and leaving all us small-brains to flail around once again on the Web?

But while we can all have a good long giggle at Henry’s cheek, I think I have to side solidly with TechCrunch’s Michael Arrington on this issue (and, those who follow stupid tech blogging insider stuff, you know it’s not my first or even second impulse).

Except for the too-aggressive suggestion that someone “muzzle” Blodget, Arrington (pictured here in a disturbingly Blodgety pose) wrote a passionate and most excellent post on Blodget’s latest prediction.

He is entirely right that even if Blodget was not being serious, such outlandish statements are not helpful.

Writes Arrington persuasively:

Henry Blodget made his name by predicting outlandish price increases for Internet stocks in the late nineties. A lot of people lost a lot of money (or, all their money) by listening to his recommendations. The government charged him with securities fraud in 2003 and he was subsequently banned from the securities industry for life.

“But Blodget is a bit of a one-trick pony, and he likes to stay in the headlines. So he continues to build cases for big valuations of Internet companies. The only difference is he publishes these thoughts on his blogs. And people still listen to what he has to say.

“He isn’t always bullish (he’s recently trashed Yahoo and eBay). But he can’t seem to contain his regular predictive outbursts that such-and-such stock is worth massively more than it is now.

“When he’s talking about Facebook being worth $6 billion to $20 billion that’s OK, because it isn’t a public stock and no one is going to go out and throw away their life savings. But when he builds a case for Google’s stock to go to $2,000/share, he’s crossing a line.”

I agree wholeheartedly.

And, admirably, Arrington also points out criticism he himself gets for being “overly optimistic about young start-ups.”

He is, but he’s right that it does not matter nearly as much–who really cares that much if another venture capitalist doesn’t get his gold-plated wings–as much as those companies in the public market where regular people can lose hard-earned money trusting faulty advice.

I was always offended back in the last dot-com frenzy, when Wall Street analysts were giddily recommending stocks in companies they knew full well were not up to snuff and then walking away with bags of money from mutant initial public offerings they engineered.

The press, including myself at times, were bad enough by not being as tough as we should have been, but the double-dealing and “friends-of” stock roundelays were indeed sickening to watch.

At one point, in a story I tell a lot, when an investment banker said to me that he was about to take a company that was “pre-revenue” public, I asked if perhaps it wasn’t easier just to go mug some old lady on the street and grab the money in her purse to speed things along.

This should not happen again. This new round of Internet innovation–and, yes, bubble–has much more significant and useful and terrific companies in it and many deserve to grow in a healthy environment.

And there’s already enough hype without writers like Blodget piling on, especially since he is (and always was) such an excellent and convincing writer.

It wasn’t always thus for Blodget in regards to Google, by the way. He was a bear on it as recently as January 2006, as reported by Digital Daily’s John Paczkowski, back when he was writing for “Good Morning Silicon Valley.”

So let’s return to that little oasis of sanity and not wallow in mania and heedless speculation.

In the name of safety of old ladies everywhere (and I am veering in on that demographic all too soon), we all can do better than that.

Our John Paczkowski of Digital Daily continued to brave the potential for falling ill from start-up fatigue from his hysterically funny live-blogging of Jason Calacanis’s and Michael Arrington’s TechCrunch40 conference, while BoomTown continued to wander the halls in search of snacks and a safe haven from PR minions.

To no avail, although we did have a great debate with Techmeme’s Gabe Rivera about the ethics and rules of blogging and (sometimes lack thereof). Conclusion: We did not always agree, but Rivera is one smart cookie. (Also, the actual cookies and churros at the conference were mighty tasty.)

In this video, we talk to some folks, including the voluble Calacanis and the guy from Mint (whose expressive eyebrows actually rival those of John Paczkowski, also in the video), the start-up that won the conference’s best-in-show $50,000 grand prize.

Also: BoomTown will soon be trying out a new camera a la that annoying hat-camera guy, so get your Dramamine ready.

While we subjected our stalwart John Paczkowski of Digital Daily to the onerous and potentially mind-numbing task of live-blogging Jason Calacanis’s and Michael Arrington’s TechCrunch40 conference, BoomTown broke some news (on the Yahoo-Zimbra $350 million deal), wandered around and basically schmoozed.

In addition, cupcakes were had.

(The day also included a pricey payback lunch for a bet I lost about News Corp.’s acquisition of Dow Jones.)

Thus, here is my video on the event that featured tech start-ups, Web start-ups and–did we mention?–more tech and Web start-ups.

And, as usual, Scoble!

I know it might begin to feel as if the “fake” Web site trend could be waning after the unmasking of the popular Fake Steve Jobs. (Is it just me or do you feel a touch of ennui, like after Sam and Diane finally did it on “Cheers”?)

But judging from the fake CrunchFood site, a parody of tech blogger Michael Arrington’s work, the genre is still cooking–literally.

And this post on rosé wine, which I print in its entirety, is as close to genius as it could get in the fake voice of Arrington:

We all grew up drinking wine, but after a while the same old red and white became … I don’t know. Uninspiring? Sure, they got us drunk, but frankly over time they became just like every other alcoholic beverage: borrring.

“But I just got tipped off to something significantly better, and it’s solid gold: Rosé.

“This is a no-brainer, why-didn’t-I-think-of-that drink—a dead simple mashup of one-half red wine and one-half white. Every self-respecting drinker should be slapping himself/herself upside the head over having not thought of this.

“In my opinion, rosé could soon be in a battle to the death with wine coolers for supremacy in the Effeminate Alcohol 2.0 space.”

What is Om Malik going to announce at his party tomorrow night at the M. H. de Young Museum in San Francisco?

Valleywag wanted to know what the well-known tech blogger was up to, so we will tell them: an online television interview and analysis show on Revision3 called “The GigaOm Show.”

Along with tech lawyer Joyce Kim (who is also sister-in-law to Jason Calacanis), the weekly show will be 10-minute talks with various tech CEOs and start-up entrepreneurs.

Read more »

Is there a trend in my post yesterday about the deal former Hollywood execs Lloyd Braun and Gail Berman struck with Pepsi to make original online content that the entertainment and marketing arm of the beverage giant will have a chance to fund and sponsor?

“We want to create great online content … and also something that is more than a glorified Internet ad at the same time,” said Braun to me yesterday. “So we’ll work with Pepsi hand-in-hand to bake new kinds of ad solutions right in organically at the earliest possible moment.”

What struck me was that this was also the same line being touted by Facebook ad sales majordomo Mike Murphy, whom I interviewed Tuesday about what it will take to make the popular social-network site as popular with advertisers. (See video below again.)

Bandying about the phrase, “return on involvement,” he noted that it was his job to show marketers that becoming part of the conversation could be as important as much-measured click-through rates.

“Banners are great for branding, but this is a more relevant message that leverages social media,” said Murphy. “If we can help you make your idea or product relevant to a consumer and get the best involvement rate … it’s a different game.”

And then last month Valleywag posted here on an amazingly idiotic roundelay about a group of bloggers associated with John Battelle’s Federated Media being part of a Microsoft ad campaign, by weighing in on what the software giant’s “people ready” catchphrase meant to them.

I was going to write about it, and even talked to Om Malik (he was sorry and withdrew from the campaign) and Battelle (not so sorry, noting to me that how we all look at marketing has changed in the new paradigm).

But the prospect of headache-inducing debates about it that would go precisely nowhere stopped me cold. I come from an Italian family and I know from pointless arguments.

My own conclusion was that, even with all the disclosure, which could have been a lot better, it was probably a dicey and even flat-out wrong thing for most bloggers to do.

Except apparently for Michael “Pound Sand” Arrington, who doesn’t appear to care what most anyone thinks anyway. (Are you looking at me?)

Read more »

In what I can only describe as a sentimental-veering-toward-weepy riff on the ongoing saga of “Silicon Valley Bubble: The Sequel,” TechCrunch blogger Michael Arrington waxes on about the need for a downturn to stop the madness.

“Times are good, money is flowing, and Silicon Valley sucks,” he writes in earnest about how all that was once beautiful and pure about the Web 2.0 culture has become a wee bit tawdry. Money quote:

I wasn’t writing a blog in the first bubble so I can’t compare now to then. But entrepreneurs are no longer talking to us just to get our opinion and hope for a blog post and a little discussion. These guys need press to stand out from the scores of start-ups just like them. Saying no to them isn’t really an option. They show up at our front door with a bottle of wine or flowers. They instruct their PR firms to do anything necessary to get a story. More than once I’ve had a CEO break down and cry on the phone when we said we weren’t covering them. And more than once, I folded and wrote about them after those conversations.”

Having actually been around in the first bubble, covering the sector for The Wall Street Journal as its Internet beat reporter, I can empathize with the relentless pitching and aggressive self-aggrandizing that start-ups and their minions engaged in (although no bawling CEOs ever called me!).

Back then, they wanted the press (and, presumably, the stamp of approval from The Journal on that passport to Richville) to either get funding from venture capitalists or to IPO their typically half-baked company, much to the detriment of the investing public.

Here’s my simple cure for the seemingly beleaguered blogger (who has, in fact, made his name writing about this new crop of wannabes, some of whom are worthy and some of whom are not): Flowers and wine and comely PR come-ons are pretty easy to resist, and saying no is actually an option.

Let’s practice: No. Nope. Sorry. Uh-uh. Zip. Zero. Nada. I’m sorry, what’s UGC? Wait, I have a call on the other line.

Read more »