Last night, Cody Brown wrote:
I can say that personally, I learn about NYC tech news almost purely from a collection of blogs I find through Twitter. There is Silicon Alley and Tech Crunch articles about NYC startups but most of the time, I’m leaning about NYC Tech from prominent investors like Fred Wilson and Chris Dixon. Despite how much I devour their work, it comes from a particular POV. If I’m anything like others in NYC who are looking for local tech news, I’m starting to think that too much of this POV is holding us back. The issues with personal blogs break down like this:
Mission
It’s clear why Fred Wilson blogs, he does it because it’s good for him and it’s good for Union Square Ventures. Fred has reason to care about the larger NYC tech scene, but the interests of USV will always come first.
Transparency
A personal blogger gets to decide, with every post, how transparent they want to be. Any VC blogger worth anything will disclose companies they have investments in when they blog but transparency is much deeper than financial disclosure. Political and personal calculus all come in to play. This is evident anytime a founder/investor talks about existing technologies or companies. When Jason calacanis dropped his rant against ComScore, it could be because he’s genuinely intellectually curious or because he is going to announce his own metrics system in 4 months.
Restraint
A personal blogger isn’t responsible for talking about what conversations they are avoiding. This is where it gets really hairy and I think most detrimental to the community. Imagine a situation like this, a prominent NYC founder/investor invites his friend, another prominent NYC founder/investor to an event he is hosting that will be attended by many in the field. The friend arrives and quickly notices the event is an utter disaster. The projector broke, the moderator is horrendous, and everyone is 15 minutes late because the directions to the location were wrong. If the friend were to honestly describe the event it would not be favorable. What’s your bet? Is this friend going to blog about this event the next day? Probably not. Even when you
I love the work of many personal bloggers and value what they add to the NYC startup community, but a seemingly essential part of the ecosystem is missing.
NYC Needs a Startup Blog. It needs brutal, unnerving, critique from an entity without a mesh of financial interest conflicts.
After my last couple posts regarding Pay-to-Play at NY Angels and NYC vs Silicon Valley, I got shit on by Charlie O'Donnell of First Round Capital and, to a much lesser and dramatically more civil extent, Nate Westheimer of NY Tech Meetup. Actually, nix that. Nate critiqued and did so fairly and honorably, he did not shit. Charlie shat.
Regardless, most founders and proto-founders aren't going to open their mouths and speak freely about their experiences if this is what happens to them when they dare utter a frustrated or honest word. I'm in a pretty good position visibility wise with regards to SpeakerText and am more of a street fighter than most, so I am willing to take stick my neck out. But I wouldn't expect others to.
Social media is cool, but it suffers the same limits as regular social interaction: people are afraid to piss each other off. The emperor is never told about his clothes, or lack thereof. Dollars are at stake, after all.
Hence the need for an independent press who has a financial incentive to say it like it is. Amen, Cody.
Matt,
I just went back and read your Business Insider article, and Charlie’s comment on it, and I’m not sure why you characterized what he wrote there as getting “shit on”. It looked to me like he raised some legitimate points (e.g., about how not getting funded can be a signal that you need to pivot your business model; about how you were incorrect in claiming that most NYC VCs came from Wall Street, etc.).
Also, try reading this paragraph of yours from a potential investor’s perspective:
And let’s get real: Raising money is a gigantic waste of fucking time. Each minute you spend hobnobbing with and strategizing RE: investors is a minute you don’t spend on product or customer development. This is why at SpeakerText we’ve developed a hierarchy regarding our priorities as a company (actually, we just ripped it off from Johnson & Johnson): Customers > Employees > Society > Investors.
Why would an investor want to throw money at you to be at the bottom of your totem pole? Your column includes more than a dash of contempt for investors. Why do you think it makes sense for your tech start-up to have the same (advertised) priorities as a multinational megacap company in a highly-regulated industry?
I’ll raise the same meta-question with you that I raised with my friend and fellow commenter here, Mark Essel: Are you sure you even want to run a venture-backed company? There is an alternative, of course: bootstrap your business to profitability (by creating a product customers want to buy) and then finance your future growth out of those profits. That’s essentially the 37 Signals approach, and it makes a lot of sense, when you think about it.
If you want to raise investor money for your business, I’m not sure how your column (or your comments in that thread) will help you with that. You just poisoned a few wells there (e.g., putting down the entire city of Boston gratuitously).
Matt,
I just went back and read your Business Insider article, and Charlie’s comment on it, and I’m not sure why you characterized what he wrote there as getting “shit on”. It looked to me like he raised some legitimate points (e.g., about how not getting funded can be a signal that you need to pivot your business model; about how you were incorrect in claiming that most NYC VCs came from Wall Street, etc.).
Also, try reading this paragraph of yours from a potential investor’s perspective:
And let’s get real: Raising money is a gigantic waste of fucking time. Each minute you spend hobnobbing with and strategizing RE: investors is a minute you don’t spend on product or customer development. This is why at SpeakerText we’ve developed a hierarchy regarding our priorities as a company (actually, we just ripped it off from Johnson & Johnson): Customers > Employees > Society > Investors.
Why would an investor want to throw money at you to be at the bottom of your totem pole? Your column includes more than a dash of contempt for investors. Why do you think it makes sense for your tech start-up to have the same (advertised) priorities as a multinational megacap company in a highly-regulated industry?
I’ll raise the same meta-question with you that I raised with my friend and fellow commenter here, Mark Essel: Are you sure you even want to run a venture-backed company? There is an alternative, of course: bootstrap your business to profitability (by creating a product customers want to buy) and then finance your future growth out of those profits. That’s essentially the 37 Signals approach, and it makes a lot of sense, when you think about it.
If you want to raise investor money for your business, I’m not sure how your column (or your comments in that thread) will help you with that. You just poisoned a few wells there (e.g., putting down the entire city of Boston gratuitously).
The solution is pretty simple: a blog that features pseudonymous bloggers and follows up on (i.e., doesn’t uncritically regurgitate) anonymous tips from folks in the industry. Sort of like a Zero Hedge for the NYC start-up community (though I’m not sure how much follow up ZH does on its anonymous tips; I’m not a regular reader of it).
The solution is pretty simple: a blog that features pseudonymous bloggers and follows up on (i.e., doesn’t uncritically regurgitate) anonymous tips from folks in the industry. Sort of like a Zero Hedge for the NYC start-up community (though I’m not sure how much follow up ZH does on its anonymous tips; I’m not a regular reader of it).
First, another excellent post. Cody’s op ed is the goods.
Strong opinion, clarity of public biases, and superb at creating some buzz/drama bringing more visibility to your startup (you’re a natural PR rainmaker).
Second, while it’s great to discuss a neutral entity (their necks not on the line) independent review of Angels/VCs (in New York or anywhere) there’s something we prefer about the raw/biased personal opinions of individuals over collective news organizations. I want the bias, I want the diversity of opinion. Commenters bring all that to posts, and call out bullshit when they see it. There’s plenty of readers that aren’t chasing venture dollars and can afford to be critical of popular investor blogs.
I never even heard of Charlie till you talked about him bashing your post, so there’s the old rule any attention is good attention (now I’m interested in learning more about Charlie, more so since he commented on your post rapidly).
*update* I have read Charlie’s blog before but only recently.
First, another excellent post. Cody’s op ed is the goods.
Strong opinion, clarity of public biases, and superb at creating some buzz/drama bringing more visibility to your startup (you’re a natural PR rainmaker).
Second, while it’s great to discuss a neutral entity (their necks not on the line) independent review of Angels/VCs (in New York or anywhere) there’s something we prefer about the raw/biased personal opinions of individuals over collective news organizations. I want the bias, I want the diversity of opinion. Commenters bring all that to posts, and call out bullshit when they see it. There’s plenty of readers that aren’t chasing venture dollars and can afford to be critical of popular investor blogs.
I never even heard of Charlie till you talked about him bashing your post, so there’s the old rule any attention is good attention (now I’m interested in learning more about Charlie, more so since he commented on your post rapidly).
*update* I have read Charlie’s blog before but only recently.
Blogging/Social Media is awesome because people find out about posts/comments discussing them, and show up to speak for themselves. Your comment is proof Charlie, and I think Matt will have to acknowledge that.
Blogging/Social Media is awesome because people find out about posts/comments discussing them, and show up to speak for themselves. Your comment is proof Charlie, and I think Matt will have to acknowledge that.
To the extent that objective news reporting is possible, sure we could all benefit from an unbiased tech news operation.
Regardless of news or blog, every interaction (blog post, comment, news story or otherwise) should be civil and with respect. That said, the blogsphere is about sharing personal opinions and perspectives. As long as we are all careful to inject a respectful humility into our commentary, we should recognize that we are engaging in an interactive dialog in which different people bring unique and different perspective.
To the extent that objective news reporting is possible, sure we could all benefit from an unbiased tech news operation.
Regardless of news or blog, every interaction (blog post, comment, news story or otherwise) should be civil and with respect. That said, the blogsphere is about sharing personal opinions and perspectives. As long as we are all careful to inject a respectful humility into our commentary, we should recognize that we are engaging in an interactive dialog in which different people bring unique and different perspective.
Had you come to me and said, “Hey, Charlie… thanks for the time you spent reviewing my deal (which, btw… I do believe you tweeted out to others that it was so helpful that everyone should pitch me)… Do you mind if we chatted, b/c I’m frustrated about raising capital and hiring people here… since you seem to know a lot of folks and you did both?”, I would have gladly sat down and helped you out. I’m absolutely still willing to, of course. Sure, I’m annoyed that you continue to stomp on the community that I’ve spent over 5 years helping to build without accurate information, but compared to your post, I thought my comment was pretty tame, actually. Btw, there’s already lots of “independent” press out there that are always going to be beholden to something–advertisers, traffic, personal connections, etc. All media is biased in some way… it’s up to the reader to form their own independent opinions based on knowledge.
Had you come to me and said, “Hey, Charlie… thanks for the time you spent reviewing my deal (which, btw… I do believe you tweeted out to others that it was so helpful that everyone should pitch me)… Do you mind if we chatted, b/c I’m frustrated about raising capital and hiring people here… since you seem to know a lot of folks and you did both?”, I would have gladly sat down and helped you out. I’m absolutely still willing to, of course. Sure, I’m annoyed that you continue to stomp on the community that I’ve spent over 5 years helping to build without accurate information, but compared to your post, I thought my comment was pretty tame, actually. Btw, there’s already lots of “independent” press out there that are always going to be beholden to something–advertisers, traffic, personal connections, etc. All media is biased in some way… it’s up to the reader to form their own independent opinions based on knowledge.
I’m seeing 2 really strong trends lately that seem completely at odds with one another:
1) The most prominent NYC-based blogging investors/founders/etc are encouraging anyone and everyone that blogging is one of the most important things they can do to build their personal brand
AND
2) As soon as someone follows this advice and takes a point of view that is at odds with said prominent bloggers interests (but often containing some reasonably debatable points), they are aggressively shouted down (ie, Charlie’s non-constructive comment to your NYC vs the Valley post, which is becoming increasingly common for him)
It seems that it’s not sufficient only to blog, but rather to be successful at it you also have to agree with those who have the biggest megaphones in the echo chamber.
I’m seeing 2 really strong trends lately that seem completely at odds with one another:
1) The most prominent NYC-based blogging investors/founders/etc are encouraging anyone and everyone that blogging is one of the most important things they can do to build their personal brand
AND
2) As soon as someone follows this advice and takes a point of view that is at odds with said prominent bloggers interests (but often containing some reasonably debatable points), they are aggressively shouted down (ie, Charlie’s non-constructive comment to your NYC vs the Valley post, which is becoming increasingly common for him)
It seems that it’s not sufficient only to blog, but rather to be successful at it you also have to agree with those who have the biggest megaphones in the echo chamber.
Matt, you are on a roll. Kudos!
If we put startups aside for a moment, integrity of any one blogger is always to be questioned. I think it’s safe to assume that no one is perfectly transparent especially when it comes to subjects linked to professional life, career and reputation. The spin is everywhere. The info posted on these blogs and news sites is public, so it’s naturally infused with personal and professional agenda, and it would be foolish to expect otherwise.
I don’t really believe in independent press tackling this subject since they have their own bills to pay, and it seems this would be a very niche topic that nobody expects to sustain any kind of public attention for a long time. So we are back to square one with transparency and integrity checks occasionally injected by mavericks like yourself. Thank you for doing that.
Matt, you are on a roll. Kudos!
If we put startups aside for a moment, integrity of any one blogger is always to be questioned. I think it’s safe to assume that no one is perfectly transparent especially when it comes to subjects linked to professional life, career and reputation. The spin is everywhere. The info posted on these blogs and news sites is public, so it’s naturally infused with personal and professional agenda, and it would be foolish to expect otherwise.
I don’t really believe in independent press tackling this subject since they have their own bills to pay, and it seems this would be a very niche topic that nobody expects to sustain any kind of public attention for a long time. So we are back to square one with transparency and integrity checks occasionally injected by mavericks like yourself. Thank you for doing that.