Why I regret going to TechCrunch Disrupt

http://openera.wordpress.com/2011/09/20/why-i-regret-going-to-techcrunch-disrupt/

by PanosJee • 15 years ago

110 31 15 years ago

openera.wordpress.com

nraynaud• 15 years ago

Did I just read "Paul Carr" and "moderate" in the same sentence?

0x12• 15 years ago

TC Disrupt is as much or more about TC than it is about tech and startups.

Techcrunch is spending an awful lot of editorial space, time and energy as well as reader attention on meta issues (ie TC itself).

It's not surprising that TC Disrupt follows the same pattern. TC itself is now more than ripe for disruption, and TC Disrupt with it.

Maybe you should apply for a refund?

psychotik2• 15 years ago

Out of curiosity, and only if you're willing to share, how much did it cost your startup to attend/exhibit at TC?

gsharma• 15 years ago

From what I heard around at the conference was $2K/day for a table. Not sure if that's what the author paid.

dave_sullivan• 15 years ago

I think you make some good points that apply to conferences in general--at the very least, they can become a real distraction. They can be helpful for "getting your name out there" and it's possible to make some great contacts, but I suspect you can get similar results cheaper through other means.

My own experience, I've found conferences to be really draining when prospecting for sales leads--there's tons of people there but it's impossible to meet them all. From 8am to 11pm for several days, I'm running around in a suit, sweating and uncomfortable, trying to meet total strangers in order to sell them things they may or may not want. Good times :-)

psychotik2• 15 years ago

I didn't attend, but I did watch some webcasts. The moderator (Paul Carr?) was terribly unprepared and appeared unprofessional. He mis-pronounced company names, derided sponsors and, on a couple of occasions, introduced presenting startups with "I have no idea what their product is, but here is XYZ". As a viewer, it appeared disrespectful so I can only imagine how it would be if I was presenting or was a sponsor - not because I cannot condone unprofessionalism, but because there are other more effective ways I could use my time and money.

From far away, and I might be wrong, TC Disrupt feels like an old-boys-club gathering where startups are the entertainment.

sfoguy• 15 years ago

> TC Disrupt feels like an old-boys-club gathering where startups are the entertainment.

Very good description. It is a fun event, but we got 0 leads out of it. - Our startup IS successful and we are close to break even, so the idea itself is ok.

martinshen• 15 years ago

I have come to the conclusion that nearly every conference provides little to no value to you if you pay. Having done the SXSW floor and demoed at DEMO.. if you pay.. it's not worth it (if you're B2C... B2B works if you target startups)

spolsky• 15 years ago

Were you a battlefield company (presenting on stage) or just a "startup alley" company (presenting from a small table in the lobby)?

There's a huge difference. The battlefield companies DO get a lot of attention and, imho, it's a great way to launch (but I'm repeating myself - see http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2011/09/15.html).

The startup alley companies have a lot of things going AGAINST them. Most importantly, they're not battlefield companies. That means that in most cases they were NOT chosen by the TechCrunch editors to present on stage. Now, I'm not saying that the TechCrunch editors are 100% great at picking interesting startups, but the bottom line is that it may be that you didn't get value out of Disrupt because your startup isn't the kind of startup that VCs and the press are interested in hearing about.

The one thing about these conferences that kind of sucks is that there will always be a bunch of startups that are desperate enough to get some attention that they'll go to the conference and pay for a table even if they can't present on stage, and these companies collectively form a kind of low-rent district with a faint whiff of despair, so that even if you have the greatest startup in the world, you'll almost be tainted by association with them.

There are some redeeming features:

* Buying a table is a cheap way to get into the conference... much cheaper than attending as normal full-priced attendee.

* If you have a great idea there's still some chance of getting noticed. At Disrupt ONE of the Startup Alley companies is chosen to be a finalist in the competition.

* Some of the VCs who are at the conference looking for investment ideas WILL at least stop by your booth for a minute to see what you have to offer, so if you are really convinced that you have a great startup IF ONLY PEOPLE WOULD LOOK AT IT, this is your chance.

That said if you keep showing up at conferences and finding that nobody actually wants to hear about your startup, it may be time for a different idea.

Most people didn't let the Arringtongate crap distract them too much. Yes, it is incredibly obnoxious when the press decides that their petty dramas ARE the news, but for the most part the staff of TechCrunch up to and including Arrington did a good job of keeping the conference 95% focused on startups. They seemed to suck in a lot of attention with their soap opera bullshit, and then take all the negative part of that attention for themselves, leaving the startups with some positive attention. I certainly can say that none of the political stupidity in any way harmed us as a startup. (It may have helped... the fact that the winners of the show were all Arrington investments made it much easier to swallow the fact that we didn't win!)

FINALLY - it sounds like you went to the conference to "absorb insight, meet visionaries and explore the highs and lows of startup culture, funding and innovation." That's not a good reason to go to ANY conference, least of all Disrupt. As a startup, you can't afford the time or the money to hang around absorbing culture. Don't do ANYTHING without a GOAL. The goal of a conference like Disrupt (for startups) is to meet VCs and press. Nothing else. If that is not why you're there you are at the wrong place.

socratic2• 15 years ago

I completely agree with your analysis. That said, this comment and your blog post seem to have avoided (probably unintentionally!) the two questions that seem to me to be most salient.

1. If you ranked the startups in attendance, do you think a 50th percentile startup would have gotten something useful out of Disrupt? A 90th percentile startup? (If so, in softer benefits like pulling together as a team or in something measurable?)

2. Do you think your traffic numbers for Trello would have looked substantially different on launch day without Disrupt? In 6 months?

In the first case, I wonder if there really are unfunded, 90th percentile tech startups that represent some sort of Cinderella story that just need the spotlight to get funding and attention. In your case, I wonder if 6 minutes on stage compares to a decade of organic SEO and trust (via your blog), running the most popular programming Q&A site, and cross-promotion opportunities from FogBugz, Kiln, Copilot, and others.

david927• 15 years ago

Can you imagine Larry and Sergei taking PageRank to something like TC Disrupt? They would just get rolled eyes. 6 minutes on stage would have done nothing. So, not only do I think it's possible; I think it's the rule for strongly disruptive technologies.

dmk23• 15 years ago

That's a great summary and I'll add a few points here.

VCs and press have very short attention spans. They are only interested when someone they know and respect is interested. Because they are constantly bombarded with crap, they constantly have to make decisions who to pay attention to and who to ignore and dismiss out of hand.

If you just pay your own fare to get a table nobody is vouching for you. This sends a signal that if nobody does why should anybody else? Now the companies presenting on the stage are there because Techcrunch is implied to have reviewed the whole industry and picked the cream of the crop. Because there are fewer of those it is easier for VCs and press to focus their attention. Spotlight is scarce and is usually pre-negotiated.

Going to conferences is fine if you are gathering industry intelligence or looking for very specific types of customers / partners, but to really attract VCs / press you better have inside track beforehand.

frankdenbow• 15 years ago

Agreed.

The one point I would add about the Startup Alley is that during the schedule of the conference, there isn't enough time left for people to to browse the alley. There needs to be another few hours in the schedule just for browsing, checking out sponsors, etc. Less is more

(P.S: I'm using Trello now!)

ohboy• 15 years ago

I like TC, but for the past few years it seems to have lost focus. Ever since Arrington made a giant stink about the CrunchPad in 2009 the site has really introverted, wasting time talking about themselves rather than focusing on new startups and what's on the horizon. It's more like a forum with overbearing moderators rather than a "blog about technology start-ups".

I still read TechCrunch a few times a week but you have to wade through a lot of garbage to get to the good stuff. Slashdot I visit several times a day.

DallaRosa• 15 years ago

I used to be an avid reader of TC but lately even all things digital sounds like a better read(when swisher is not picking fights with TC, of course)

socratic2• 15 years ago

What is the goal of startups attending these sorts of conferences (e.g., Disrupt, Demo, Launch)?

It seems like the answers could be publicity, funding, sales, networking, or hype. Publicity doesn't make much sense because articles only usually discuss a few of the (hundreds of?) startups. Funding doesn't make sense because if you're unfunded, why spend money to go to an expensive conference? Sales doesn't make much sense because it's not a specific conference for the specific industry of the startup. (Unless the startup sells services or software to other startups.) For similar reasons, it's not clear to me why it is useful to network with other startups from arbitrary other areas. (Incubators and advisors seem like they would give much better advice than other startups, for example.) Is the goal just to get the startup's name in a list so that investors think things are going well (hype)?

Whenever one of these things happens, it feels like I'm missing out on something by not being part of it. But on the other hand, I really don't understand what the purpose is supposed to be. What are the supposed benefits, and are there actual benefits?

davidw• 15 years ago

I mostly only go to conferences that are either free and fun to hang out at because they're fairly techy in nature, or places where I get accepted as a speaker, which means: 1) I get in for free, 2) I may get some of my expenses reimbursed, and 3) I'm set up to get more attention at it anyway because of a speaker badge and of course my talk itself.

wiradikusuma• 15 years ago

Some startups in my country attended conferences overseas and returned as local celebrity (i.e. covered in local "TechCrunch" and/or newspapers). Publicity _does_ make sense in this case. I can't think of other reasons though other than that.

brainless• 15 years ago

I have not been to this TC Disrupt, but watched most of it live. Our company was present in the Startup Alley and is competing with a startup which was there in Battlefield.

But I did notice that presenting in Battlefield gave startups a lot of press if their product was good. But visibility in Startup Alley was far less.

I am from India, far from all the on ground activity in the valley and in US in general. That said I firmly believe that TC Disrupt itself needs much more competition (beyond Demo, Launch...). The event, in some parts seemed to be a little under-prepared for. The startup ecosystem needs more such events, each competing to get a small number of curated startups a leg up.

DevX101• 15 years ago

I saw an ad somewhere saying entry fee was about 2 grand. I almost fell out of my chair laughing. The only types of public conferences worth that type of money are high value supplier/vendor conferences, where you've already got a product line and can leave the weekend with actual and prospective customers. Informational conferences, where there is a high signal-noise ratio on the state of the art in your industry may also be worth attending, but usually for a couple hundred bucks at most, not 2 grand.

At that price point, probably the only people who should be at a PR launch type conferences like Disrupt or Launch.is are VC's press, and already successful founders looking for something to do on a Thursday. VC's and the press are there to do their job -- get leads and invest or write. And when they leave, that entry fee is going into a company expense report. The startups in the audience are just there to get inspired and rub shoulders, which isn't a good enough justification for the cost.

If you haven't made it yet, get back to the lab and go build.

ry0ohki2• 15 years ago

I think that's kind of the point, the high price ensures it's mostly VC and Press there, that's what most of these startups are looking for.

jonnathanson• 15 years ago

Not only that, but basically think of the $2,000 as a marketing expense. There aren't many $2,000 marketing campaigns you can ever hope to run that will get you the kind of publicity Disrupt will get you (if you're successful there). It's the kind of money you will fork over when you're serious, your product is solid, you're confident in your team, and you're prepared to make a potentially big debut.

Companies that aren't ready will see the $2k as exhorbitant. Companies that are ready will probably see it as cheap.

rms• 15 years ago

I was there! Traded a week in my house's spare room for an extra badge someone had and got there on the second day at 1PM. I was expecting a trainwreck and instead I got a mediocre conference. I did enjoy the after-after party on Wednesday. You should just go to Startup School instead.

ry0ohki2• 15 years ago

Here's another take on it (we also exhibited in Startup Alley)... Yes, there was a lot of drama, but I think that's what focused MORE attention on this Disrupt then others. Normally the only press really covering Disrupt is TechCrunch itself (as the other tech publications see it as competition). This time, because of the drama, I suspect a LOT more people were checking TechCrunch.com and TechCrunch did feature quite a few Startup Alley companies during this time. Yes, someone is going to be a loser, and it sounds like your startup missed out on press and leads, but these are the risks we take as entrepreneurs.

michaelochurch2• 15 years ago

Here's where I lost respect for Michael Arrington:

http://techcrunch.com/2009/03/02/back-i-am/

<snip> When my time was up to leave, I asked Potts if I could stay another week. He said something about being fully booked, but I offered to pay more than his usual rate and said I’d plug Surfboard House on TechCrunch (consider that a disclosure). He had (and still has) no idea what TechCrunch is, but the dollars did the trick. Schedules were juggled, I stayed. </snip>

Apparently he thinks it's OK to use his blog to push other peoples' travel plans around. Not just OK, but something to brag about. What a douche move.

true_religion• 15 years ago

You've managed to stay vitriolic for a year just because this man might have bumped people from their stay in a Bed & Breakfast?

Seriously?

Secondly, as he said "the dollars did the trick". It's not bragging at all to say "this great guy had no idea of and still doesn't know of my blog".

michaelochurch2• 15 years ago

Ok, so he's not explicitly bragging about his blog; he's merely bragging about being able to throw money around and dick up other peoples' travel plans. That makes it so much better.

mcantelon• 15 years ago

>My advice to other entrepreneurs? Save your cash, Disrupt is dead. ... Don’t get me wrong, Disrupt is a great platform

Huh?

Why I regret going to TechCrunch Disrupt

Related Stories