Why I regret going to TechCrunch Disrupt

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

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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 :-)

Huh?

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.

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.