The Techcrunch Embargo | Hacker News Reader

The Techcrunch Embargo

arcticstartup.com

132 pointsvilpponen39 comments

Sorry, but startups should not be relying on TC or any other blog coverage to launch their startup. TC only has power if you give it to them, because the 50k hits they give you are extremely low quality. 99% or more bounce after reading 2-4 words because by definition they are pundits or other founders, not customers of your service.

Remember, if you're in touch with real potential customers who are excited for you to solve their real problem that you've qualified in exchange for actual, bankable money then you don't need to even care that TC exists.

Maybe not rely upon but it is a good one time thing that you can get your name across multiple tech blogs, hard to get that much attention so fast without the blogs writing about you.

If you have something interesting to TechCrunch's userbase (say, a SaaS aimed at developers), then I could see that, but otherwise, I've found it much more productive to get written up on a moderate-traffic blog in the right niche. E.g. 5,000 people who care about, say, cooking, are way better than 50,000 TechCrunch hits, if you have something to do with cooking...

tl;dr version: The PR world is full of people trying to get an edge. TechCrunch is very aggresive and not loved by other PR people, and even by some startups or personalities. This makes the author sad.

I remember complaining to my parents about the 'cliques' in high school that were simultaneously desirable (since being 'in' was a positive) and despicable because they would go to great unscrupulous lengths to besmirch you if you crossed them (even if they only thought you crossed them). My mom, the psyche major in college, said "Chuck, you can only control the way you are, not other people. Be a good example and be a good friend."

So true and so unrewarding at the same time. The injustice of it all rankled that piece of me that rebelled against the "fairness" of it all. But there is no "fair" in politics. Wasting time worrying about that gets you no where.

I think you can be controlled by as much as someone else controls what controls you. EG, you need to eat, someone controls your food, so they control you to the extent that they can get away with before their position of power is compromised. If you think you are free, think again, you are controlled by whatever choices come to you: when two people want A, then someone either gets B or nothing at all. But spiritually people don't really want A, they want freedom, and the foolish think they can get it by imposing tyranny. I have A (freedom), so you have B (tyranny). Or rather, I impose B on you (tyranny), therefore I have A (freedom) by default. Wrong - it's not true freedom, freedom transcends A and B.

Huh? The quote was "you can only control the way you are", not "you have complete control over yourself".

Of course you are influenced by external factors, but you still choose how you respond to them but have only indirect, at best, control over others.

Huh? No kidding. You think I misread it?

Not all of the injustices of the world can be fixed by being "a good friend".

I would think part of you that rebel against injustice is something you should hold on to.

But it's important that these issues are discussed publicly. Here the point is not the embargo per se, but the fact that TechCrunch is deciding the embargo date, which might be really counterproductive for the startup, if it suddenly starts to get traction.

When I first started in the startup world, I was stunned how the whole PR ecosystem worked. It and it's ethics should be discussed more, not less, so that both readers and new startups understand it better.

Startups, like TechCrunch, are free to refuse to embargoes or even break them altogether if they think the extra publicity is worth more than building bridges with one media organisation.

Is the author really wasting time worrying about this? TechCrunch's market power seems a lot less permanent to me than the existence of cliques in high school. Enough negative stories like this one can cost TC enough readers and enough influence that it is no longer the dominant source of news about the startup community, and can't push around young companies any more. That sounds like a real change in the world that would be great for startups, and not a waste of time ta all.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:www.arc...

I don't see it mentioned in the comments: The TC situation is exactly opposite of the usual company/business-press relationship.

Normally, a company will cut off access to people in news organizations that provide bad press. TC has managed to turn this on its head.

(It tells you why CNBC is all cheerleaders, all the time. The biz press pages aren't exactly filled with the next Woodwards and Bernsteins either.)

Welcome to the PR game. Embargoes are part of it. If you don't like this, find someone else to run PR for your company or at the very least, find someone with a lot of experience to advise you on how things work.

As hackers we're idealistic about how things work, expecting the world to follow logical patterns. But trust me, the press does not work remotely close to how one would hope. If you cannot stomach that, outsource it.

For TechCrunch, don't let them set the embargo time. Set one yourself, offer it to them as an exclusive. If they pass it up, move on. If they don't run it at the time you set, have a back up plan in place. TC will not make or break you. Do not allow yourself to be at their mercy. They have way more experience than you do. Act like you belong and control your own destiny.

I'm really confused about this. So Techcrunch is telling companies that if they want coverage, they have to not talk to anyone else? Couldn't they instead just talk to everyone but Techcrunch?

Yes. It's very common for blogs and press outlets to ask for exclusives with a deadline at which it expires (embargo). If you want their coverage, you agree to their terms. Or if you have your act together, you set your terms, pitch it and have back up plans if they don't accept.

The TC reply to this: http://techcrunch.com/2011/12/05/going-too-far-the-techcrunc...

HN discussion of reply: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3314206

Thanks for the discussion, ladies and gentlemen. I responded on behalf of TechCrunch here: http://techcrunch.com/2011/12/05/going-too-far-the-techcrunc...

Have a fine day!

And here's the salient sentence: "Do we break embargoes? Sometimes. Do we break embargoes even after agreeing to them? Sometimes"

In other words,

"You cannot trust us"

The sentence goes on 'but very rarely'. In fact, don't think it's happened once this year that I know of.

Bottom line is, well, the bottom line (that startups have nothing to fear when it comes to trusting us).

Oh, very rarely?

Remind me to try using that one if ever I have to explain to a a company that I break my contracts 'very rarely' or my wife that I am unfaithful 'very rarely, or a court that I drive while drunk very rarely.

You do it. You cannot be trusted not to do it.

Newsflash. Everyone does it.

Since you've already admitted you can't be trusted, I see no reason to believe such a slur on your competitors. Not that it would be right even if it were true.

So fucking what? "Its OK if they do it too" is not journalism, its sleaze. I've heard people claim Techcrunch to be a rag, now I agree.

Moreover, I was a tech journalist for 15 years and we didn't do it. We would argue very hard about them, but an agreement was an agreement.

I don't really understand the thinking behind this one?

"Do we refuse to cover some startups when they don’t want to give a story to us exclusively? Sometimes."

Surely if a startup is worth covering, they're worth covering regardless of the the competition?

To me this is the crux of ArticStartup's post, and I really don't understand why Techcrunch would say to a startup "If you speak to Mashable (or whoever) forget about coverage from us".

That's not really what I meant. We sift through hundreds of pitches every day, and only some are interesting. Of those, we'll go with the one that agrees to an exclusive, given a choice, it's that simple.

And again, nothing prevents us from covering startups later.

I agree, Monopolies are never good. While TC is clearly not a monopoly, no one can disregard their massive authority when it comes to the emergence of new startup.

TechCrunch is a rag and everybody knows it. It's the TMZ of the tech world. The response to this blog post by TC is even more indicative of the journalistic rot going on over there than this blog post.

Shouldn't startups sell themselves instead of relying on PR?

There are always exceptions, but yes, it works better.

Showing a 500. Can anyone find the Google Cache link?

Few reloads and I got the page. Seems to be under a heavy load

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:www.arc...

Sorry guys, seem to taking a bit of toll here. We'll see if we can sort things out on our end to keep the servers up.

For just a moment, I thought someone might be playing a joke and the error was the embargo....

Hello Villponen, while I agree with you about the post and condemn this practice from TechCrunch, I'm wondering about your own practices of covering "ONLY" Nordic and Baltic countries Startups!? or am I missing something? Fact is, TechCrunch is one of the biggest player and Entrepreneurs don't really have that many choices while trying to get coverage from big tech blogs, and probably when they are not from the Nordic region or very big, they can't expect coverage from your own blog. Again, I condemn this practice, I'm just surprise to not read it from a RWW, TheNextWeb...or other "world Techblog" blogger but from you, while you already set your own Embargo from the start: "Don't talk to us or don't expect coverage from us if you are not a Nordic or Baltic Startup" . But of course, I could be missing something here!

I would think he doesn't have the resources of a techcrunch for one and the focus that local news can give is valuable.

Are you going to ask why ESPN confines its coverage to sports?

Confining your coverage to a geographical region or industry or both is not the same as confining your coverage to companies who are willing to effectively bribe you, which is an ethical breach of the highest order.

Edit: Forgot to mention, you're completely misusing the word "embargo" here. It's a term of art in journalism. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_embargo

Reply on news.ycombinator.com