Why not try and come up with a more robust method than pouring over CrunchBase and appending "Na ni na ni boo boo VCs, if this data is wrong, contact me,"
When I make these posts suddenly people start returning my emails requesting data.
It also occurs to me that we have no problem judging and speculating about startups based on nothing more than a TechCrunch post with extremely limited public data. It's funny that it is so much less socially acceptable to do this with investors. Maybe I can change that.
Love it! Keep up the good work, dmor!
I have a list of everyone who has paid their credit card bills in the last several months (the list only covers people who live in my apartment.) You are not on it. Is it okay if I put up a public website calling you a deadbeat? If you don't want to be on it, just send me a copy of your bank statements.
My firm (Neu Venture Capital) is on the list, despite doing a Series A a few months ago, a Series B last month, and three seed deals in the last six months. O'Reilly Alphatech is on there, despite raising a $85 million Fund III six months ago. Quotidian is doing deals, Chris Sacca is doing deals, etc. Crunchbase data is incomplete. Saying people have done something based on it is relatively safe; saying people have not done something based on it is scurrilous.
[edit: the second paragraph is a hyperbolic analogy. I don't have such a list and I wouldn't use it that way if I did. That was my point, that it would be wrong to make that sort of implication based on data you know is incomplete.]
I understand your frustration, startups used to cringe at mentions in the press but have come to understand that the world is interested in how they work, what they do, who they are and whether or not they create value. Investors have had remarkably less written about them and if they are not publicly sharing the fact they are helping founders get Series A deals done I hardly see why I shouldn't point it out, and create an incentive for greater transparency.
I will work to investigate more deeply and create a more useful data set.
Is dmor asking for money, or trying to strong arm anyone into doing anything? No, dmor is just reporting based on the information she has available. That it might be incomplete or inaccurate is worthy of pointing out, but it's a HUGE stretch to invoke an analogy to extortion.
You are misdefining extortion.
Extortion (also called shakedown, outwresting, and exaction) is a criminal offence of unlawfully obtaining money, property, or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion. Refraining from doing harm is sometimes euphemistically called protection.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extortion, op cit.
Exaction refers not only to extortion or the unlawful demanding and obtaining of something through force,[1] but additionally, in its formal definition, means the infliction of something such as pain and suffering or making somebody endure something unpleasant.
So we've gone from talking about "extortion", a well known criminal offense with an everyday, commonplace meaning, to quibbling about an alternate definition of "exaction" which may sometimes be used synonymously with "extortion". If you meant to specifically talk about "exaction" then why not say so in the first place?
And in either case, I stand by my assertion that referring to dmor's article as such is a tremendous exercise in hyperbole.
EXTREMELY uncalled for, petty, and potentially libelous. If this was not just a 'random example' and doesn't relate to Danielle herself....then this is some bullshit.
I don't know you, nor know your fund, but as an entrepreneur reading this, I would never trust you in a million years. Personally, I would steer clear of you and your fund, for fear of you leaking personal information about me when you get pissed.
If this is indeed what you meant, and were specifically talking about Danielle...not cool. Not cool at all.
But...truthfully, I am glad that you did, because we all need to know which VCs to steer clear of. You just cemented yourself (and your fund) on that list, as far as I am concerned.
Edit 1: To be clear, I am not sure if you mean the list covers people in an apartment building you (or your fund) owns - or just your roommates that live with you. I assumed it was something like the former. If it was the latter, and you were just using it as an example, then I stand corrected. If it was the former...then what I said still applies.
That's a major relief, because I was a bit perturbed that someone could have drawn such an analogy.