This reminds me of Glen Beck telling his audience to invest in gold.
Michael Arrington reportedly to launch “CrunchFund” to invest in startups
11–20 of 40 posts
Re: Michael Arrington reportedly to launch “CrunchFund” to invest in startups
#12While I think the exposure would be great for startups, but his attitude and approach on things just seems to be toxic. I'm all for not beating around the bush on things, but I'm not sure I'd like someone like Arrington providing guidance (or even associated with me).
Re: Michael Arrington reportedly to launch “CrunchFund” to invest in startups
#13He's in a good position to do this. Connections and fame aside, he has the perfect avenue to give exposure to the startups he invests in. I think this is critical. Part of the reason why many tech startups "go big" is because they're given broad exposure and are shown in a good light from the beginning. For example, Y Combinator has Hacker News to promote their investments. I've said before that without HN you probab…
not really...the new Techcrunch is putting up a ton more stories...so the TC coverage won't be as useful, since it'll hit the 2nd page within a few hours.
It wouldn't be that difficult if he wanted to sticky a post.
Re: Michael Arrington reportedly to launch “CrunchFund” to invest in startups
#14He's in a good position to do this. Connections and fame aside, he has the perfect avenue to give exposure to the startups he invests in. I think this is critical. Part of the reason why many tech startups "go big" is because they're given broad exposure and are shown in a good light from the beginning. For example, Y Combinator has Hacker News to promote their investments. I've said before that without HN you probab…
Time to kiss Arrington's ass! haha
Re: Michael Arrington reportedly to launch “CrunchFund” to invest in startups
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
not really...the new Techcrunch is putting up a ton more stories...so the TC coverage won't be as useful, since it'll hit the 2nd page within a few hours.
It's true that they have a high volume of stories but those stories are: 1) Shown to a huge number of people. Their traffic, I'm sure, dwarfs HN's traffic. 2) They have an enormous amount of people subscribed via RSS who will be able to read the news at their leisure. 3) Their stories are also shared via Facebook, Google+, Twitter, you name it. 4) TC articles make their way to HN and Reddit as well, providing additio…
1) Shown to a huge number of people. Their traffic, I'm sure, dwarfs HN's traffic.
This is definitely true. My startup was at the top of the front page on HN for a day or so (a year ago), and that sent us something like 1500 visits. The subsequent TechCrunch writeup garnered something around 5000.
Re: Michael Arrington reportedly to launch “CrunchFund” to invest in startups
#16He's in a good position to do this. Connections and fame aside, he has the perfect avenue to give exposure to the startups he invests in. I think this is critical. Part of the reason why many tech startups "go big" is because they're given broad exposure and are shown in a good light from the beginning. For example, Y Combinator has Hacker News to promote their investments. I've said before that without HN you probab…
Sure but that has conflict of interest all over it, and while Arrington can be as conflicted as he likes... ...a) people don't have to read TC and as the level of conflictedness for that site increases more and more people will stop reading it ...b) the conflict is at odds with Aol's wider aspiration to be a respected media outlet (Arriana Huffington, etc). At some point such 'exposure for self interest' will cross a…
I agree that he should be careful about the editorial conflict of interest issue. This is assuming he hasn't already cleared it with AOL. I do think that it is a conflict of interest, but in a similar sense that HN is run by YC and an inordinate amount of YC startup news is poured through here. I'm not saying that PG et al are causing this to happen directly, but it is not a coincidence.
I think the point I'm trying to make here is that you can't scold Arrington without acknowledging that this already happens -- either directly or indirectly.
Re: Michael Arrington reportedly to launch “CrunchFund” to invest in startups
#17He's in a good position to do this. Connections and fame aside, he has the perfect avenue to give exposure to the startups he invests in. I think this is critical. Part of the reason why many tech startups "go big" is because they're given broad exposure and are shown in a good light from the beginning. For example, Y Combinator has Hacker News to promote their investments. I've said before that without HN you probab…
Re: Michael Arrington reportedly to launch “CrunchFund” to invest in startups
#18so, is he still going to cover competitors of 'his' startups?
Re: Michael Arrington reportedly to launch “CrunchFund” to invest in startups
#19Someone recently wrote that you know you are in a bubble when reporters start their own startups. Maybe that should be revised to be "when reporters start their own venture funds." (that said, this ain't the same as the last tech bubble, and the issues around Arrington/access/other angels are only going to get more and more complicated.)
Well, it's no exact science to measure whether there's another bubble or not. There's plenty of arguments for both sides.
But if someone as insightful as Michael Arrignton himself is willing to make this bet. Shouldn't this give you hint that maybe we're actually not in a bubble? Or at the very least, that a bubble bust is likely not imminent for the near future?
Imho, reading this news makes me a bit more hopeful.
Re: Michael Arrington reportedly to launch “CrunchFund” to invest in startups
#20Someone recently wrote that you know you are in a bubble when reporters start their own startups. Maybe that should be revised to be "when reporters start their own venture funds." (that said, this ain't the same as the last tech bubble, and the issues around Arrington/access/other angels are only going to get more and more complicated.)
I disagree with tat someone's statement.
I think MA has more connections that could be beneficial to startups that most angels. I for one would give him ownership in exchange for introductions to people he knows.
I do not see what makes MA less qualified than most angel investors. He spent 5 years interviewing founders, being the first to learn about their ideas, seeing the ones he wasn't fond of (Twitter. Mike used to talk shit about Twitter, granted in a friendly way, all day long). I think he is very well placed to start his own angel fund.
If you can start the platform where companies like Mint launched, and have Marissa Mayer show up for your conference, I think you can launch a startup fund.