Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Time to ditch the arrogant tech blogs

kernelmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 58 posts

Re: Time to ditch the arrogant tech blogs

#11

Post by danso »

CaptainZapp wrote: post #6
kylemaxwell wrote: post #2

I've reached the conclusion that a particular subset of the big tech blogs are to our industry as the celebrity gossip rags are to the entertainment industry.

With the obvious difference that gossip rags don't have a financial stake in the stars, starlets, models, semi-celebrities and wannabees on which they're reporting. While it's simple dreck, it's not so insidiously corrupt like the tech blogs.

I think you're quite wrong on this, about the financial stake part, at least.

Gossip rags' fortunes thrive when there are big stars in the media. No Brangelina, Lindsay Lohan, Suri Cruz, Lady Gaga, etc., means overall less interest in gossip/celebrity news, thus fewer pageviews. So, there's an implicit interest to drum up fervor/attention, including coining attractive-easy branding phrases like, "Brangelina."

Celebrity agents work in tandem with publications all the time, offering them "scoops", such as, "Lindsay is going to be eating at [swank restaurant] at 7PM with her new respectable BF" in exchange for favorable coverage that makes their client look good.

And then of course, there are the many instances in which a publication will outright pay millions of dollars for exclusive rights to photos: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_(magazine)#Competition_f...

> "People reportedly paid $4.1 million for newborn photos of Shiloh Nouvel Jolie-Pitt, the child of Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt.[2] The photos set a single-day traffic record for their website, attracting 26.5 million page views.

Re: Time to ditch the arrogant tech blogs

#13

Post by helipad »

gm wrote: post #7
helipad wrote: post #5

What is supposed to be being ditched here? If it's the pitching to/grooming of tech blogs, then companies themselves will decide what's effective for them. Number of referrals is surely just one measure. Credibility ("as featured on TechCrunch"), SEO (backlink from TC sounds good to me?), the fact that other journalists read TC, metablogs and so on. If we're supposed to be ditching reading the blogs, well then folk w…

I've always wondered on "my startup is credible because I was on TC"... Wouldn't actual user count and other metrics be more credible than "I was able to schmooze to some editor"?

Sure they would. But if a company has a complimentary quote from a reputable source then I'm more likely to find it credible than one without.

Re: Time to ditch the arrogant tech blogs

#14

Post by AznHisoka »

gm wrote: post #7
helipad wrote: post #5

What is supposed to be being ditched here? If it's the pitching to/grooming of tech blogs, then companies themselves will decide what's effective for them. Number of referrals is surely just one measure. Credibility ("as featured on TechCrunch"), SEO (backlink from TC sounds good to me?), the fact that other journalists read TC, metablogs and so on. If we're supposed to be ditching reading the blogs, well then folk w…

I've always wondered on "my startup is credible because I was on TC"... Wouldn't actual user count and other metrics be more credible than "I was able to schmooze to some editor"?

I've seen those "As seen on TC" images all over the web. It's to the point where they mean nothing to me.

And a backlink from TC is great, but I can count many many many sites with a backlink from TC that don't get powerful search engine traffic. It's still just 1 backlink.

Re: Time to ditch the arrogant tech blogs

#15

Post by CaptainZapp »

danso wrote: post #11
CaptainZapp wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With the obvious difference that gossip rags don't have a financial stake in the stars, starlets, models, semi-celebrities and wannabees on which they're reporting. While it's simple dreck, it's not so insidiously corrupt like the tech blogs.

I think you're quite wrong on this, about the financial stake part, at least. Gossip rags' fortunes thrive when there are big stars in the media. No Brangelina, Lindsay Lohan, Suri Cruz, Lady Gaga, etc., means overall less interest in gossip/celebrity news, thus fewer pageviews. So, there's an implicit interest to drum up fervor/attention, including coining attractive-easy branding phrases like, "Brangelina." Celebri…

There's still a difference between being in a symbiotic relationship with the subjects you cover and the rags that cover you and having a direct financial interest in the subjects (or companies) you cover.

The latter being arguably the biggest journalistic sin.

It would only really be the same thing if (say) Gala has a 10% stake in "The Brangelina Project" or an option on the gross receipts of their next movie.

I'm not claiming that those rags are lillywhite. For example: I know for a fact that reviews are sold for cash.

However, in my opinion that's not the same level of corruption then a "journalist" covering a company in which he has equity.

Re: Time to ditch the arrogant tech blogs

#17

Post by bishnu »

untog wrote: post #4

Arrogance, I don't care about. The shameless corruption, I do. PandoDaily, in particular, is funded by VC firms that also fund tech startups. They're basically buying coverage for their investments- it's taking the system that got Arrington fired and putting it on steroids. It works out great for the investment company, it works out great for their companies, the only person it doesn't work out for is that actual rea…

It also doesn't work out for anyone working at tech startups that aren't funded by the VCs behind PandoDaily. That is the reason this is a Bad Thing, not "the reader is being poorly informed".

Re: Time to ditch the arrogant tech blogs

#18

Post by untog »

bishnu wrote: post #17
untog wrote: post #4

Arrogance, I don't care about. The shameless corruption, I do. PandoDaily, in particular, is funded by VC firms that also fund tech startups. They're basically buying coverage for their investments- it's taking the system that got Arrington fired and putting it on steroids. It works out great for the investment company, it works out great for their companies, the only person it doesn't work out for is that actual rea…

It also doesn't work out for anyone working at tech startups that aren't funded by the VCs behind PandoDaily. That is the reason this is a Bad Thing, not "the reader is being poorly informed".

I think it depends on perspective. If you are working for a tech startup, it's The Reason. If you a reader, it's not. I figure there are a lot more readers than there are startup employees.

Re: Time to ditch the arrogant tech blogs

#19

Post by rkudeshi »

I think it's important to note the OP's beef is apparently with TechCrunch EU, not with the "US" version of TechCrunch we all know and love/loathe.

As far as I know, eu.techcrunch.com is magnitudes smaller than techcrunch.com.

EDIT: Looks like they folded eu.techcrunch.com into the main site at some point (after writing about eNovella, before writing about Jottify?).

eNovella post on TechCrunch: http://eu.techcrunch.com/2009/08/10/enovella-gives-aspiring-...

Jottify post on TechCrunch: http://techcrunch.com/2011/10/07/techcrunch-tv-three-startup...

Other reasons that could explain the low referral traffic: the eNovella post was very brief (and, again, on the European site at the time) while the Jottify mention was literally only one sentence in a brief post that also included 2 other startups.

EDIT2: Just noticed the author of the TechCrunch post on eNovella, Milo Yiannopoulos, is now the Editor-in-Chief of the OP site, "The Kernel" (and author of the 'editor's pick' article at the top of the right sidebar).

Maybe it's a coincidence, maybe it's a hatchet job on his former employer. Either way, I think it should merit a disclosure in the OP's article, no?

http://www.kernelmag.com/editorial-staff/

Re: Time to ditch the arrogant tech blogs

#20

Post by slantyyz »

CaptainZapp wrote: post #15
danso wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're quite wrong on this, about the financial stake part, at least. Gossip rags' fortunes thrive when there are big stars in the media. No Brangelina, Lindsay Lohan, Suri Cruz, Lady Gaga, etc., means overall less interest in gossip/celebrity news, thus fewer pageviews. So, there's an implicit interest to drum up fervor/attention, including coining attractive-easy branding phrases like, "Brangelina." Celebri…

There's still a difference between being in a symbiotic relationship with the subjects you cover and the rags that cover you and having a direct financial interest in the subjects (or companies) you cover. The latter being arguably the biggest journalistic sin. It would only really be the same thing if (say) Gala has a 10% stake in "The Brangelina Project" or an option on the gross receipts of their next movie. I'm n…

Well, if the movie industry is advertising in said rag, doesn't that translate into a financial stake? It may not be direct investment, but talking (even negatively) about celebrities is still buzz that draws audiences to the movies those celebrities are going to be in.
Post reply on HN