It is worth doing a study, but the trouble is that you need to look at a long period of time (say 5 years) to really say anything. Also things are probably biased. If I got a $100M exist right now that would probably get in TechCrunch just because of the exit.
Kim-Mai Cutler does awesome long-form journalism at TC but the average article is poor in the area of technical analysis or is designed to produce outrage, like a recent post to the effect that "Boston Sux because they didn't get the olympics and they bring us failed companies like DEC and Wang and the people at the Media Lab are such posers and..."
To make matters slightly worse, the powerful, rich, well-connected as well as close to Palo Alto you are you can force TechCrunch to write a story about your product, even if the author is so clueless that main point of the article is "WTF?" (I've had it happen to people I work with)
There is this hilarious video by Vooza making fun of startups wanting to get funding and be featured on TechCrunch, in it they they say mocklingly "Just look at the success rate of startups being featured on Techcrunch!": http://vooza.com/videos/funding/ I thought to myself, what is the fail rate of Techcrunch featured startups?
PaulHoule|10 years ago
Kim-Mai Cutler does awesome long-form journalism at TC but the average article is poor in the area of technical analysis or is designed to produce outrage, like a recent post to the effect that "Boston Sux because they didn't get the olympics and they bring us failed companies like DEC and Wang and the people at the Media Lab are such posers and..."
To make matters slightly worse, the powerful, rich, well-connected as well as close to Palo Alto you are you can force TechCrunch to write a story about your product, even if the author is so clueless that main point of the article is "WTF?" (I've had it happen to people I work with)
dmitrydragilev|10 years ago