"I desperately want Michael Arrington to cover my startup as well"
I don't really get this... startups don't fall or succeed based on tc coverage. It might spike traffic for a day with some geeks. That's all at the end of the day.
Seems like some of this is TC's own doing - they have made people believe you have to get techcrunched, or you won't succeed - which is completely false.
I've had three things I've worked on get posted to TC, and it was totally useless. Traffic had minimal stickiness (lots of clicks to the frontpage and nothing else), and when I think about my behavior when I read TC, it definitely makes sense.
And yet, for all of those startups, getting the TC story was a milestone of sorts.
Its like getting your first hundred users, it doesn't define your success or failure outright, but its a big psychological hurdle I think.
Our experience has been contrary to what others have said about minimal stickiness -- Techcrunch coverage has precipitated blog coverage and attention that each time has resulted in a new bar for traffic and retention. -- YMMV
Regardless of how valuable TechCrunch is to us or any other startup, the fact remains that violence and threats of violence against bloggers is utterly unjustifiable. People act like Michael Arrington owes them something, and that's the fundamental problem underpinning the latest attacks.
I think that's just luck of the draw. If your startup is good enough for TC to precipitate mass blog coverage, than I imagine it would have worked the other way around had TC not covered it early.
In any case, I think fighting for press coverage is stupid. Press coverage is not going to make people use your product, and if enough people use your product you are guaranteed coverage. On the other hand, if you want to break into the public consciousness, traditional marketing will help, but there's no point doing that until you know you have a winner on your hands.
If I had to guess, sites targeted at the early-adopter-techy crowd probably do far better after being reported on TechCrunch than things targeted at say recent parents (or your niche market of choice).
In any case, yes, threats and violence are not cool in any way. I was just commenting on the effect that TechCrunch has on the community as a whole, which I don't think is all that huge. Its more a place to read about startup news, and can be solved by simply subscribing to something else in your RSS reader of choice.
Completely agree, something I was involved in was on wired last year (twice) and I must admit it was a good feeling, but thats about it.
If anyone sees getting on TechCrunch as the goal of their startup rather than using it as a tool that can help them reach your goal, they have probably already failed - they just don't know it yet.
No TC coverage is not on the top of the list of things I'm desperate for either. I'm just generally desperate for a lot of things ever since I started up.
not for us. while TC coverage doesn't provide the "instant success" many hope for, it's been by far the largest traffic driver for us compared to any other online press sources, aside from newsweek.com and time.com
I don't think it's TC own doing. It might be a result of mismanaging TC's community, but I think it's largely disgruntled entrepreneurs that don't get press coverage.
"I desperately want Michael Arrington to cover my startup as well"
I don't really get this... startups don't fall or succeed based on tc coverage. It might spike traffic for a day with some geeks. That's all at the end of the day.
Seems like some of this is TC's own doing - they have made people believe you have to get techcrunched, or you won't succeed - which is completely false.
I think they do a great job in the main though.