People talk about blogs being shallow, but I’d be embarrassed to post something like this ridiculous article on why a certain VC won’t invest in new internet startups.
First of all, its a rip off of a widely discussed blog post by Jeremy Liew (see Tim O’Reilly as well). Neither of these posts are mentioned or linked to in the CNET article. My bet is the writer of the article doesn’t know about Liew’s post; if he had, he’d probably not have written the article. CNET says they have no editorial rules against linking to blogs, so it just works out that way coincidentally I guess. Nothing worth pointing to out there in the blogosphere.
Second, its premise is overly simplified. The VC is sitting on the sidelines justifying his position while more aggressive competitors are out making all the money. This type of VC did the same thing in the nineties until it was very late in the game, saying the Internet made no sense. In 1999 they jumped in with both feet, driving the early investors (who were now very, very rich) out of the market and pushing the bubble higher than ever. If you don’t want to invest in Internet startups, don’t. But stay the hell out of the market forever because you don’t know crap about the Internet and you’re money should be invested somewhere else.
To say that the value of a startup is based solely on page views is dangerously stupid. This article should be forwarded to Opus’ limited partners (the ones who’s money is being invested) so that they can re-think their relationship with this fund.
Third, back to CNET, the article has no context. Was this an interview? Stated at a conference or event? When and where was this said? How did this get past an editor? Are they even reading their own stuff over there?
” How did this get past an editor?”
It’s a blog. They don’t have editors (even at CNET).
That’s your only comment, Steve? Since you are paid by CNET, I’d expect something a little more insightful.
Steve works for a different group within CNET.
ok, glad to see all the CNET employees disagree with me.
I’m a freelancer
you get money, from CNET, for writing.
I’m not disagreeing, I’m just saying that Steve is not in a position to have any insight into the News.com editorial process. Neither am I, for that matter.
Mike, you are a whiny flea on the ass of an 800-pound gorilla. Good thing you can move fast so you don’t get sit on.
BTW, how long have you been doing this for? You are still in the Honeymoon stage of your relationship with writing.
John is right. I’ve no idea how News.com works. I was just making the assumption that most blogs aren’t “edited” in the traditional sense.
I dont understand what your frustration is Mike. This was a blog post - someone’s opinion. And to a certain degree a valid one. There are definitely other parameters for valuation; but CPM is one.
The whole Web2.0 space is getting to be more like the 99-00 phase. And its people like you who are making all the noise and over-hyping it. Well, I guess it helps your business.
It is my assumption that even the News Blog at CNET has editors. At least that’s what the implication was of Caroline McCarthy’s post (here: http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-6139240-7.html) in November when she slighted Michael for a misspelling. Plus, if you goto the CNET staff page (http://news.com.com/2040-1096_3-0.html) it lists 20 people with “editor” in their title. I’m not sure what they all do, but it seems more than plausible to me that at least one of them might lend their eyes to the copy on the News Blog.
And Steve, you didn’t really make an assumption. You made a statement; a statement that said that most blogs, even ones under the CNET umbrella, don’t have editors. I appreciate the merit of your statement, and its legitimacy, but the solidity of your position has rather shifted from one comment to another.
Mike,
The simplistic view of page-views = value is wrong, but so is your harsh criticism.
The other point of the blog that a very large number of startups are really features and CAN’T be standalone viable business’s is also true.
Will netvibes/pageflakes survive? Will onidrive/box.net etc. have long to live no matter how much oxygen(or money) you provide them.
Some companies have built successful models and name with it, most can’t, there is not much to build upon!
I don’t think anybody - including the VC, bloggers, etc. - really knows what makes for a good sale until they’re under the hood and make the decision. Maybe it’s traffic, maybe it’s revenue, maybe it’s strategy. It’s nonsensical to think there’s a specific this or that to successful web business. And for the record, I’d love to know where all these Web 2.0 start ups are pulling in all this enormous revenue. If YouTube wasn’t profitable for as huge as it was, I’m having a hard time buying that all these little tiny start ups are nabbing it instead.
Just my .2
And for the record, I still have a hard time figuring out where CNet wants to fit in. It’s built a business on downloads and product reviews, yet has these blogs that are trying to play among sites that don’t seem to be anything near what they’re doing. Maybe it’s just me, but when I think CNet, I don’t think Web 2.0 insight. I think products.
@Blake: I did make an assumption, but communicated it badly. I was confusing ZDNet (who I blog for) with CNET (the parent company). Sorry for the misleading comment.
The author of “Here’s Why Your Article Sucks, CNET” asks ”How did this get past an editor?”
.
I ask “how did THIS get past an editor”??!!
“….I’d be embarrassed to post something like this….”. - purely on basic grammatical grounds, so would I!
Why? Because the author seems to be unaware: that “…its a rip off ..” is correctly written “…it’s a rip-off”
that he confuses number of VCs and their feet in “The VC…..his position” and “they jumped in with both feet” - one VC has two feet while “they” have pairs of feet
“ones who’s money” - this one really makes me cringe!!
who’s is the abbreviation of who is, whose is the possessive of who.
People who live in glass houses should not throw stones!