TechCrunch50 founders’ feud: “It’s over” for the startup conference(venturebeat.com)
venturebeat.com
TechCrunch50 founders’ feud: “It’s over” for the startup conference
http://venturebeat.com/2009/09/16/tc50-techcrunch50-founders-feud-its-over/
30 comments
Just watched the video. Arrington is seriously disgusting in this video. Do we not know how to interact respectfully in real life anymore? Calacanis actually saved the day and kept the interview on point as much as he could.
Dear god. He didn't even look at Garry...not even for a millisecond when he was leaving. How rude. What a dibshit.
Arrington should give Calcanis the boot. There's nothing he does that Arrington should share revenue with him for. The TC brand and and promotion is what makes the thing successful. Calacanis may have convinced him to put on a conference initially, but that doesn't entitle him to any ongoing share in my mind.
It's not like they built a company up together from nothing. That'd be a real partnership and loyalty would be owed. All that happened here was that Calacanis convinced Arrington to create a new revenue stream from his existing, very successful, and related business.
Arrington is a sucker if he gives Calacanis anything but token remuneration at this point.
It's not like they built a company up together from nothing. That'd be a real partnership and loyalty would be owed. All that happened here was that Calacanis convinced Arrington to create a new revenue stream from his existing, very successful, and related business.
Arrington is a sucker if he gives Calacanis anything but token remuneration at this point.
Well, there's the fact that most people don't like Arrington. He's apparently enough of a pain that I think he would have trouble putting on as good of a conference by himself.
But the specific phrases bug me - "This is the last TechCrunch50". That sounds like a pro-wrestling setup for TC60 next year.
But the specific phrases bug me - "This is the last TechCrunch50". That sounds like a pro-wrestling setup for TC60 next year.
Maybe it's a different crowd, but most people I know like Arrington, a lot. Jason Calacanis, on the other hand, is a weasel with a custom light-gray-on-white wordpress blog/mailing list (and light purple links), where each post seems more confident and wrong than the last. How he got to a position of any authority anywhere is beyond me.
Are these people that have met the actual people or just read their websites?
Maybe not as good, but certainly as successful by most metrics (attendance/revenue/guest list). The TechCrunch site is a massive success despite Arrington's abrasiveness and so would his conference be.
You are showing your ignorance of how TC50 works.
I had the opportunity to see some of the backstage action, having been a presenter in the past. Without betraying anyone, all I can say is that the conference wouldn't be the same if either party was to leave.
I had the opportunity to see some of the backstage action, having been a presenter in the past. Without betraying anyone, all I can say is that the conference wouldn't be the same if either party was to leave.
I think they started the conference together and any partnership should have been worked out beforehand (and probably has been). Deciding down the road that what person A brought to the table was the reason for success and person B was just a "consultant" is the most common way that feuds between founders start. Because it just as easily could have been what person B brought to the table that made the thing a success.
That's why you nail things down between founders when the business is worth $1.
Its one of the major reasons why many start-ups fail.
Its one of the major reasons why many start-ups fail.
I do agree it should have been worked out in advance. And when it was Arrington shouldn't have allowed Calacanis to feel like he was a partner in it. If he did that then he does bare responsibility for the hurt feelings.
When starting from scratch I do think it's unfair to later argue over contributions. In this case it's not starting from scratch. TechCrunch provided all of the rare/important ingredients, namely brand and promotion. Calacanis is fairly compensated if he made some cash and reputation, he doesn't deserve to own a stake in the conference in perpetuity.
When starting from scratch I do think it's unfair to later argue over contributions. In this case it's not starting from scratch. TechCrunch provided all of the rare/important ingredients, namely brand and promotion. Calacanis is fairly compensated if he made some cash and reputation, he doesn't deserve to own a stake in the conference in perpetuity.
While you might be correct, I think when you have these interconnected enterprises, it's nearly impossible to say whose contribution is more important. For all you or I know it may have been Calacanis who put in 100% of the effort for the conference, and Arrington did nothing other than bestow the TC brand. Also for all you and I know, it may be that the conference vastly increased the readership of TC, in which case you could make a pretty good case that Calacanis was screwed. The whole thing could even have been financed by Calacanis. It's impossible to know.
I'm not saying that's the case or not, I'm saying that it's impossible to look at it from the outside and say one person is responsible for the success or failure.
I'm not saying that's the case or not, I'm saying that it's impossible to look at it from the outside and say one person is responsible for the success or failure.
After seeing that video, it seems to me that he’s engaging in theatrics and fireworks...
Compared to everything else at Techcrunch, how could you tell the difference?
Compared to everything else at Techcrunch, how could you tell the difference?
I was actually about 30 feet away but I don't want to fuel more rumors. At end of the day, even if it was genuine, it is still a year off and a few broken feelings can be mended by wild profits and time. Speculating on this kind of thing is a waste of time.
YC stresses the importance of company founders having a positive working relationship, and in his INC magazine interview, Paul Graham himself spoke on his previous dealings with YC startups where company founders fueded and didnt get along. He spoke about how that alone can derail a company, and how it is a basic pain in his neck.
On the YC application it states, "How long have the founders known one another and how did you meet? Have any of the founders not met in person?" This is not done by accident. So how in the world are you going to host, critique, and try to provide opportunities for new startups to get noticed and succeed, if you cant even get along yourself? This is ridiculous. Lead by example.
Maybe th TechCrunch50 founders need to read that INC magazine article.
On the YC application it states, "How long have the founders known one another and how did you meet? Have any of the founders not met in person?" This is not done by accident. So how in the world are you going to host, critique, and try to provide opportunities for new startups to get noticed and succeed, if you cant even get along yourself? This is ridiculous. Lead by example.
Maybe th TechCrunch50 founders need to read that INC magazine article.
As I said in my other comment I don't think this is really comparable to founders of a startup. Techcrunch50 may be a separate new corporation (I don't know), but it's really just a product of an existing company. This is like a consultant and a founder parting ways.
Clearly you dont know. Somehow "ErrantX" was able to get the jist. But you seem to have missed it. Regardless of what kind of company it is really. New, old, startup, whatever. The extremely simple point here is that feuding destroys working relationships, no matter what way you choose cut it. And PG says this in his article, in black and white That this is what he dislkes the most about startups. And therefore the two are related. Who cares what stage the company is in. If it is a partnership or whatever. The notion applies to all. You missed the point. Read the article.
Jason is smiling way too much in that video to be taken seriously.
TC50 was a great show this year by the way.
TC50 was a great show this year by the way.
Don't be thrown off - that's a New York positive-spin smile. They have some issues to deal with. Arrington huffing and puffing off stage like a baby at the awards wasn't the best foot forward for the show.
Here's the link to the article if you want to check it out: http://www.inc.com/magazine/20090601/the-start-up-guru-y-com...
what does TC50 have to do with YC again?
The article talks about fueding between company founders, stright from Paul Graham. Read the previous post. That link is just a reference if you want to check out the article.
it's related to the posters other comment where he mentions that article - I guess he clicked the wrong reply button :)
Perhaps Arrington could launch a more reasonable TechCrunch25
I'm ready for Techcrunch2600 and Mahalo5200.
Eh, calling BS on this. The sheer attention TC gets from TC50 is going to prove too much of a temptation for either party to stay away for long. Neither Arrington's temper nor Calcanis's smarm will be sufficient barriers to another conference some time down the road.
Yes, no more TechCrunch_50_. I'm guessing that this is just a way of getting publicity so that they can announce it is expanding to become TechCrunch100 (or whatever).
So what actually happened? Or is that still a mystery?
Perhaps an opportunity for mashable? Mash50 ?
Case in point: During this video (see link below) Arrington was extremely disrespectful and insulting during this interview with Garry Tan (posterous)... he interrupts Garry repeatedly and walks out at 24:01 w/o even acknowledging Garry is there.
http://thisweekinstartups.com/2009/09/twist-episode-14-with-...