4 ms·

NYTimes: Amid Conference Halls and Keynote Speakers, a Rivalry Forms

• pg 18y ago
  In this case Arrington is right and Shipley is wrong. Charging $18k to present will weed out most good early stage startups. Maybe that wasn't true 17 years ago when DEMO started, but the world has changed.
  • gojomo 18y ago
    The fee may weed out a certain breed of scrappy startups, but ability to pay is an enduring fitness signal. I have a hunch Demo will still be around after Arrington retires and TechCrunch becomes a bubble-nostalgic brand like FuckedCompany or RedHerring.
    • pg 18y ago
      Ability to pay may be a sign of fitness, but willingness to pay is a sign of wastefulness and desperation. If I were a VC I'd never want to invest in a company that was willing to blow that kind of money to present to me.
      • gojomo 18y ago
        Certainly, Demo is not aimed at PG-style investors. As enough time passes, it will be valuable to compare the relative followup success of companies presenting at TC vs. Demo. For example, how do the DemoFall2007 and TC40/2007 rosters compare, a year or two later? (I don't know, but I hope the more-invested partisans of the two conferences undertake the analysis.)
• Mistone 18y ago
  my opinion on demo is that $18k is $18k: a lot of dough for a startup to spend to get the word out. I don't think its a waste for all becuase lots of successful startups have come through DEMO, but I've always dismissed the notion outright based on the upfront cost. Startups come in all shapes a sizes and many are blessed out the gate with a big VC check in the bank, if thats you, go ahead and spend, but for the rest of us, $18k is a deal breaker at the startup stage, so TC50 is a welcome entrant.