14 ms·

AOL looking to sell TechCrunch and Engadget for $70-$100 million

48 points by krogsgard 14y ago

benologist 14y ago
Genuinely surprised Engadget's not worth more than that by itself considering they mostly get paid for rewriting articles. The profit per article when they sucker social sites into upvoting their spam must be fantastic.
- elithrar 14y ago
  I'm really glad Topolsky and the rest of the ex-Engadget staff started up The Verge. I still like to keep up with tech news, but Engadget became a significant source of blog-spam.
  - martey 14y ago
    Is The Verge really much better? Their original editorial content is interesting, but like Engadget, a significant number of their daily articles just rehash news found elsewhere.
    - elithrar 14y ago
      > a significant number of their daily articles just rehash news found elsewhere Part of that is par for the course - short of getting their hands on every gadget under the sun, there has to be some rehashing. They do seem to make their source links pretty clear though (unlike Engadget; a pet peeve of mine) and the ratio of rehashed content vs. reviews/commentary/etc seems much higher. It's still early days yet, though, so we'll see if they keep to that standard.
abdurraheem 14y ago
"Actually, bringing Arrington back into the fold is a smart move for more reasons than one: One source who has expressed interest in buying the properties said raising the money wasn’t the hard part. The hard part is finding a strong editorial figurehead to be at the helm." To me, this speaks volumes on how big the loss of joshua topolsky & co. was to engadget.
- djloche 14y ago
  This comment reminds me of what Arrington wrote regarding yahoo (http://uncrunched.com/2012/05/07/someone-better-than-that/ http://uncrunched.com/2012/05/07/someone-better-than-that/)
thinkingdeeply 14y ago
Do you really want to believe this story? Which is written by someone who is extremely bitter that they didn't get to be editor of TechCrunch and whose property really isn't living up to expectations?
ktizo 14y ago
I almost forgot that AOL was still going and running some things. I still have loads of their awful CDs somewhere.
- Bapabooiee 14y ago
  Do we really need this type of comment every time AOL gets mentioned? It seems that someone always finds the needs to say something along the lines of "AOL exists?", and/or something about their beverage coasters.
  - ktizo 14y ago
    Probably not. But then again, if the comment I posted is what crops up every time AOL is mentioned, perhaps there is a reason for it other than purely the general level of unimaginative net-waffle that I managed to embody there.
mindcrime 14y ago
Am I the only one thinking "who cares?" in response to this? I mean, seriously, tech-blog drama is pretty boring and none of this seems to have a whole lot of bearing on anything that's going on that's actually going to change the world.
- drivebyacct2 14y ago
  No, you're not. Clicked the link, went "Holy shit, couldn't make it past the headline without seeing Arrington". Needless to say I'll have to find a way to fall asleep tonight without knowing the latest in the saga of the mess that is TechCrunch.
- rhizome 14y ago
  I have this fantasy of buying them both and making them respectable. Of course, it would involve firing everybody currently involved.
cagenut 14y ago
I don't know where she's getting 20M, comscore says 16. And a huge chunk of that is huffpost-tech and huffpost-science, which basically can't be spun off (both the 'brands' and the tech are tied to the huffpo cms platform).
kylelibra 14y ago
Anyone have a list of potential buyers? Seems like the list would be really short.
beedogs 14y ago
How the hell are two blogs worth $100m?
- dkrich 14y ago
  I think in this day and age it's best not to ask those types of silly questions.
- tatsuke95 14y ago
  Yeah. The biggest tech blog in the world changes hands twice in a year for astronomical sums, while the founder starts a VC fund. All being reported on by a blog with VC ties. No bubble here.
- samstave 14y ago
  This is the only comment that matters in this thread.
dave1619 14y ago
I would like to see Arrington organize a purchase of TechCrunch. He'd bring a voice back to TC that's been missing.
dkrich 14y ago
Heh, funny how the bloggers over there seem to be extremely concerned with the $70 million valuation because of the lack of substantial revenue for TC and Engadget but don't seem so worried about every other startup they cover.
larrys 14y ago
Arrington won't be able to revive it to it's past glory. The shine is off. The brand has been damaged. The power and mystic is gone.
mkramlich 14y ago
I dunno, expecting a tenth-of-an-Instagram is stretching it.
bangbang 14y ago
Did you hear that? That's the sound of the bubble beginning to pop.
evoxed 14y ago
“I don’t know anything. No one tells me anything. I am not in the least bit interested [in buying back TechCrunch]. I was Team Pando all the way until Sarah Lacy fired me. That does not change my position on TechCrunch.” Can anyone explain? I've got a grasp on the business side of most of this but what role did he play at PandoDaily, and why was he fired by the founder and author of the article?
- joshua_abe 14y ago
  Who gives a flying f---?
- thinkingdeeply 14y ago
  She is an egocentric person who could not handle the fact that he wanted to help both her company and TC, the brand that he spent many years of his life building. So she kicked him off the board in a completely immature way.
- jmspring 14y ago
  Not getting involved in blog politics, but Arrington/Crunchfund is an investor in Pando, TC is a competitor, the Pando Execs and board likely made a decision based on the competitive environment. I can see for a generic company with investors A, B, and C; if B decided to get involved with a competitor, the board and execs might make plans accordingly. We've seen this in the seed VC world with express decisions to not invest in competing companies.
- PaulMest 14y ago
  Basically Sarah Lacy was upset that Arrington et al would still participate in TechCrunch-related events. Here is Arrington's side: http://uncrunched.com/2012/04/09/about-pando/ http://uncrunched.com/2012/04/09/about-pando/ Here is a short blurb by MG Siegler: http://parislemon.com/post/20832114453/pando http://parislemon.com/post/20832114453/pando
  - evoxed 14y ago
    Thanks, that clears things up.

48 points by krogsgard 14y ago

Genuinely surprised Engadget's not worth more than that by itself considering they mostly get paid for rewriting articles. The profit per article when they sucker social sites into upvoting their spam must be fantastic.

elithrar 14y ago
I'm really glad Topolsky and the rest of the ex-Engadget staff started up The Verge. I still like to keep up with tech news, but Engadget became a significant source of blog-spam.
- martey 14y ago
  Is The Verge really much better? Their original editorial content is interesting, but like Engadget, a significant number of their daily articles just rehash news found elsewhere.
  - elithrar 14y ago
    > a significant number of their daily articles just rehash news found elsewhere Part of that is par for the course - short of getting their hands on every gadget under the sun, there has to be some rehashing. They do seem to make their source links pretty clear though (unlike Engadget; a pet peeve of mine) and the ratio of rehashed content vs. reviews/commentary/etc seems much higher. It's still early days yet, though, so we'll see if they keep to that standard.

abdurraheem 14y ago

"Actually, bringing Arrington back into the fold is a smart move for more reasons than one: One source who has expressed interest in buying the properties said raising the money wasn’t the hard part. The hard part is finding a strong editorial figurehead to be at the helm." To me, this speaks volumes on how big the loss of joshua topolsky & co. was to engadget.

djloche 14y ago
This comment reminds me of what Arrington wrote regarding yahoo (http://uncrunched.com/2012/05/07/someone-better-than-that/ http://uncrunched.com/2012/05/07/someone-better-than-that/)

thinkingdeeply 14y ago

Do you really want to believe this story? Which is written by someone who is extremely bitter that they didn't get to be editor of TechCrunch and whose property really isn't living up to expectations?

ktizo 14y ago

I almost forgot that AOL was still going and running some things. I still have loads of their awful CDs somewhere.

Bapabooiee 14y ago
Do we really need this type of comment every time AOL gets mentioned? It seems that someone always finds the needs to say something along the lines of "AOL exists?", and/or something about their beverage coasters.
- ktizo 14y ago
  Probably not. But then again, if the comment I posted is what crops up every time AOL is mentioned, perhaps there is a reason for it other than purely the general level of unimaginative net-waffle that I managed to embody there.

mindcrime 14y ago

Am I the only one thinking "who cares?" in response to this? I mean, seriously, tech-blog drama is pretty boring and none of this seems to have a whole lot of bearing on anything that's going on that's actually going to change the world.

drivebyacct2 14y ago
No, you're not. Clicked the link, went "Holy shit, couldn't make it past the headline without seeing Arrington". Needless to say I'll have to find a way to fall asleep tonight without knowing the latest in the saga of the mess that is TechCrunch.
rhizome 14y ago
I have this fantasy of buying them both and making them respectable. Of course, it would involve firing everybody currently involved.

cagenut 14y ago

I don't know where she's getting 20M, comscore says 16. And a huge chunk of that is huffpost-tech and huffpost-science, which basically can't be spun off (both the 'brands' and the tech are tied to the huffpo cms platform).

kylelibra 14y ago

Anyone have a list of potential buyers? Seems like the list would be really short.

beedogs 14y ago

How the hell are two blogs worth $100m?

dkrich 14y ago
I think in this day and age it's best not to ask those types of silly questions.
tatsuke95 14y ago
Yeah. The biggest tech blog in the world changes hands twice in a year for astronomical sums, while the founder starts a VC fund. All being reported on by a blog with VC ties. No bubble here.
samstave 14y ago
This is the only comment that matters in this thread.

dave1619 14y ago

I would like to see Arrington organize a purchase of TechCrunch. He'd bring a voice back to TC that's been missing.

dkrich 14y ago

Heh, funny how the bloggers over there seem to be extremely concerned with the $70 million valuation because of the lack of substantial revenue for TC and Engadget but don't seem so worried about every other startup they cover.

larrys 14y ago

Arrington won't be able to revive it to it's past glory. The shine is off. The brand has been damaged. The power and mystic is gone.

mkramlich 14y ago

I dunno, expecting a tenth-of-an-Instagram is stretching it.

bangbang 14y ago

Did you hear that? That's the sound of the bubble beginning to pop.

evoxed 14y ago

“I don’t know anything. No one tells me anything. I am not in the least bit interested [in buying back TechCrunch]. I was Team Pando all the way until Sarah Lacy fired me. That does not change my position on TechCrunch.” Can anyone explain? I've got a grasp on the business side of most of this but what role did he play at PandoDaily, and why was he fired by the founder and author of the article?

joshua_abe 14y ago
Who gives a flying f---?
thinkingdeeply 14y ago
She is an egocentric person who could not handle the fact that he wanted to help both her company and TC, the brand that he spent many years of his life building. So she kicked him off the board in a completely immature way.
jmspring 14y ago
Not getting involved in blog politics, but Arrington/Crunchfund is an investor in Pando, TC is a competitor, the Pando Execs and board likely made a decision based on the competitive environment. I can see for a generic company with investors A, B, and C; if B decided to get involved with a competitor, the board and execs might make plans accordingly. We've seen this in the seed VC world with express decisions to not invest in competing companies.
PaulMest 14y ago
Basically Sarah Lacy was upset that Arrington et al would still participate in TechCrunch-related events. Here is Arrington's side: http://uncrunched.com/2012/04/09/about-pando/ http://uncrunched.com/2012/04/09/about-pando/ Here is a short blurb by MG Siegler: http://parislemon.com/post/20832114453/pando http://parislemon.com/post/20832114453/pando
- evoxed 14y ago
  Thanks, that clears things up.