3 ms·

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 wha

by ojbyrne 17y ago

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.

staunch 17y ago
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.
- ojbyrne 17y ago
  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.
jacquesm 17y ago
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.

by ojbyrne 17y ago

staunch 17y ago

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.

ojbyrne 17y ago
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.

jacquesm 17y ago

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.