4 ms·

I thought about this too and what it boiled down to is who is getting the money? If the fee is going to investors, I think it's bad. If the fee is going to or

by zaidf 17y ago

I thought about this too and what it boiled down to is who is getting the money? If the fee is going to investors, I think it's bad. If the fee is going to organizers for logistical expenses or heck even profit, I think it's usually fine. 1. In TechCrunch50's case, it is going to organizers. 2. I don't think TC50 makes most of its money from entrepreneurs looking for funding. They make a lot of money from rich execs and VCs. Contrast the angel groups and they make almost 100% of the money from entrepreneurs. This is a huge differentiator for me.

simonk 17y ago
Its not even that though, the entrepreneurs presenting (the 50) of them go for free. The DemoPit is more like expo space.
netsp 17y ago
I don't think it matters who gets the money or who is charged. There is nothing wrong with the service at face value. Startups want to pitch. Here is a service to help them do this. The problem with with the incentive structure it creates. If you are paying investors directly, its like paying someone to listen to a sales pitch. You will not get the same result as you normally do with your sales pitch. If you are paying organizers, you have to think about how the incentives work too. It may not take much to get investors into a room. Dinner, networking. You may be simply paying them indirectly. A startup has no real way of knowing if they got a bang for their buck. If investors were paying, they would know. They won't be visiting very often at a high price tag if the pitches aren't good and if the chances of closing a deal aren't good.
- zaidf 17y ago
  If investors were paying, they would know. They won't be visiting very often at a high price tag if the pitches aren't good and if the chances of closing a deal aren't good. That's my point. Most investors have to pay a couple grand to attend TechCrunch50.
  - netsp 17y ago
    That is OK. Investors can't be conned very easily. They can tell if they got value from the event. The existence of a chance of being funded is more opaque.

by zaidf 17y ago

simonk 17y ago

Its not even that though, the entrepreneurs presenting (the 50) of them go for free. The DemoPit is more like expo space.

netsp 17y ago

I don't think it matters who gets the money or who is charged. There is nothing wrong with the service at face value. Startups want to pitch. Here is a service to help them do this. The problem with with the incentive structure it creates. If you are paying investors directly, its like paying someone to listen to a sales pitch. You will not get the same result as you normally do with your sales pitch. If you are paying organizers, you have to think about how the incentives work too. It may not take much to get investors into a room. Dinner, networking. You may be simply paying them indirectly. A startup has no real way of knowing if they got a bang for their buck. If investors were paying, they would know. They won't be visiting very often at a high price tag if the pitches aren't good and if the chances of closing a deal aren't good.

zaidf 17y ago
If investors were paying, they would know. They won't be visiting very often at a high price tag if the pitches aren't good and if the chances of closing a deal aren't good. That's my point. Most investors have to pay a couple grand to attend TechCrunch50.
- netsp 17y ago
  That is OK. Investors can't be conned very easily. They can tell if they got value from the event. The existence of a chance of being funded is more opaque.