TechCrunch is still relevant | Hacker News Reader

TechCrunch is still relevant

mobiledevhq.com

53 pointsiseff22 comments

You owe a lot to the practice of PR actually, which you should probably consider investing more in if its working for you.

I have this spreadsheet at Twilio that tracks signup sources by type, and lifetime revenue. Without going into too much detail, people who signed up after learning about us in a news story generate a lot of money per account, and that has continued to prove true over 3+ years. So we invest in being good at PR (bringing it in house, using various agencies to help us get broader distribution).

Startups, especially those filled with engineers, generally dislike PR. Can't blame them, it is this ridiculously irrational art and it can become very expensive - but it has a big impact if you can wield it as a tool in your tool belt. You don't have to hire a PR professional to do it though - I did it for Twilio by myself for the first 18 months and learned a ton. The first thing I ever got to the front page of HN was this post on exactly this topic: http://www.twilio.com/blog/2009/03/doing-startup-pr-on-a-sho...

The coolest part of PR is just how many media outlets there are targeting different audiences - so TechCrunch is one important one of many. Pitch wide, read more, dive into niches, get to know writers and the audiences they are trying to reach. PR isn't about manipulating writers either (at least not the credible form of writers), all you can do is tell them your story, they decide what to do next.

One thing I'll add, is that it is a shame that publications are struggling to figure out business models while businesses are benefitting a ton from coverage. Its a shame because I worry that the publications will eventually run out of money and go away, killing an important customer acquisition channel. This asymmetry is an opportunity.

I'm working with a SaaS company whose highest conversion rate and signup numbers are through PR (by far). It really surprised me based on my previous experience.

I think that "which you should probably consider investing more in if its working for you." is key here, though. I've done marketing for businesses where PR was one of the weakest channels.

Totally agree. Kind of cool to hear I'm not the only one finding this channel surprisingly valuable - anyone else out there?

I can't emphasize this enough: You don't owe Sarah Perez a damn thing. Not a "thank you" and especially not a debt of gratitude.

You can thank journalists for a lot of things: balanced coverage, fairness, excellent writing quality. Never, ever thank them for covering you, or for covering you in a positive light. Some journalists even consider this an insult.

Remember, they're serving their readers (and by proxy of course, their own interests, for all the cynics out there), not you. The article wasn't written for you, it was written about you.

It has not been my experience that trade press journalists consider thankfulness an insult. Rather the opposite.

So, I think you're correct in principle, but off the mark pragmatically.

Given TechCrunch's struggles with credibility over the past few years, maybe it should have been more of an issue.

In the end though, you're right: Giving thanks doesn't hurt anyone too much. But giving thanks for any of the things I mentioned is infinitely better than giving thanks just for the act of covering (or worse yet, the resulting traffic/business).

The author states that there were no PR firms or "crazy pitches," but he was absolutely doing PR. He was absolutely pitching. At some point, PR and sleazy PR got conflated in the tech industry. This is just solid, traditional media relations, a big part of PR.

So, even beyond the obviously terrible positioning of "still relevant" (who wants to be argued for in that way?), this article doesn't do TC any favors.

SAI/former VentureBeat reporter here: it's considered a moderate offense. Could infer to your/our Twitter followers etc. that there was an exchange for positive coverage, which is a pop at our credibility.

Credibility is basically all we have. (However small it is.)

IMO, On the consumer side credibility is not as important in tech journalism when compared to say political reporting. Products get canceled, startups die, so you would have to predict the future to always be relevant. Having connections and finding interesting stories / ideas and knowing how to critique them is more important than knowing the iPad7's release date.

We have all read bad spin, and honestly it quickly becomes noise.

Whenever someone says "X is still Y", there's a growing chance that it, in fact, is not.

TechCrunch has most assuredly jumped the shark, and Siegler has almost single handedly ensured I will never again read another of their articles unless I am practically rick-rolled into doing so.

Indeed. The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.

TC has jumped the shark, but they still drive a ton of traffic—enough to kick start your product if it's good enough. However "king maker" is a strong word for it. I've been several times by TC over the last 5 years and it never amounted to much in terms of conversions. Back in the day they had big influence with investors which was proportionally valuable in the tight-knit community of SV investors, but these days they're well into the downward slope of the bell curve. Congratulations to the author for benefitting from TC, but there's never been a better time to ignore them.

Despite its decline in quality, Techcrunch still generates lots of traffic.

But at the end of the day, you built a good product. Take full credit.

I think it depends on what market you're in. If you are selling to app developers, TechCrunch is a good place to focus your energy. If you are selling to businesses (or folks that aren't in the tech industry), I don't think it gets you much.

Certainly agree with this. Understanding where your customers are, what they're reading, and how to get in front of them is the most important factor.

But, after that, finding the most authoritative sources within those markets is crucial. So, when people say TechCrunch is irrelevant for mobile/tech startups, well, that's just wrong (at least for us).

Though I am happy for the team, it is a slight stretch to claim that you have a monthly recurring revenue of $25k due to the techcrunch article even though there have been only 1.5 months since the article came out.

"X is still relevant," much like "I'm not crazy!" is a sentence that nobody believes as soon as you have to say it.

Any major news publication that aligns with the vertical of your product or service is relevant to you.

PR for tech companies is cheap / free advertising.

It's not that TechCrunch is still relevant or not - because we're not really discussing the quality of their journalism or what they represent. We're talking about the staying power they have for a readership that's interested in tech.

So in that regards, yeah definitely - TechCrunch still drives tons of page views and click-through's so anytime you get an article there, it can't hurt!

Excellent article. I would be curious to see how much of that recurring revenue sticks for 3 months. Would be awesome to see monthly follow-ups for a few months.

Thanks! We've been trying to be very transparent recently, so we'll do our best to do follow-ups and stay transparent. :)

Awesome. And congrats, this made me want to check you guys out. I wish you guys had a case study that's easier to find though. I think there might be a few in the articles section, but having one up front would really help me understand how exactly it helps me grow my business. A lot of this search and keyword stuff is hard to grasp for some of us initially.

Relevant here = made some money for some folks.

TechCrunch drives traffic, sure. I'm not willing to say their coverage or reporting is "relevant". Their article on WebRTC in Firefox yesterday was awful, even after they rewrote most of it. Not to mention the stream of contradictory posts about Google Glass.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com