Demo and TechCrunch50: Something By Euripedes?

There is a sense of inevitability and Greek tragedy in tanglings of uber-tech-showman, Michael Arrington, with tech's reigning king-maker, Chris Shipley of Demo.

Arrington announced the original TC20 from the second row of Demo (according to Chris Shipley). TC20 morphed, Blob-like, into TC40, and now it threatening DemoFall like Godzilla trundling toward Tokya, breathing radioactive blog posts.

Why is this happening at all? Can't the media moguls just get along, and agree, quietly, to carve up the pie with minimal splatter?

[Full disclosure: I am working with CMP on their Enterprise 2.0 conference, helping to think about a Launchpad integrated into that event, and I have served as a judge and selection committee member with Dela Maker Media on the Under The Radar events.]

Kara Swisher of the D conference points out that Arrington is attacking Demo on price:

Not satisfied to just schedule his event at the same time as Demo–which is fine, I guess, given this is America and we all have the right to be aggressively and even pointlessly competitive–the second shot is at the $18,500 fee that Demo demonstrators pay, once they get invited to that conference.

TC 50 does not charge, which, to be fair, would be my choice too.

Still, given his inaugural TC 40 conference sold out and was, said Arrington to Geek Gestalt, profitable, the channeling of the Corleone Family in the online tech space seems a bit much to me.

Swisher's unstated point is, I believe, it doesn't matter if you aspire to making the event low cost for the launching companies, since if you make a profit you are still a profiteer, making money out of the event as a whole.

My bet is that Shipley & Co stand to lose a lot of money if Arrington attacks their Demo event in a frontal way like this, and that Arrington doesn't really care if he is undermining the economics of the 'launch pad' conference marketplace for the long term, or for ever.

He is being driven by some sort of personal vendetta against Demo and Shipley.

It may be couched in high-minded terms -- doing good for the poor cash-starved startups -- but the inner motivations are something that Euripedes or Sam Shepherd might harness for a timeless play about striving and competition, about place and recognition.

I wonder what sort of one on one interaction a great playwright could concoct, showing some perhaps mythical, perhaps actual interaction between Arrington and Shipley? Where Arrington -- no matter what was said or implied -- walked away with a hard resolve to destroy Shipley and Demo. Was there an spurned offer to work together? Was there a deal gone sideways?

Shipley herself makes it seem all very distant, and doesn't discuss any face-to-face interaction with Arrington, and expresses puzzlement at the turn of events:

[from Imitation is Flattery? Or Just Bad For Entrepreneurs? by Chris Shipley]

I’m not naive. I’m not at all surprised by the competition. A year or so ago, TechCrunch set its sites on DEMO and has been lobbing missiles our way ever since. Why? Honestly, I don’t know. This is a great big market and there is ample opportunity to support the startups in it.

Everyone involved in the war between TC50 and Demo has chips to lose, like warring gangs in a Toshiru Mifune samurai western.

In a superheated market for venture and share-of-mind, I have often wondered why some not-for-profit organization -- perhaps with some initial funding from successful entrepreneurs -- hasn't emerged that would manage this apparently necessary midwifery on behalf of the industry and the entrepreneurs. Why allow media companies to skim off so much money and to control access? Not that there isn't money to be made.

It's like the early days of professional sports, where all of the money went to the money people, but little or nothing went to the athletes.

Why does so little of the money from these events go to the companies that are causing all the interest? Why do they have to pay to be involved? Shouldn't these economics be reversed?

Imagine an event where the profits from ticket sales and sponsorship were divided among the participants in some way, based on votes, or popular acclaim, or judging. Instead of paying to play, or even free participation, the winners could make some money.

In the meantime, however, the chorus moans and wails as the protagonists in this drama struggle on the stage, tearing each other down, while offstage, just loud enough to be heard, the gods are laughing.

Comments

[Cyndy Aleo-Carreira]

I was thinking it looked a bit more like Titus Andronicus myself.

[chughes]

Hey Stowe, good write up (as usual). I was thinking about this earlier and while I totally think that, in the bigger picture, increased competition only makes for a better product and keeps pricing in check, it is a shame to see two great outfits at odds. From my perspective, i think a lot of startups will be attracted to the TC50 because of the zero pay-to-play. It absolutely is a huge magnet. On the other hand, there will also be companies that totally see the value of DEMO and having an opportunity to launch there, regardless of the entry fee to present. I hope that both parties can come to some level of co-opitition and work out an amicable schedule. I do think there is plenty of room for several great venues (TC50, DEMO, DealMaker Media, etc.) to showcase emerging tech startups.

[Stowe Boyd]

Cyndy - Is that the one where 15 characters are dead on stage at the end? Maybe you're right.

chughes - I still think there should be a non-profit midwifing. Maybe I should start it?

[Jon Husband]

In a superheated market for venture and share-of-mind, I have often wondered why some not-for-profit organization -- perhaps with some initial funding from successful entrepreneurs -- hasn't emerged that would manage this apparently necessary midwifery on behalf of the industry and the entrepreneurs. Why allow media companies to skim off so much money and to control access? Not that there isn't money to be made.

It's like the early days of professional sports, where all of the money went to the money people, but little or nothing went to the athletes.

Why does so little of the money from these events go to the companies that are causing all the interest? Why do they have to pay to be involved? Shouldn't these economics be reversed?

Great questions. THE questions to be asked, IMO.

[Jon Husband]

Actually, there is a non-profit that might be useful to look at, though it operates only on a local level, and tends to focus mostly on gaming (makes some sense, given the concentration of gaming companies in Vancouver). http://www.newmediabc.com

It recently hired a new exec director. You maybe should have applied, would have facilitated your (eventual ?) move to Canada ;-)

[Stowe Boyd]

Jon - I am unemployable, so I wouldn't apply for that or any job. But I might create the non-profit at some point.