Comments on: Is There a TechCrunch Without Arrington?

By: Banker

Banker — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 04:19:26 +0000

Mike Arrington is actively trying to sell techcrunch site. He has a problem. No one wants to buy it. No VC wants to fund him.

By: From the Pipeline - 3.26.08 | WinExtra

From the Pipeline - 3.26.08 | WinExtra — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 03:25:36 +0000

[...] Is There a TechCrunch Without Arrington? :: Mark Evans - simple enough question but really is there and what value would the brand really have if he decided to retire to Fiji? [...]

By: Jim Courtney

Jim Courtney — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 12:42:55 +0000

I think with GigaOm a situation is being forced on a “personality identified” business where we can see that GigaOm can survive Om.

As most readers will know Om suffered a heart attack between Christmas and New Years. On coming home after a week in the hospital he has been able to write a few posts but my network tells me he still needs more recovery time. This means he can’t be out agressively researching stories or talking to his network 16 hours a day.

In the meantime, while doing a guest post, I have had the opportunity to work with some of his staff and found an operation that is both professional and well enough organized to ensure that quality posts. appear. A lot of this ongoing success has to be attributed to Om’s having built a true business organization with delegated responsibilities and motivation to build on GigaOm’s reputation and values.

GigaOm continues the tradition and remains a “must read”, transparent to Om’s personal health situation.

By: E Guy

E Guy — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 09:29:44 +0000

I disagree. Any small business (like a blog) is one and the same with the owner. However, as the business grows, it develops a life of its own and has associated value not necessarily tied to the owner. If not, then it remains a small business and the value IS tied to the owner.

Techcrunch’s opportunity is to build value in the blog via other assets and in so doing will build entreprise value not just value associated with Arrington.

This transition is key to most entrepreneurial organizations becoming successful beyond their initial value proposition which is almost always tied to the original founder.

By: Aidan Henry

Aidan Henry — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 08:22:31 +0000

I agree. A blog is nothing without its original publisher. I wrote a similar post in October 2007 when people were discussing TechCrunch’s valuation…

http://www.mappingtheweb.com/2007/10/03/techcrunch-valuation/

Cheers,
Aidan
http://www.MappingTheWeb.com

By: Jay Neely

Jay Neely — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 06:07:25 +0000

I don’t think Mr. Arrington can be called the main writer of TechCrunch anymore. Most of the time, there’s a single post on the front page by him, maybe two. Usually there’s not even a distinction in importance of the posts that he writes versus what Erick or Duncan are writing. And because of the benefits associated with being featured on TechCrunch, there are few scoops or exclusives that TechCrunch could get from Mike Arrington’s connections that TechCrunch couldn’t get on its own with someone else at the helm.

Does TechCrunch need *someone* to be the embodiment of the brand? Absolutely. Startups are small group endeavors, where personal connections are the main route for information flow because of preference as much because there aren’t many other routes(who’s heard of a startup with a PR division?). Networking at conferences is much more successful when networkers aren’t looking for *a* representative, but *the* representative of your group.

So respectfully, I disagree. Arrington will always have a cult of personality for as long as he seeks to maintain it. But TechCrunch will continue to succeed so long as it *has* personality.