Mike Arrington’s dream team has wrong goal

March 20, 2008 By

Something about Mike Arrington’s post yesterday has been bugging me. This morning it hit: Mike has the wrong goal.

What is his goal? To beat CNET.

But does a great business or movement EVER get built on top of a goal like that?

No.

Wozniak and Jobs didn’t start Apple to beat IBM. No, they wanted a personal computer for themselves and their friends.

We didn’t go to the moon to beat the Russians. No, we went there to prove it could be done and that we could do it (and beating the Russians was a nice icing on the cake).

We didn’t build the Hubble Telescope to beat the Chinese. No, we wanted to learn more about our universe.

I could keep going.

Lately blogging seems like it has lost its way. Why? Well, looking at TechMeme you can see why: the professionals have taken over and have redefined what blogging is. They’ve (and I include myself in that, because now I’m part of a professional media organization) have taken blogging away from individual people and have corporatized it.

When blogging started getting rolling in 2001-2004 (before Valleywag or TechCrunch) it was a small community who had a few values in common:

1. We were mostly laid off. It was the time of the bust. Most of the entrepreneurs weren’t getting paid, didn’t have any money, and most of the writers, like me, were either working jobs we didn’t like just to ride out the bust, or were totally laid off. No one was showing up to geek dinners back then saying “I just got funded.” Why is this important? Because we had time and we all felt in the same boat.
2. There was one new thing in our lives that we were still figuring out: Google. It wasn’t like today. There wasn’t a new product or service coming out every 20 minutes. There weren’t conferences like Under the Radar (which I’m speaking at today) where there are dozens of new things being shown off. We were lucky to see one new product a month back then.
3. There was an undercurrent of anger and fear. Especially after 9/11. We were angry that our existing experts had mislead us so deeply. How did the VCs lead us down this path? How did the journalists not report the real news? How did our government let 9/11 and the boom/bust happen? We were questioning our value, our industry, our government, and in doing so we were looking for ways to build systems that’d warn us next time around.
4. We were tired of traditional marketing. The Cluetrain Manifesto was our rallying cry, but, really, we didn’t even need that book. We knew something was wrong. All you have to do is stand out in Times Square in New York to see it: companies don’t usually want to tell you anything about their products. Look at a Sony or a Canon camcorder ad. Can you tell them apart? I can’t. So, we wanted to talk with the engineers of those products and find out the truth. Where are the edges? What do they REALLY do? And, when we found out some truth for ourselves, we wanted to compare with other people. “Oh, the Sony doesn’t have an external microphone input,” we’d tell each other on Web forums and blogs.
5. We were tired of hearing “experts” who, we knew, were not expert at all. Especially now that we had Google we could find much better, much more up-to-date, experts ourselves. Last night, for instance, I saw Pierre Omidyar, founder of eBay, on Twitter. That simply was NOT done in 2001 — we didn’t have access to experts and business leaders like him. We had no idea how to influence people like that, not to mention we had no hope of having a conversation with them. Blogging changed ALL of that.
6. Back to #1, we were having fun BECAUSE we were NOT part of a committee. We were out of work, and doing what we loved cause why do what you don’t love when you aren’t getting paid, right? I’ve been chasing that high ever since. I think the entire industry has been.

There’s more, too, that lashed us together. The ones who showed up to Dana Street Cafe in Mountain View back in 2002 (we held little blogger meetups there) were geeks. We had a love of technology. That still binds us together today.

Anyway, I’m getting off track. Where am I going with this? Well, I want to explain that none of us in those early days woke up and said “it’s our goal to beat CNET.” That isn’t what drove us to stay up all night and write (some of us wrote words on screen, like me, others stayed up all night to write code to build better conversational tools, like Evan Williams at Blogger, or Ben and Mena Trott at Six Apart). It was our goal to experiment and build a new way of sharing information. We knew information had power, because those who had access to information before everyone else (hello Henry Blodgett) got rich, while the rest of us poor shlubs got fired (anyone remember the Website Fucked Company? I do, it was the Valleywag of its day and we all read it, even when trying to pretend we didn’t).

So, what’s the right goal? What got me up at 6 a.m. this morning?

1. Discovery. I love a good discovery. Why do I read FriendFeed every few hours now? Because I keep discovering cool stuff there. Why do I go to conferences like today’s Under the Radar? Because developers keep pulling me aside and saying “can I show you something?” (Even this week, at Jeff Pulver’s conference, a developer did just that and showed me a new competitor to FriendFeed which looked freaking awesome).
2. Getting smarter. I want to be smarter. Why? Because I find that the more I understand the world around me, the more I can enjoy it. I want to hang around smarter people, hear from smarter people than me (that’s why conferences like Pop!Tech and TED are so interesting to people), and read posts from smarter people than me (Google Reader, please fix your speed problems!)
3. Having interesting experiences. Tomorrow I’m going wine tasting with Gary Vaynerchuk. Have you ever watched his wine show? If you care about wine, you should. It’s really great and every show about 60,000 people watch and he usually gets hundreds of comments per show. I guarantee that going wine tasting with him will be an interesting experience. We all want more experiences like that.
4. Access to things that we don’t usually get access to. Earlier this week at IBM Research I used their microscope to move an atom. How many people in the world have done that? I figure fewer than 1,000 and maybe even fewer than 200 — they simply don’t have enough space in the lab to get more people access than that. So there’s gotta be some other way for a lot more people to have that experience, which is why I do video.
5. Comparing notes. If I find a new wine, guess what I do? I Twitter Gary and ask him about what he thinks. He usually has something to say. But, what about other people in his community? Absolutely! And note comparing is a HUGE part of what comments and FriendFeed is all about.

So, to wrap this up, since I’m supposed to get over to the Under the Radar conference: how could Mike Arrington get me onto his dream team?

Stop talking about killing CNET. Start telling me about how we can:

1. Build a stronger community. Stronger=smarter. Stronger=more informed. Stronger=more efficient. Stronger=more empathetic.
2. Get me experiences I don’t yet have access to. A lot of what TechCrunch does is get me inside of companies. At its best, TechCrunch tells you about new services that you didn’t know about. It brings you inside the walls of companies so we can make more informed decisions about where to work, who to partner with, what to adopt.
3. Have a bigger purpose. Building a new thing is more noble than tearing something down. Truth be told, CNET has done a fine job of tearing itself down over the years without any help from a bunch of bloggers. I used to visit news.com several times a day. Today that behavior has been replaced by FriendFeed. Why? Cause FriendFeed brings me everyday people who tell me more interesting stuff than CNET has been telling me.
4. Appeal to me with something other than “you can make more money.” One of the guys who pitched me told me “you can make more money with me.” I turned him down, cause I really don’t care. Ask any dead guy whether making more money really mattered. Now, yes, money does matter, and it does help get you some of the above (better experiences, etc) but I found I can get those things without being rich.

Anyway, that’s enough ranting. Now I’m off to the Under the Radar Conference. Hopefully I find some great new technology and I hear an interesting story about how it was built. I’ll join a “dream team” that shows me how to do all of this better, how about you?

Filed Under: technology industry

http://www.ferodynamics.com/ PJ Brunet

I have a feeling Woz started Apple to play video games.
http://www.ferodynamics.com PJ Brunet

I have a feeling Woz started Apple to play video games.
Jason

Arrington is a pseudo-journalist. He and the TechCrunch team hide behind the “blog” label so as to not be challenged when they post rumor-driven, un-researched, fluff. But, they want to be treated like media royalty and given the same respect and weight as typical media outlets.

If you’re a blogger, you can get away with posting your opinions as fact. If you’re CNET, then you cannot because you have certain commonly-accepted “journalistic standards.” Arrington/TechCrunch wants the best of both worlds, but don’t have standards so they hold up the “blogger” label whenever it’s convenient for their immediate purpose.
Jason

Arrington is a pseudo-journalist. He and the TechCrunch team hide behind the “blog” label so as to not be challenged when they post rumor-driven, un-researched, fluff. But, they want to be treated like media royalty and given the same respect and weight as typical media outlets.

If you’re a blogger, you can get away with posting your opinions as fact. If you’re CNET, then you cannot because you have certain commonly-accepted “journalistic standards.” Arrington/TechCrunch wants the best of both worlds, but don’t have standards so they hold up the “blogger” label whenever it’s convenient for their immediate purpose.
Jason

Arrington is a pseudo-journalist. He and the TechCrunch team hide behind the “blog” label so as to not be challenged when they post rumor-driven, un-researched, fluff. But, they want to be treated like media royalty and given the same respect and weight as typical media outlets.

If you’re a blogger, you can get away with posting your opinions as fact. If you’re CNET, then you cannot because you have certain commonly-accepted “journalistic standards.” Arrington/TechCrunch wants the best of both worlds, but don’t have standards so they hold up the “blogger” label whenever it’s convenient for their immediate purpose.
http://www.adapar.net/ adapar

First, let me thank you for giving us an enjoyable, inspiring and thoughtful post. Second, I will go out on a limb here, as my point of view is a bit narrow at this moment, and comment.

Blogging around the world seems to be (loosely) following the same pattern you described. Most of the spanish-based blogs I read thrive on fun first and foremost, while social and intellectual concerns come next.

However, I think the profesionalization of spanish-based blogging veers away from the pattern: it looks like corporate interest is negative rather than positive and, I think, bloggers as a group are learning from the experiences you describe. If that is true, it’s another example of the power of building the systems you point out in item 3.

Finally, I believe that most people and thus most entrerprises (in the sense of embarking in new ventures) don’t have clear goals even if they say so. Most of the time initial goals are just attempts to pin down the feelings that motivate us to move into the unknown, not fixed references that define the journey.
http://www.adapar.net/ Andrés David

First, let me thank you for giving us an enjoyable, inspiring and thoughtful post. Second, I will go out on a limb here, as my point of view is a bit narrow at this moment, and comment.

Blogging around the world seems to be (loosely) following the same pattern you described. Most of the spanish-based blogs I read thrive on fun first and foremost, while social and intellectual concerns come next.

However, I think the profesionalization of spanish-based blogging veers away from the pattern: it looks like corporate interest is negative rather than positive and, I think, bloggers as a group are learning from the experiences you describe. If that is true, it’s another example of the power of building the systems you point out in item 3.

Finally, I believe that most people and thus most entrerprises (in the sense of embarking in new ventures) don’t have clear goals even if they say so. Most of the time initial goals are just attempts to pin down the feelings that motivate us to move into the unknown, not fixed references that define the journey.
http://www.conversationalmediamarketing.com/ Paul Chaney

Robert, I’ve been reading your blog for a long time and have to say this is one of the best posts you’ve ever written imho. Real wisdom and perspective here from someone who’s been around a long time (so far as blogging years are concerned).

To all your final points, I say “YES!” I’m all about building community and having a higher purpose than just making money. I’ve yet to see a hearse with a U-Haul in-tow behind it.
http://www.conversationalmediamarketing.com Paul Chaney

Robert, I’ve been reading your blog for a long time and have to say this is one of the best posts you’ve ever written imho. Real wisdom and perspective here from someone who’s been around a long time (so far as blogging years are concerned).

To all your final points, I say “YES!” I’m all about building community and having a higher purpose than just making money. I’ve yet to see a hearse with a U-Haul in-tow behind it.
TonyLa

“Wozniak and Jobs didn’t start Apple to beat IBM. No, they wanted a personal computer for themselves and their friends”

Wozniak maybe, I’m not convinced that was Jobs motivation. There is a man who competes on every level.

Blogging hasn’t lost its way, there’s just more of it and like with everything else, the bigger names attract more attention. Livejournal, which is a community, is still thriving.
TonyLa

“Wozniak and Jobs didn’t start Apple to beat IBM. No, they wanted a personal computer for themselves and their friends”

Wozniak maybe, I’m not convinced that was Jobs motivation. There is a man who competes on every level.

Blogging hasn’t lost its way, there’s just more of it and like with everything else, the bigger names attract more attention. Livejournal, which is a community, is still thriving.
http://onlinebusiness.volusion.com/ Michelle Greer

Why does CNET have such a big audience? They review products that aren’t exclusive to early adopters. I can find reviews of crappy phones and the latest and greatest phone. The only reviews CNET offers on software are on Office and anti-viral software that the majority of computer users need. It doesn’t bother to appeal to industry geeks.

The average person does’t find the need to live the iPhone hugging, Twirling, Seeismic channeled existence that TechCrunch readers crave. They just want a phone that will allow them to text Jason Castro into American Idol rock stardom and a camera that won’t screw up their vacation pics. Where do they go? CNET.

TechCrunch can cover the latest and greatest cars or those cool Japanese robots, and every other product that appeals to the kind of person who just has to be the first to have, know and do everything tech. CNET is a different beast entirely. Arrington would either have to create another site entirely (which is not a bad idea) or destroy what makes TechCrunch cool to compete with its mass appeal.

So there’s your mission: come up with another site that my 72-year-old dad can frequent when he needs to buy a new digital camera, and then let him know it’s out there. I don’t even know why Michael Arrington worries about CNET.
http://onlinebusiness.volusion.com Michelle Greer

Why does CNET have such a big audience? They review products that aren’t exclusive to early adopters. I can find reviews of crappy phones and the latest and greatest phone. The only reviews CNET offers on software are on Office and anti-viral software that the majority of computer users need. It doesn’t bother to appeal to industry geeks.

The average person does’t find the need to live the iPhone hugging, Twirling, Seeismic channeled existence that TechCrunch readers crave. They just want a phone that will allow them to text Jason Castro into American Idol rock stardom and a camera that won’t screw up their vacation pics. Where do they go? CNET.

TechCrunch can cover the latest and greatest cars or those cool Japanese robots, and every other product that appeals to the kind of person who just has to be the first to have, know and do everything tech. CNET is a different beast entirely. Arrington would either have to create another site entirely (which is not a bad idea) or destroy what makes TechCrunch cool to compete with its mass appeal.

So there’s your mission: come up with another site that my 72-year-old dad can frequent when he needs to buy a new digital camera, and then let him know it’s out there. I don’t even know why Michael Arrington worries about CNET.
http://redmelon.net/ Douglas

@Seth: perhaps it tells us something else: if you want to market an idea, to get people to wake up at 6 a.m. in the morning, is to wrap up your idea in a warm bigger-purpose blanket – even if what you’re thinking is: “shit, the Russians beat us into space, where can we go to trump that?”
http://redmelon.net Douglas

@Seth: perhaps it tells us something else: if you want to market an idea, to get people to wake up at 6 a.m. in the morning, is to wrap up your idea in a warm bigger-purpose blanket – even if what you’re thinking is: “shit, the Russians beat us into space, where can we go to trump that?”
http://blog.stealthmode.com/ francine hardaway

Hmmm…do you need another comment on this post? Not only do I agree with you and love you for posting it and wading through the comments on it, but I believe blogging as a standalone business will ultimately not make it, because the MSM turns on blogs daily. BUT blogging can 1)bring you new friends/contacts, 2)start world-changing movements, 3)call out despotic governments, 4)expose criminals, 5)build bridges, and 6)educate people. That should be enough value for a single activity.
http://blog.stealthmode.com francine hardaway

Hmmm…do you need another comment on this post? Not only do I agree with you and love you for posting it and wading through the comments on it, but I believe blogging as a standalone business will ultimately not make it, because the MSM turns on blogs daily. BUT blogging can 1)bring you new friends/contacts, 2)start world-changing movements, 3)call out despotic governments, 4)expose criminals, 5)build bridges, and 6)educate people. That should be enough value for a single activity.
Sachin Balagopalan

It’s all about having a conversation as far as I’m concerned…

http://tinyurl.com/2zo8sv
Sachin Balagopalan

It’s all about having a conversation as far as I’m concerned…

http://tinyurl.com/2zo8sv
http://www.workpost.com/ Workpost

I like the idea of building something and not tearing things down. It’s hard to build something innovative or new that will grow because it has value but it’s a noble calling to try.
http://www.workpost.com Workpost

I like the idea of building something and not tearing things down. It’s hard to build something innovative or new that will grow because it has value but it’s a noble calling to try.
Aep528

I didn’t read every comment, but I haven’t read any that caught onto your comments about being laid off. That is the core of why blogging is where it is today, and why it has become professional.

Tech blogging exploded because it was boosted by laid-off people WITH ACCESS. This is an important point. Laid-off people no longer have a conflict of interest, but they still have a PDA (going back a few years, here) full of contacts, friends they made along the way in the industry. That’s a very important point that seems to have been missed. Unless, you have a contact, a friend of a friend, you’re not going to get the product demos, or see the term sheets, or confirm a rumor. That’s why blogging became professional – the people with access got real stories, and that led to higher page views, which led to higher bandwidth and hosting costs, which led to advertising, which led to hiring staff to maintain the level of information flow needed to generate even higher page views.

The only way blogging will return to the way it was would be another significant bust. Otherwise, it will continue along the current path of becoming traditional media.

And by the way, were you serious when you asked why the government didn’t prevent the boom/bust cycle? Private companies, private capital, poor business plans, overspending, poor execution – what does the government have to do with any of that?
Aep528

I didn’t read every comment, but I haven’t read any that caught onto your comments about being laid off. That is the core of why blogging is where it is today, and why it has become professional.

Tech blogging exploded because it was boosted by laid-off people WITH ACCESS. This is an important point. Laid-off people no longer have a conflict of interest, but they still have a PDA (going back a few years, here) full of contacts, friends they made along the way in the industry. That’s a very important point that seems to have been missed. Unless, you have a contact, a friend of a friend, you’re not going to get the product demos, or see the term sheets, or confirm a rumor. That’s why blogging became professional – the people with access got real stories, and that led to higher page views, which led to higher bandwidth and hosting costs, which led to advertising, which led to hiring staff to maintain the level of information flow needed to generate even higher page views.

The only way blogging will return to the way it was would be another significant bust. Otherwise, it will continue along the current path of becoming traditional media.

And by the way, were you serious when you asked why the government didn’t prevent the boom/bust cycle? Private companies, private capital, poor business plans, overspending, poor execution – what does the government have to do with any of that?
Stevey

And we didn’t go to Iraq because……
Stevey

And we didn’t go to Iraq because……
Pingback: links for 2008-03-20 | Social Media Explorer
Chris

Scoble, you are incredibly narcissistic and shallow. Your self-inclusion in geekdom does a disservice to geeks. You clearly fail to grasp the most elementary aspects of major historical events, and you conflate your station in life with an important linkage to important moments in our shared contemporary history. Your self-serving blog is absolutely nothing more than mental and emotional masturbation. You contribute nothing to the larger dialog and zeitgeist, and that is why other sites have soared while yours has stagnated.
http://N/A Chris

Scoble, you are incredibly narcissistic and shallow. Your self-inclusion in geekdom does a disservice to geeks. You clearly fail to grasp the most elementary aspects of major historical events, and you conflate your station in life with an important linkage to important moments in our shared contemporary history. Your self-serving blog is absolutely nothing more than mental and emotional masturbation. You contribute nothing to the larger dialog and zeitgeist, and that is why other sites have soared while yours has stagnated.
Pingback: Floodland | Project: Shadow Symposium
Pingback: links for 2008-03-21 | The Straight Pitch
http://siggersnation.com/ Siggers Nation

We didn’t build Hubble to beat the Chinese? Please, Scoble.

You may be right on that point, but we did build Hubble to beat the Moldovan Space Periscope, which would have been able to literally see around the curve of the universe and zoom in on the back of our head. Twice.
http://siggersnation.com Siggers Nation

We didn’t build Hubble to beat the Chinese? Please, Scoble.

You may be right on that point, but we did build Hubble to beat the Moldovan Space Periscope, which would have been able to literally see around the curve of the universe and zoom in on the back of our head. Twice.
Pingback: Arrington - The Rupert Murdock of the blogosphere | WinExtra
Joe

The best post I have read since on this scobleizer.com
Joe

The best post I have read since on this scobleizer.com
Joe

The best post I have read since on this scobleizer.com
Alan

™”If Kennedy had said “Let’s go beat some Commies!” we would have had a space program whose only ardent supporters would have been the John Birch Society. Was there an underlying need to get there before ‘them’? Sure. But if sold that way it would have been dead on arrival.”

With all due respect, you couldn’t be more wrong. Conversely if Kennedy had said “Let’s go to the Moon, THAT would have been dead on arrival, because people wouldn’t have seen the purpose. You have to factor in what was going on in the world. Economically, militarily, socially, we HAD to get there before the Soviets. Otherwise, we would likely still have a wall up in Berlin, among other things. It would have set the US back on a number of levels. Had we not focused on getting to the moon in such a relatively short period of time, I’m guessing today we’d be waiting another 10 years for an iPhone and other technology we take for granted today.
Alan

™”If Kennedy had said “Let’s go beat some Commies!” we would have had a space program whose only ardent supporters would have been the John Birch Society. Was there an underlying need to get there before ‘them’? Sure. But if sold that way it would have been dead on arrival.”

With all due respect, you couldn’t be more wrong. Conversely if Kennedy had said “Let’s go to the Moon, THAT would have been dead on arrival, because people wouldn’t have seen the purpose. You have to factor in what was going on in the world. Economically, militarily, socially, we HAD to get there before the Soviets. Otherwise, we would likely still have a wall up in Berlin, among other things. It would have set the US back on a number of levels. Had we not focused on getting to the moon in such a relatively short period of time, I’m guessing today we’d be waiting another 10 years for an iPhone and other technology we take for granted today.
Alan

™”If Kennedy had said “Let’s go beat some Commies!” we would have had a space program whose only ardent supporters would have been the John Birch Society. Was there an underlying need to get there before ‘them’? Sure. But if sold that way it would have been dead on arrival.”

With all due respect, you couldn’t be more wrong. Conversely if Kennedy had said “Let’s go to the Moon, THAT would have been dead on arrival, because people wouldn’t have seen the purpose. You have to factor in what was going on in the world. Economically, militarily, socially, we HAD to get there before the Soviets. Otherwise, we would likely still have a wall up in Berlin, among other things. It would have set the US back on a number of levels. Had we not focused on getting to the moon in such a relatively short period of time, I’m guessing today we’d be waiting another 10 years for an iPhone and other technology we take for granted today.
http://www.ankeshkothari.com/ Ankesh Kothari

Toyota’s motto was: Beat GM. Simple. And effective. An internal motto like “Beat CNET” is quite effective because it leads TechCrunch to become better than CNET in everything CNET does by benchmarking them.

I agree that Beat CNET shouldn’t be the only goal. They should have a bigger vision than that. But it is a good internal motto to have to build motivation.
http://www.ankeshkothari.com/ Ankesh Kothari

Toyota’s motto was: Beat GM. Simple. And effective. An internal motto like “Beat CNET” is quite effective because it leads TechCrunch to become better than CNET in everything CNET does by benchmarking them.

I agree that Beat CNET shouldn’t be the only goal. They should have a bigger vision than that. But it is a good internal motto to have to build motivation.
http://www.ankeshkothari.com Ankesh Kothari

Toyota’s motto was: Beat GM. Simple. And effective. An internal motto like “Beat CNET” is quite effective because it leads TechCrunch to become better than CNET in everything CNET does by benchmarking them.

I agree that Beat CNET shouldn’t be the only goal. They should have a bigger vision than that. But it is a good internal motto to have to build motivation.
http://scobleizer.com/ Robert Scoble

Ankesh: is that really true? According to this site, Toyota’s motto is: “innovation into the future.” http://www.toyoland.com/toyota/production-system.html
http://scobleizer.com/ Robert Scoble

Ankesh: is that really true? According to this site, Toyota’s motto is: “innovation into the future.” http://www.toyoland.com/toyota/production-system.html
http://scobleizer.com/ Robert Scoble

Ankesh: is that really true? According to this site, Toyota’s motto is: “innovation into the future.” http://www.toyoland.com/toyota/production-system.html
Pingback: Dan Blank: Publishing, Innovation & the Web » Blog Archive » News of the Week 3/21/08
http://scabr.com/ Scabr

Create.Don’t beat.
http://scabr.com Scabr

Create.Don’t beat.
http://techleaders20.blogspot.com/ Alex Hammer

Michael Arrington’s Rant – Good but What’s Missing? The User
http://techleaders20.blogspot.com/2008/03/michael-arringtons-rant-good-but-whats.html
http://techleaders20.blogspot.com Alex Hammer

Michael Arrington’s Rant – Good but What’s Missing? The User
http://techleaders20.blogspot.com/2008/03/michael-arringtons-rant-good-but-whats.html

Mike Arrington’s dream team has wrong goal

Archives

About Robert