I read the TechCrunch post about What’s Really Going On With Podtech? the other day and I learned a lot more about PodTech and what they're up against, than I knew before (or really wanted to know) about Podtech.
However, I was sorta shocked when they essentially got out of the content creation business and went into, more or less, syndicating third party content.
"…All employees are encouraged to spend some of their time creating content, as Robert Scoble does with Scoble Show
. Other than that, Furrier says, the company is out of the content creation business."
"..Their new model which finds and signs talent for guaranteed revenue, and then aggregates sites to advertisers, is a good one. They need to continue to cut staff and get their burn rate very low - they will effectively become a production house and ad sales team for their partners. If they can complete the transition before they run out of cash, Podtech could still have a bright future ahead of it."
Is that what's happening now? Maybe I'm off here, but doesnt that make PodTech analogous to a network? – they're just a place to push content out to viewers. If that's the case there's no real loyalty to the PodTech. They're only as good as the content and distribution they've got at any moment.
Anyway, when Michael Arrington wrote What’s Really Going On With Podtech? he created a tidal wave of negative responses to Podtech and was asked to retract his post (which he appears to be unwilling to do because he believes what he wrote was correct) and says so in Dear Podtech: I’m Not Your VP Marketing.
"..So Podtech
Let me say this. If anyone doubts the power of blogs, especially an influential blog like Techcrunch, which has over half a million RSS Subscribers as of Friday, July 27th (FeedBurner Stats), they need doubt no longer. Not only did Arrington's post light a fire under PodTech (perhaps revealing the real state of affairs – which is actually mixed – but not all negative) but it may have doomed the company. In fact, PodTech pleaded with Arrington to retract what he said in What’s Really Going On With Podtech? but he, citing his own research, decided not to and stood firm. Good for him.
"..This is a post that Podtech pleaded with me to write, to counter the massive negative publicity they’ve been getting around the blogosphere. I agreed to write after two phone conversations with Furrier and some independent digging suggested that the whole story was not being told."
"..Much of Furrier and I talked about in our two conversation was off record at his request. But if Scoble, and executive with the company, is going to publicly state that the post is inaccurate I’m not sure its appropriate for me to keep that information non-public. Also, I’ve kept most of my personal opinions about Podtech to myself so far. I haven’t for example, said that I personally find 90% of Podtech content just slightly more entertaining than watching paint dry."
I think this is war.
"…I stand by my opinion that Podtech is on the right track by focusing on aggregating third party content under its Flash player and advertising network and moving away from the highly-competitive content creation game. I assume that’s what they are focusing on, since John told me that repeatedly.
I write stuff how I see it, which is not always what the companies involved want to see. Never confuse TechCrunch with your PR or marketing team. And if your messaging isn’t clear, don’t shoot the messenger. Clean up your own mess first."
But that's the whole point – companies try to leak or cultivate influential bloggers to get free publicity … but it cuts two ways – if a blogger like Michael Arrington does his own research and comes up with his own opinion – he's ethically correct in going with that instead of (or addition to) what the company wanted him to say. And that's why we like to read TechCrunch, why I read it – I want to get the truth
as he sees it, not what the company wants me to know.
Reading the comments – one thing is becoming clear – people never liked the PodTech content anyway. I like what one commenter said
"..Last week in Seattle, at an event called the Naked Truth, Michael laid out clearly the risk/reward that companies run when pitching stories to him. Ultimately, that’s the beauty of something like TechCrunch vs. traditional or mainstream media… Michael can write whatever the hell he likes."
However, a blogger is not necessary a bona fide news source like the New York Times; it might be a matter of degree that one accepts what comes out of blogs as confirmed news, as this commenter, below says"
"..Just imagine if the NY Times changed its motto from “All the News that’s fit to print” to “All the News that may well be incorrect, but it is certainly what we believe to be true after … extensive research …”
You know what – that's probably closer to the truth than what The New York Times says with "All the News that's fit to print".
Probably the thing that people have taken the most exception with is that PodTech said stuff to Arrington off the record, and after he was attacked for his original post, he mentioned the off the record stuff – which not everyone agrees he should have done:
"…However, have to say that apart from the feeling that this is somehow more personal that is really evident, I think TechCrunch is broadly correct here. They have the right and responsibility to report it as they see it and this little drama only strengthens their brand."
What I've been telling people, even when they ask me to look at their sites – don't show me something until it's ready – bloggers can be merciless – especially if it's a technical blogger, like TechCrunch's writers, esp. Arrington. You don't go and talk to TechCrunch and expect your going to get a rubber stamped copy of your press release that goes on their highly circulated blog; that's not how it works.
