A VC« Wounding Wikipedia (continued) | Main | Revisionist History - Calacanis Style »
Alley Wag
Jason Chervokas doesn't like the placement of Warren St. John's Silicon Alley rebirth story in the Style section. I don't either.
And I don't like the name Silicon Alley either and never did.
Why do we need some wannabe name to describe something that is going on in every major city in our country and increasingly every major city in the world?
Entrepreneurs are building interesting companies using technology and brains and imagination.
That's all there is to it. And if there's a story in that, let's put it where it belongs in the business section or the technology section, not the style section.
Comments (4) | | TrackBack (4)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b2c969e200e5503689dc8834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Alley Wag:
» Bulletin: Silicon Alley Still Dead from Tom Watson
Don't believe everything you read, and watch out for what section of the paper you read it in. Those are the two thoughts I have for you this morning, as I add my voice to the disapproving chorus of those [Read More]
Tracked on Mar 12, 2006 3:24:47 PM
» Like the Old Days from The River
It feels just like the "good old days" in "Silicon Alley," when Jason [Read More]
Tracked on Mar 13, 2006 5:15:13 PM
» Silicon Alley Style from The Vantage Point
A VC: Alley Wag Fred Wilson and several others voice their disapproval of the NY Times story about the rebirth of Silicon. Maybe the story was in the style section because the companies cited were a lot like the 99'... [Read More]
Tracked on Mar 18, 2006 6:14:06 AM
» Like the Old Days from The River
It feels just like the "good old days" in "Silicon Alley," when Jason [Read More]
Tracked on Mar 21, 2006 11:09:25 PM
Posted March 12, 2006 in Venture Capital and TechnologyComments
That's odd, I read this story early this morning and it was definitely in the business section. Really, I remember because I had the page open and made a call to a friend to tell him about the story, and when he asked what section I looked at the web page and it was in business. Now I see it's in the style section. odd...
I agree, putting the story in the style section if stupid. But I think it's more an indictment against the ny times, than saying anything about the tech arena in new york. also, I've alway loved the moniker silicon alley. why not? unless you attach it in your mind to vast failures of the boom, there's really nothing wrong with it. I think some people can't get past that bloodbath though, so they want a new name, or even no name for the space.
Posted by: JJ | Mar 12, 2006 2:42:12 PM
The phote caption is "Adam Rich, left, 25, and Ben Lerer, 24, founders of Thrillist.com, an e-mail newsletter for men."
How exactly is "an e-mail newsletter for men" a technology company anyway?
It also all seems far more personality driven this time. Some of that is probably the blogs. There are just far more news outlets than their used to be.
The biggest problem with Web 2.0 is it is starting out far more style driven than substance driven. The really stupid Web 1.0 ideas didn't start popping up until a few years in. Web 1.0 didn't become "cool" until 98 or so. No one expected it to grow like it did. Web 2.0 the default assumption is that it will be huge.
Posted by: Erik Schwartz | Mar 12, 2006 3:02:26 PM
"There are just far more news outlets than their used to be."
I used the wrong "there". That's what happens when you type with toddlers in your lap...
Posted by: Erik Schwartz | Mar 12, 2006 5:10:29 PM
maybe being in the style section explains the painful lack of fact checking: does anyone really believe that, if sold for $100MM, Daily Candy's price would be "about 9 or 10 times its earnings"? Meaning the site generates $9-$10MM per annum in *earnings*? NFW, IMHO. Maybe $9-$10MM per annum in *sales*? Anybody go the real numbers?
Posted by: steve | Mar 13, 2006 5:41:07 AM
Main RSS Feed of All Posts
VC and Technology Posts Only
