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.
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 | March 12, 2006 at 02:42 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 | March 12, 2006 at 03:02 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 | March 12, 2006 at 05:10 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 | March 13, 2006 at 05:41 AM