I've always loved DEMO-style conferences (like the one going on in Palm Desert today) where entrepreneurs show off their creations for the first time to an audience of their peers, the press, and investors. In fact, in 1997 I did my first conference called "Meet the Alley" where entrepreneurs did 10 minutes presentations in the "demo-or-die" format (I gotta find the video tapes). We called it "Ready, Set, PITCH!" and it was a huge hit. The New York Times wrote it up... I gotta find that clip too!

Getting a presentation slot at a demo conference can really help launch a company, but the fact is that demo-style conferences have turned into cash cows for big conference companies and the small entrepreneur is now being forced to shell out tens of thousands of dollars to buy their space.

It's wrong on so many levels (as a lot of folks have pointed out).

First, the best companies would never be able to afford that fee. This means the most prommissing companies who need the exposure the most--and who the audience would most want to see--never make it to the stage. When Kevin Rose started digg he was broke--he could NEVER have afforded demo. When I started Weblogs, Inc. with Brian we were really broke (in fact Brian had taken a second mortgage to build the company!)--we could never have afforded demo. I suspect that most of the great and up-and-coming Web 2.0 companies wouldn't have been able to cut that $20,000 check (or $12,000 as the case may be). I don't think a YouTube, TechMeme, Blogger, StumbleUpon, or CastFire could afford the ticket when they were starting up.

Second, even the good companies that make it to the stage have to spend around $20,000 to pay for their six minutes! What a rip-off.

Back in December I was kicking it on Sand Hill road trying to get my groove back after leaving AOL. After a day of meeting with VCs I called my friends Steve Gillmor and Mike Arrington to see if they were up for a steak dinner.

Over dinner Mike and I talked about our equal disdain of the payola model, and I encouraged Mike to start a conference series. I explained to him the things I'd learned about doing conference from back in my Silicon Alley Reporter days. Our biggest conference did $2.6M and cost $600,000 to run--and we never asked anyone to pay to get their speaking slot. Of course, those numbers were during the crazy boom years.

After dinner we went for a long walk and smoked some amazing (NOT) Cuban cigars :-). Mike asked me if I would help with the conference and I figured what the heck--I loved running conferences, I love Mike, and our industry needs a conference that isn't in on the take.

So, it's with great pride that I announce that Mike and I are partnering on a conference series called "The TechCrunch 20." The concept is simple: 20 companies will present over two days to their peers, the press, VCs, and the industry.

All companies will be selected by a committee of expert entrepreneurs, journalists and analysts on THE QUALITY OF THEIR PRODUCT not their ability to write a check.

If two guys in school show us the next digg, stumbleupon, or YouTube they're getting a slot and their going to pay $0 for it.

If the folks over at StumbleUpon, digg, PodShow, or Odeo show us some amazing new product they're planning on launching they get a slot--and they pay us $0 for it.

We really want the audience to get 20 presentations that are just amazing. No duds is the goal. To ensure that we have no duds the selected companies are going to show us their final products and presentations 10 days
before the event, and in the case that their demo is not ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT we are going to replace them (we'll have 2-3 alternates waiting in the wings for this purpose).

How will we make money off the event? Well, frankly we don't need to make too much money, and we think the ticket sales and a couple of top level sponsors (i.e. one law firm, one tech firm, one VC firm, and one accounting firm) will cover things.

The details are being worked out as we speak. Here is what we know so far:

1. It will be in the San Francisco area.
2. We will have around 250 people at the event.
3. 20 companies will present over two days.
4. The event will take place in the fall.
5. We are looking for a location that can fit 250-500 people. We arehoping we can find a a University that would host the event, or an affordable conference center. Any ideas please let me know.
6. We hope to put together an advisory board of people we really respect to suggest companies.

How can you help?

a) We need a great location.
b) We need top level sponsors who believe in giving the little companies a chance to shine.
c) We need suggestions for companies who will want to break big news in the fall.

I can't tell you how excited I am about getting back into the conference business, and I really honored to be doing it with Mike and his team at TechCrunch.

If you want to email the "20 conference" team the email is 20 at techcrunch.com.

all the best,

Jason

I've continued my research on top designers from my blog to LinkedIn Answers. Looks like I got better answers on my post at LinkedIn in half the time. Hmmmm...

I'm going to put all this info into an Excel file and share with everyone. If you have more suggestions put them below or on LinkedIn.

best j

I'm looking for a designer to work on redoing my blog and some work on the CalacanisCast logos. I'm building a list of the best designers I can find....

In no order so far...

• silverorange - digg and firefox
  
  
  
  
• hicksdesign - firefox and thunderbird logos (niiiiiiiice!)
  
  
  
  
• stamen design - cool interface stuff like root markets, digg, flickr
  
  
  
  
  
• happcog.com - Magnolia is soooo nice
  
  
  
  
  
  
• stopdesign -- the blogger redesign was niiiiiice
  
  
  
• simplebits -- odeo's clean design
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
• You guys have any other thoughts?!?!?
  

Did a quick podcast last night to talk about how I'm feeling. I've got a bad cold, so excuse my coughing/hacking.

CalacanisCast Beta Four... MP3 file.

If you want to subscribe go into iTunes and hit "Advanced -- Subscribe to Podcast" add this feed:

http://podcast.calacanis.com/rss.xml

In case you didn't notice we just added a bunch of basic syndicated video features to Netscape (a la YouTube).

If you see the Netscape video link (in yellow in the first image below) and you click it the list of stories will expand (image two circled in red below) to show you the cool new Netscape Flash-based media player (same at YouTube, Uncut, or Revver). What's nice about this is you don't have to leave the page and you don't have to click through to the permalink page. Sure, we're gonna lose a ton of page views, but we're helping the users consumer more content quicker--and that will make them love us more. As we all know, f you show more love to your users you're gonna win in the long-run. [ Note: hat tip to Ted who is all about the love. ]

Note: A couple of weeks ago we added the best feature of MySpace--site mail--to Netscape. This week we added the best feature of YouTube--a syndicated, Flash player--to Netscape. What feature do you think we should/will add next and why? The comments are open. :-)

Here is a sample.




... here is what happens after you click watch video... the player opens up without a page refresh!


... and of course you can take videos from Netscape and syndicate thm to your own blog. Upload tools are not opn to the public yet, but will be shortly.

Let me start off by saying that, as most folks already know, Tim and John and I are not BFF--we've had our own little run ins over the years. Second, sending lawyers to attack a non-profit is just straight-up dumb. Especially when you've made tens of millions of dollars being the proponent of the open source and Web 2.0 memes like Tim has.

However, Tim clearly has some rights to the Web 2.0 mark in the *title* of a conference name. Battelle points this out, and that it makes business sense to defend your brand.

Regardless of who made up the Web 2.0 term (Tim didn't invent--I heard people say Web 2.0 back in 98.. it was one of the terms that was just out there for a long time), it's pretty well established that Tim made the Web 2.0 term *stick* and he certainly was the first to do an event based on the Web 2.0 name.

If someone comes along and does a "Web 2.0" event that is dilutive of the brand that Tim and John have built (i.e. confusing to users) that's is just not fair. Now, I'm not saying that in *this* case folks wouldn't know the difference, but we all know that our legal systems is designed so that you have defend yourself consistently if you want protection. Every time you let something slide the evil folks can use that as ammunition for you to lose your rights. Our trademark system isn't perfect--we all know that. Of course, a call to the IT@Cork folks would have solved the problem I think (and so does JBAT).

Now, if someone uses Web 2.0 in the tag line, or is really, really clear that it's not an O'Reilly event with the naming of the event, then I think that's fine. For example, if someone does the Web 2.0 Summit or The Web 2.0 Expo I think that's OK. However, if they just do a "Web 2.0" conference that's not cool because some folks might actually think it is Tim or John's event.

When I was running Silicon Alley Reporter we had a similar issue. We had the double edge sword of having a buzzword in our brand name: Silicon Alley. Every time Silicon Alley was mentioned in the news or in a magazine got a bump in brand recognition. However, other folks would make Silicon Alley branded magazines and take a little of our thunder. We had conferences in addition to our magazine that used the format Silicon Alley YEARNAME (i.e. Silicon Alley 97, 98, 99, 2000, etc), and we had to defend those because some folks would come along and say "we're doing a 'Silicon Alley' conference too!" Our position was just don't call it Silicon Alley YEARNAME. Call it the Silicon Alley SOMETHING. People did, everyone got on with their life.

Tim *doesn't* seem to want it both ways. He understands he doesn't own the name. He just had some bonehead lawyer do what bonehead lawyers do--write bonehead letters. I wish lawyers would start thinking like humans, and I'm sure Tim would too. It's Tim's job to set the tone with his legal folks, and he's dropped the ball on this one. I'm sure he's fixed it and it won't happen again.

We all know Tim's a brilliant guy (and so is John), and they put on a good show--I'm gonna give him the benefit of the doubt here.

At the end of the day, if people want to leave this Web 2.0 meme behind they should just start a Web 3.0 Conference... no one's trademarked that already right

Update: Right after I hit publish on this post I went to clear out my RSS reader and noticed that Dave had come to similar conclusions and made the good point that people are forgetting that this is a business. One thing I thought was interesting: both Dave and I waited three or four days to comment on this. I think the longer you've blogged the more time you wait before commenting on something. The blogosphere is becoming more and more wild as the months and years progress. People are guilty-first, and everyone loves to pile-on.... yet you rarely see folks wait a couple of days to post about something. The take away for me is that waiting to hit the publish button is the new virtue.

Let me start by saying I love(d) the Economist and read it front-to-back on every flight I take. It's well written and I *assumed* well researched. However, after reading a bizarrely inaccurate story on AOL I posted a response to the facts.

It seems my comments on the Economist's highly inaccurate, AOL-bashing story have paid off. In the process of correcting the story I've uncovered exactly what I suspected: the author spun the facts to slam AOL. Check out this comment, in which the highly-respected Kevin Werbach says the reporter misused his quotes.

Note: One of the reporters on the story, Tamzin Booth, contacted me by email. I'd love to hear her defend the story in the comments below.

Kevin's comment:

It was interesting to read how that piece came out. I told the reporter I was a contrarian on the topic, and actually thought AOL was well-positioned. He used the one (backward-looking) negative sentence of my 3-paragraph email, and vaguely paraphrased the rest.

Anyway, my point was that "social network" does not equal "Friendster/MySpace". And that AOL actually has all the hard-to-acquire assets and experience it will take to monetize social software in the broad sense.

As you point out, no one expects much of AOL these days, which is a good place to be. Keep in mind that Yahoo! was seen as a dog 3 years ago, until Semel & Co. turned things around. Good luck....

-k-

I love the GMAIL (oh wait, I work for AOL... can I say that?), but what is going on with servers over there?

• RB beaks down the Web 2.0 meme: "The worst thing about all the Web 2.0 hype is the complete loss of business perspective. There's a few companies out there that seem to get it but just about every other new website I've seen lately is nothing but features parading as businesses. Sure, these guys get to be entered in the "Flip It Quick Acquisition Lottery", but beyond that, none seem to be creating anything of any real value." I gotta agree with Russ... there are a lot of folks out there burning through a lot of angel money thinking they are the "Flickr of..." or "Weblogs, Inc. of.." but they don't seem to have any focus on the bottom line. At this point I've officially upgraded my Bubble Indicator(TM) from "frothy" to "bubbly."
• Feel better buddy.
• Gotham Gal hit Sun Valley for the first time... and loved it. Spent some time there a couple of years ago and loved it. Hey Slashfood and Gadling... get her some link love!
• The Palace web 2.0 style--somewhere Mark Jeffrey is smiling (Hive7). I built something like this for AOL's Greenhouse/GNN called "Restaurant City" with Barry Wine. We used Udi Shapiro's Virtual Places software. VP was an amazing piece of technology... you could put 10 people in a bus and go surf the web together, taking turns driving. It was sick... AOL turned it off, Udi bought it back, and it was never seen again.

(PS - What do you guys think of these short, quick hit posts I've been doing. I'm enjoying doing them because it gives me the ability to touch on a lot of things without having to write a huge essay... and yes, I'm ripping off Dave Winer's style :-).

Good debate from down under about Web 2.0....

From the guy who was doing Web 2.0 when the rest of us were in college/high school/kindergarten:

• Whenever new media tries to replicate old media, it tends to fail. When it takes advantage of the unique social and personal behaviors of this new medium, it does pretty well.

Wow, this is kind of scary. I wrote how YouTube was a business based on copyright infringement and used all the SNL skits on their service as an example. Now SNL has come down hard on them. [ Update: Rafat took the time out to mention my last post in relation to the SNL action--Rafat is so on point. ]

Now, let me say that a couple of things:

1. YouTube does not deserve the #1 listing on Google for Lazy Sunday. YouTube's traffic is based on exactly this phenomenon: content owners don't put their content online, some users pirates the content, and YouTube--the only place to get the pirated content--becomes the #1 Google search results.

2. SNL obviously got more from the viral nature of this promotion than anything they could ever buy. They should put every single one of the skits on the Internet *for free* and put an advertisement in front of them. They would be making at least 1M a month from this within six months. SNL should also put skits that didn't make it on the show on the Internet, as well as bloggers and other colaterial material. In fact, in short period of time SNL will have more value online than offline.

3. YouTube knows they are a heaven for pirates, but I don't think they should be shut down for it. YouTube is the telephone company and they provide dialtone. What people do with that dialtone is up to them. I beleive that.

4. YouTube is not a real business (or an innovative business). This is my main point. Let's not look at YouTube's page views and claim they are some amazing business. Napster and Kazaa had a ton of traffic too--it just wasn't web-based. If you could do an Alexa graph of Kazaa, BitTorrent, Usenet, and the old Napster they would be number one through four on Alexa!

Watching DIGG, Engadget, and MySpace climb in the rankings? Those are real businesses. If those sites added the ability to distribute stolen video in two clicks they would shoot up to the top 10 sites!

Let me break it down: YouTube and other video hosting sites have made it easy to pirate stuff on the web (which is where piracy started), but they shouldn't be positioned as some revolutionary business. It's a silly, little business that anyone could setup in a week. The fact that folks are talking about them being bought for some large amount of money by Newscorp is commical. They are a glorified FTP site with TAGS people! I could set this up in a weekend with two kids in high-school and a couple of cases of Red Bull. In fact, the first two programmers to email me with a decent resume I'll back you guys to build a YouTube compeititor--provided you can build it in under five days.

3. SNL has the right to have their stuff taken down, and taken down quickly. As do the other folks who are having their content stolen daily (think MadTV, Dave Chappelle, etc). However, those folks should put some free stuff up and link to paid stuff to strike a balance between piracy and not having their content available.

Really.

Folks checking in on this post: Fred, Paul & Ben. (if you have commented on your blog feel free to post the url in the comments).