About a month ago I got into a scuffle over these tweets that I made regarding a comment that Tino Mantella made about Twitter where he said (emphasis is mine):
Q: Are you twittering or blogging?
A: On and off. I only do it when I have something to say. I am not a big fan of telling people my every step. I can’t understand why people are twitting that they are going to buy ice cream, recording baseball scores minute by minute, or what they did on their summer vacation. My news just is not that interesting, and, in my opinion, theirs isn’t either… message to twitters… stay of [sic] the airwaves unless you have something to tell me.
In case you think this is a case of a reporter getting the facts wrong, you can read essentially the same message on Tino’s blog.
The point of the scuffle was that I didn’t “get” TAG because I don’t go to their events (completely true – I only go when invited and someone else is paying for me to attend). That said, this tweet from Allen Graber says it all for me:
I’d say the whole thing deserves one of these stickers.
Update: To be fair, I think this post may be skewed because of my recent interaction with Tino and Allen does say this to defend TAG.
Update 2: One final note and I want to be clear about this. I think the staff and Tino are doing a great job putting on a HUGE event. It’s hard putting on events and it’s easy to find fault at this, that, and the other. At Startup Riot, WiFi access was a MAJOR FAIL. That said, I think there needs to be a little bit more thought on who is footing the bill for a large event like this. Should it be the large technology companies here in town or startups? I favor the large tech companies. But that’s just me.
Update 3: As Paul Freet points out, the costs to participate are spelled out on TAG’s site. That’s totally cool and so the above is probably unfounded but still perhaps some thought needs to be around the ability of these companies to pay. But do note that five scholarships are given to waive the entire $1,000 fee.
If you ever want to be gainfully employed you need to have somebody review this stuff before hitting that submit button.
Like Graber, I like the folks at TAG, and generally support their efforts, but I do agree that the model behind the TAG Top 40 competition is flawed. Many others do as well.
When my previous company (PlayMotion) won the Top 10 award, I too was a little surprised that we had to pay for a table at the event. It just didn’t sit right with us – but we did it anyway, because we wanted the exposure.
We need to put these young companies on a pedestal, and nurture them. We can’t afford to shake them down just so they can get some decent local and regional publicity. $1K is a lot of money when you are trying to grow your venture and make ends meet.
This is one of the reasons we don’t charge money at StartupLounge events (like CapitalLounge). I’d rather an entrepreneur keep that $20 or $25 and use it to buy business cards, or pay for web hosting.
My advice to TAG (and other groups), is simple: if you really, really, really, truly want to engage a certain segment of the community (in this case, entrepreneurs), then do what all innovative company founders do – listen to the market. The market never lies.
Surveys are great, but they contain a lot of “noise”. Instead, do this: Hand select 10 of the biggest troublemaking, yet innovative thinkers within the community and put them in a room. No attorneys, no board members, no lobbyists, no government officials, and no job seekers who have copious amounts of spare time to give. People that make a living by thinking out of the box.
Let us solve the problem for you. Yes, there is a need to pay for events, logistics, etc. But it can be done in a better way.
When we started our CapitalLounge event 2 years ago, very few believed we could hold a high-end event, in a nice venue, with a nice gourmet food spread, with 300+ people, and not charge at the door. We did it. It can be done.
90% of the world’s problems are solved by entrepreneurs – not government, associations, etc. What I am saying is “let us help you help us!”
I can almost guarantee you that if this were to happen, TAG would gain an ENORMOUS amount of respect within the startup community, and could play a more pivotal role within the ecosystem.
Whaddya say, Tino? I’d be happy to volunteer my time for such an effort, and I’m pretty sure many others would as well.
OK – enough of my rambling … off to get ready for CapitalLounge tonight!
Cheers.
Scott
I simply ditto what @lance said.
I just tweeted a similar (though less eloquent) thought. I’d love to figure out a way to get TAG $40k so startups don’t have to pay a nickel to participate. That would probably increase the number of applications too (yeah, maybe some of it would be noise but I think there would be at least a few gems that need nurturing in there). Happy to help. The question is, will I (or Scott) be asked because we’re so vocal about what’s wrong with stuff here in Georgia?
Sanjay and Scott,
I spoke with Kimberly and Amanda at TAG, and they really appreciate your offer to help with the Summit! There are about 20 cases of “Hot, Flat and Crowded” that need to make their way over to the Galleria by 6:45am on the 3rd. They will meet you at the Centergy loading dock at 6:15 (sharp). You guys are the best! ;-)
@melaniebrandt if I/we do that and cause them not to charge the 40 companies a fee to attend/present, I’m in. I’ll even do it on the day that is Shotput Venture’s Open House just as a sign of goodwill and helping out. So how say you/TAG?
If it’s a yes, I need to start getting jobs moving stuff and charging $40k a pop. One or two of those a year and I won’t have to worry about finding a gig. :-)
So I’ve been thinking about my comment and think I should apologize to Sanjay and Scott – my comment was snarkier than was needed, particularly since the post and Scott’s comment had moved to more of a constructive tone. I was trying to be funny and express uspport for TAG and the staff who are working on putting on what I truly believe is a great event for Atlanta technology. I could have and should have done this in a less sarcastic way. Sorry guys.
Melanie – no worries – I think Sanjay and I both took your post in the spirit in which it was intended. Good stuff :) If we can’t laugh about the issues, then the whole thing is a bust.
A few more random thoughts on the main issue of the original post:
While I would still certainly welcome an approach such as the one I outlined above, there is an easy answer to all of this.
All finalists, winners, etc. could be given two complimentary seats, irrespective of their size. If they want more, they can buy additional seats at their expense, or get a whole table.
The Equifaxes of the world will undoubtedly buy a whole table. That’s just the way they roll. And the smaller companies can adjust accordingly. If they can afford to buy more seats for other employees or friends, they will.
But I don’t feel it should be presumed that a finalist will need to buy a table, or even a single seat. Otherwise, what’s the point of even being nominated?
As someone pointed out in Twitter (Blake?), it’s somewhat reminiscent of those “Who’s Who” books. You know – “Wow, look how smart you are! We want to put you in our book of really important people. So, how many books would you like to buy?”
Yes, I know that TAG offers a small number of “scholarships” – for up to 5 winners. In the right model, there would be no need for scholarships and exceptions.
At the end of the day, it is all about intent and trust. Little things matter – and they go a long, long way toward building constructive bridges.
And if you have an established trust across the board, coupled with the right intent, well, those seats will fill up on their own.
While I obviously can’t attend every TAG event that is held, the ones I do attend are well produced, no question. Most especially so with respect to the yearly summit (which includes the TAG Top 40/10 component). TAG does a great job at addressing the needs of larger, more established companies. But startups are a vastly different breed – and I think the model can be improved to better serve that audience.
My two cents – just got back from CapitalLounge, and off to bed … well, in a few more hours.
Cheers.
Scott
Scott, I think you hit the nail on the head. The TAG Top 40 is not targeted to “startups”. It is targeted to later stage growth and scale type of companies. We have a progression of events targeted to different stage companies and I think that is a good thing.
I’ll use Skribit as an example. Last year is was late concept/early seed. Applied to and presented at Startup Riot. We discussed what do to this year. We selected to do the TAG/GRA Business Launch. General fit aside the company is too early in its development to consider the Top 40.
The Top 40 is not targeted to concept and seed stage companies. It is targeted to companies that can afford to shell out $1,000. If a company can and finds value do it. If not, don’t.
We really don’t need a Southern version of Demo vs. TechCrunch.
Lots of misrepresentation here, but that’s okay as it’s always good to hear what people think. The facts should matter though. As I mentioned to Sanjay – ready, fire, and then aim is not always the best.
A few points.
1. ShopVisible submitted a form saying that they were planning to pay if they got a slot. This was news to Allen until I called him and told him that one of his staff had responded at the beginning of the process. If they had only asked for a scholarship they would have gotten one!
2. Scott; we offered scholarships last year as well. PlayMotion was producing revenue so they might have been deemed not eligible, but thanks for your thoughts. Also, since they never paid us, they got a scholarship.
3.The Top 40 task force wanted to make certain that young companies would not be shut out so we implemented the scholarship program to equalize the playing field.
4. The Top 40 is for innovative technology companies at any level. Not sure why anyone would suggest a company that is generating millions in revenue should have an exhibit table, to display before 1200 leaders, for free when they would be paying $5k or more somewhere else.
More on my blog….after the Summit
Tino – if you truly thought that “ready, fire, and then aim” wasn’t the best approach, I would think that you would have thought better than to try to physically intimidate me at Capital Lounge. And that is a fact. You can talk to the dozens of people who saw you do it.
I’m not sure where you are reading that anyone said companies that are making money should present for free. In fact, I said the exact opposite. I think it is you who is misrepresenting what is and has been said.
Tino – you clearly don’t care what the community, or I, have to say about anything that TAG does. That’s fine – that’s your prerogative. But don’t ever try to physically intimidate me because of what I say or my opinions. It isn’t going to work. Period.
UPDATE: By the way, I’m done with this thread and won’t be posting any additional commentary or thoughts on this thread. I’ve said what I’ve wanted to say and people have responded and acted how they think best to my initial post. That’s good enough for me. That said I will probably delve into analyzing aspects of the local community in the future.
Tino – thanks for coming and posting your thoughts.
I do feel the need to point out to others that when TAG was attempting to collect payment from PlayMotion, I was no longer working for the company.
I look forward to your longer post after the Summit.
“If you ever want to be gainfully employed you need to have somebody review this stuff before hitting that submit button.”
Valid point, but the other side of that coin is worth considering. (scroll down to #4)
http://blog.guykawasaki.com/2006/01/the_art_of_inno.html
I thought you meant #9!
I feel obliged to add my voice to the chorus here since my tweet was the unintentional impetus for this post.
I made a mistake here that I am sorry about. Before criticizing the policies of the TAG Top 40, I should have read the TAG website and I should have reviewed the entry forms. Tino is right–it is outlined pretty clearly. I didn’t realize there was a stated entry fee, so when I found out we had to pay after being selected as a Top 40 company, I was a bit dismayed and, for better or worse, publicized my philosophical disagreement.
I do want to be clear that I while I was criticizing the policy, I certainly did not mean to criticize the organization or the representatives that work for it. Frankly, I haven’t had enough interaction with anyone at TAG (or their programs) to be justified in such social commentary. I know people will say that if you criticize the policies then you are in essence crticizing the people, but truly, this was not my intention.
With that being said, I still do not agree with the policy of applying for an honor and then having to pay to receive that honor. I don’t care if you are a large company like Equifax or an early stage venture likeBandMetrics, in my humble opinion, if you win an award, you shouldn’t have to pay to actually “win” it. It’s not that $1,000 is too hefty of a price tag for an event like this. Yes, I know other trade shows/exhibits can charge much more. And, yes, I know it takes alot of money to put on a program like the GA Technology Summit and to operate TAG.
But, even with all this, for some reason, I am still against the policy of pay to play. Maybe in future years there could be an option to still be honored as a Top 40 company if you don’t want to pay (and didn’t get a scholarship).
I mentioned above that I should apologize about a couple of things. The second thing that I am sorry about is that ShopVisible is going to have the dubious honor of being selected as a 2009 TAG Top 40 but then not included because of my mis-steps. I did notify TAG this past week that ShopVisible wouldn’t be able to attend the Summit. In so doing, I didn’t realize it would disqualify us from receiving the honor. In fact, I didn’t know that we were not going to be included until the official press release came out. My co-workers worked hard not only on our application but also in getting us to where we are today as a company. So, I am sorry to my co-workers that I bobbled the management of this task and was not more thorough in my understanding of TAG policy.
In any event, this is probably way too much on this subject. I should be out playing in the slush. The Summit looks like it will be an interesting and fun event and I congratulate all of the other TAG Top 40 (and Top 10) companies on their achievement.
Allen,
Thanks for your comments. Let’s hope to get you in the competition next year. Please stay connected to TAG.
Scott; you are 100% correct on your having left the company. I should have included it. I certainly have the utmost respect for you and what you do.
Sanjay; what can I say. Try not to be such a drama queen. I was angry because you called me a liar pubically on your twitter. You can’t take something like that back or hide behind your computer. Not only was that an erroneuos comment, but it was slandorous. Maybe you think you can hide behind the computer and get away with something like this, but my generation, at least, does not take kindly to that sort of thing.
You are right, bullying, on line or off is not appropriate. You made my point for me. Maybe you will think twice about making random posts, but knowing now your ego need, I doubt it. Many people have told me that you are ruining Twitter for them. I know two high-level leaders that have “given up twitter for lent”. And, I also will not ready, fire, aim. It’s always best to think before one talks and to think before one acts. I know that too.
Maybe we can start again at some point.
If you want to learn something about TAG or me, you should take the time to do it. I extend you an open invitation to get to know us better. Rather that make things up….learn something. Then, like happens every day here, I will be happy to hear your thoughts.
Excellent points. Another organization (outside of Atlanta, in Silicon Valley) did a similar thing called Launch:SV 2009. Of the 10 companies selected to present, they had to pay to attend.
Is this a new trend? Charging startups for the ability to present to a “qualified” panel of potential investors? I understand charging a “cover charge” in order to keep the “riffraff out” but this is ridiculous.