We looked at both shows, but no-starter on TC50 is that you can't have any public exposure before the event. This seems pretty silly, in my opinion. Most decent startups should have exposure before a singular event. Banking on entry into one event is a poor decision (more foolish is banking on winning the competition, as that's where 99% of the publicity goes).
DEMO has less stringent requirements when it comes to the amount of publicity a startup has before the event, which, in my opinion, allows companies that aren't sitting on their butts when it comes to marketing have a nice big event at which to launch.
Edit: I should also note that I've had one group of friends go to DEMO, and one get into the TC50 Demo Pit. The former got a ton of exposure and new users. The latter got no benefit in terms of attracting users. Granted, this is a minimal sample size.
Great drama, though Mike does have a point - the $1mil prize is only useful if IDG has a magazine in your niche. That said, DEMO still has the most mainstream press walking the floor (nytimes, etc) and it covers much more than just web startups. Quick rule of thumb: you want mainstream press: Demo. You want exposure in Silicon Valley: TC50. Neither event is necessary. Why launch with a flood of 40-100 other companies when you could launch in a down news cycle and get all the attention for your company? And although it's fun, beware of manufactured drama
Attendees looking to invest in new companies probably like DEMO because the presenters are convinced enough they have a great product that they'll come up with the funds to go there. They're showing both a solid demo and enough leadership/backing to procure the money to play.
At TechCrunch50, investors can see a different sort of startup. One who has a lot of potential, but may not have had the drive/opportunity to gather any real money in the first place.
From a purely investment risk perspective, companies that are already finding capital with a good idea and a good demo have more going for them than startups that merely have an idea and a good demo.
Because of this, perhaps VC firms (and big business partners) like DEMO more and angels/seed funds like TechCrunch 50 more.
And, of course, the big gaping hole in that argument is that if you can effectively raise money to participate in DEMO, then you don't need DEMO's help with raising money.
I'd be curious to see a breakdown of success vs. failure from DEMO and TC50 launches. I'm betting, even without knowing anything about the selection criteria of either or having ever spent any time at all looking at the companies launching at either, that TC50 produces more success stories.
Hmmm...actually I just checked out the DEMO site...there's an awful lot of old companies "launched" at DEMO (RealNetworks, really!?!?).
So, now I not only can't believe anyone would pay to present at DEMO, I also can't believe anyone would be willing to sit through that kind of crapfest. It's just a bunch of ads. Why would anyone, particularly someone representing millions or billions of dollars, want to sit through a bunch of ads?
I just don't get it, obviously. Pretty swish website they have, though.
Edit: DEMO 09 appears to have had roughly half the participants as DEMO Fall 08. Perhaps the rules changed, or perhaps folks made the connection that it's not the best use of time/effort/money. I dunno.
> And, of course, the big gaping hole in that argument is that if you can effectively raise money to participate in DEMO, then you don't need DEMO's help with raising money.
That sounds a bit like a reflexive argument to my comment.
Conferences aside and all other things being equal-- if you were an investor, would you rather put your money in a team you know can already raise $20,000 if they need it versus someone with unknown skills/means in that area?
Surely it's not a negative. You know the old adage that most investors are happy to invest in companies that don't really need their money.
But of course, just because a company can raise $20k doesn't mean they don't need "real" money-- which is surely why they got the initial funds so they could demo and raise more.
Sure. I think your devil's advocate positions were quite well-reasoned. I'm just returning the favor. A few companies I respect have done DEMO. I don't think they're idiots, just because they wasted $20k on DEMO. Everybody makes mistakes. But, I really don't think I'd be willing to sit through that particular dog and pony show, if I were an investor.
It's not just about raising money for DEMO. A British startup I know launched there as their main market was the US, so overcoming the geographical barrier by throwing money at it really worked out for them. They raised VC investment in the UK after DEMO (but already had enough funding for the launch, clearly).
"Attendees looking to invest in new companies probably like DEMO because the presenters are convinced enough they have a great product that they'll come up with the funds to go there."
Or they are desperate enough to pay $20,000 for some attention from the tech blogs and one month of hype with the VCs. All those online networks with "over X many angels and VC's" prey on the same kind of startups. Pay to pitch some angel network.
"At TechCrunch50, investors can see a different sort of startup. One who has a lot of potential, but may not have had the drive/opportunity to gather any real money in the first place."
Empirically incorrect. A lot of them have raised quite a bit of money before TC50.
"From a purely investment risk perspective, companies that are already finding capital with a good idea and a good demo have more going for them than startups that merely have an idea and a good demo."
True. But if your first two premises are wrong, this one is moot.
Definitely appreciate the playing devil's advocate -- this is not a personal attack.
> Empirically incorrect. A lot of them have raised quite a bit of money before TC50.
You can't say that statement is incorrect (and be right) as the devil's advocate said "may not have had the drive". The argument wasn't that TC50 companies have no investment, but that DEMO companies must have investment.
In other words, with DEMO you're assured that the companies had, at some point, $20k (and probably more if they can survive with paying a $20k fee). With TechCrunch50, the company only had to impress some judges with sweat and there was no guaranteed monetary bar they had to meet (though many do have money, of course).
So there's a guaranteed filter applied to every single presenter at a DEMO conference that the company had enough money to afford it-- which might be a filter that some larger scale investments/partners would prefer to be assured of to strip out most (if not all) solely bootstrapped companies that might not be companies they prefer in their portfolios.
As a socially interesting analysis I think there is enough of a parallel here to think of this as a flame-war between TC50 and DEMO - on the million dollar scale..
I have to say though as someone who has taken little or no interest in either event the Techcrunch "prize" seems vast... I know I'd kill for a full $1,000,000 in advertising on their sites... it could worth billions :D
I dont like Arrington much: but I have to admit he has some style :)
That was my first thought as well. But it I'm afraid the "right now" is the key part of your first sentence.
It doesn't really seem like TC is trying to help startups with the prize. It looks more like an attempt to push out DEMO so they can become the only major startup demo-event.
The article is written as if DEMO added the prize money as an attack on TC50 and as if DEMO is trying to trick entrepreneurs with fake rates and hidden expenses. None of it backed up in any way.
To me the article look like FUD and the TC50/DEMO war fairly one sided.
Exactly. The post starts with: "Despite our best intentions, it looks like the DEMO v. TechCrunch50 war will continue" but clearly Michael Arrington is fueling the war as much as DEMO is: "if DEMO increases their number, we’ll increase ours to stay at 2x whatever they are at"
Being the peaceful one would be not to react to what the other one is doing...
In the same way they question DEMO's advertising giveaway you could probably question the TechCrunch one. It's just going to be advertising on there site? Unless your aiming your startup purely at the tech community doesn't sound great.
Anyone wondering how this can be a profitable decision for TC?
Do they gross so much off TC50 that they can afford to give away $4M for an edge in a contest they were already winning by a landslide?
This isn't going to cost TC 4 million bucks in cash. It is (allegedly) worth 4 million to the startup. For example they are offering to plug the startup on TC - which is free to TC and probably very valuable to a startup.
Wow, $20,000 is quite a lot of money, I would rather spend it on surviving a few more months as a startup to make a better product to make my users happy. Who are really the only ones who will eventually make your product popular or unpopular.
May be they are targeting companies that have already been funded.
>> Maybe they are targeting companies that have already been funded.
This is definitely the case.
I can't imagine an angel would be happy if their money was spent to present at DEMO. A YC company would have to spend their entire 3 month stipend to get a spot. Insanity.
DEMO has less stringent requirements when it comes to the amount of publicity a startup has before the event, which, in my opinion, allows companies that aren't sitting on their butts when it comes to marketing have a nice big event at which to launch.
Edit: I should also note that I've had one group of friends go to DEMO, and one get into the TC50 Demo Pit. The former got a ton of exposure and new users. The latter got no benefit in terms of attracting users. Granted, this is a minimal sample size.