DISQUS

Louis Gray · 2 years ago

Even if the discussions were true, I don't know that TechCrunch would want to align themselves with a boat anchor like CNET. Putting on my "Web 2.0 bubble" glasses, I could make an argument that TechCrunch is "more valuable" than CNET, fundamental business metrics aside.

Mathew · 2 years ago

I would have a tendency to agree, Louis.

Tish Grier · 2 years ago

A sale *might* happen if, perhaps, Arrington, Malik, and others got tired of running their new media empires. The reasons they started those ventures was, I think, to be un-msm. And they've done quite well..

Looking at folks who've sold new-media ventures, the ventures were sold, in part, because they weren't making a lot of money with them (I'm thinking of Pegasus News, for one.) But, if the new media enterprise is making money, and everybody's happy, esp. at this point, what would be the reason to sell?

And, from reading Arrington regularly, I think he really enjoys the community he's got over there, and interacting with them--something if sold to CNET he might have to give up. CNET's blogs might have great content, but they're a bit low on community involvement and interaction. Certainly nothing like TechCrunch.

Low Unique Visitors · 2 years ago

I heard some folks at valleywag saying that John Battelle's people are saying that Mike's uniques are well under 1.5 million a month and the growth is not there. That puts him way below cnet. I peg him at 20m tops.

Jeremy Toeman · 2 years ago

Also, don't forget how much Mike hates CNET... But then again, $100MM is a quick way to forget!

Joe Duck · 2 years ago

I think this is Blodget's clever jab back at Arrington for asking to "Muzzle" him for suggesting Google could go to 2000 per share. He's seeing how much the blogosphere will overreact to that rather spectacular blog valuation.
*
That said it is very conspicuous to me how some of the failing big online players seem to have more money for aquisitions than they have innovation or common sense. Given their archives and legions of underpaid high-quality writers, newspapers are in a great position to almost dominate the online content spectrum but even large papers usually have a tiny web staff who the writers and salespeople see as second class citizens.
*
I wonder how much this aversion to online society plays a role in the problems papers are having and the success of the TechCrunch's and Engadget's as news providers? I think papers have been "writing off" onliners as ADD people who can't read more than a paragraph without moving on to the next website. This characterization comes at their own advertising revnenue peril.

Joe Duck · 2 years ago

Ummm - people here are seriously suggesting TechCrunch wouldn't sell for $100,000,000? Yes, they would.

G · 2 years ago

1.5 million uniques/month website is worth 100 million dollars?...you guys have to be kidding me!. Even some myspace resource websites run by teens (ex:whateverlife.com) have more traffic than that!

Low Unique Visitors · 2 years ago

techcrunch is an operation that has hype working for them. techcrunch fleeced attendees for tc40 and made a few million and has site ads of about 150,000 per month plus extra paid posts here and there puts them at about 3m per year this year. last year he might have made about 700,000 from what tipsters say mike spilled while at parties. it's a good business but not a big acquisition that unless the talent goes with the deal.

Joe Duck · 2 years ago

you could easily come to the conclusion that TechCrunch is worth about 20 per cent of what CNET is worth — or about $250-million

Matt if you can easily come to that conclusion *have I got a website deal for you!*

$250,000,000 for a site that probably has total revenues of (I'm guessing here) 0.8 to 1.2 million a year?!

Mathew · 2 years ago

Well, Joe, there are some big "ifs" in there :-)

Still, using CNET's uniques and revenues as a model, it's not out of the realm of possibility. Of course, CNET might well be wildly overvalued as well.

Aidan Henry · 2 years ago

I think the bigger question would be whether Arrington would stay on board. Let's be honest - what's a blog without the original publisher? Nothing more than a worthless content management system. TC is only worth something if Mike stays on board - at least in my mind. And I doubt he's willing to work for an archaic Internet firm.

Like I say, I think any blog is worthless without the original publisher as the user base has been built around their style.

Cheers,
Aidan
www.MappingTheWeb.com

Mathew · 2 years ago

I think you are probably right, Aidan.