How not to get on covered on TechCrunch
After that, I figured 'hey! Maybe I actually have a chance with TechCrunch!'. In my mind TC covers only very high profile, tech-related startups, so at first I didn't think that they would be interested by a science news site started part-time by a PhD student in retrovirology ;) So I submitted my story via the form on their contact page. No answer for two days, so I submitted it to Mashable, which wrote a post about the site very quickly (http://mashable.com/2008/05/21/eureka-science-new/). Cool, but the traffic this link generated was much lower than I expected (< 200 views, Drupal gave me > 6000).
I then looked back at TC contact page and noticed a the 'newstip' email link at the top of the page; the contact form is much more visible, but now I can tell that the newstip email link is much more efficient; I wrote a quick mail about my site and the coverage that we got so far on Drupal and Mashable, thinking that it would help getting covered on TechCrunch.
This time they answered promptly; I was very excited! But they said that while my site was very interesting, they like to cover news first and that they were going to pass on this one since we got covered by Mashable, even if they love science.
It's very sad because Eureka Science News is the first vertical I used my intelligent news aggregator for - copyright-free press releases are readily available for most news published daily; I'm looking for VC funding to license Associated Press content to build a website covering all news categories. Getting on TC would have helped for sure!
So don't make the same mistake, submit to TechCrunch FIRST via the newstip email link, not the contact form! At worse, you'll get rejected and you can give the exclusive to someone else ;) I sure wish I did, now I won't know the kind of traffic TC can send (but I'm sure its more than the 200 hits I got from Mashable!). I even had nightmares about it last night, a thing you sure want to avoid ;)
38 comments
[ 2.4 ms ] story [ 87.4 ms ] threadIsn't this fairly well known already?
I was wondering who was removing my "Daniel"s...
Fine. I'll try. I can't promise one won't slip in sometimes. As I've said in another comment on this exciting topic, I've been signing my posts "Daniel" for over ten years now, so there's bound to be times when I forget not to sign when commenting here. But I'll try my best.
If you sign your email "Thanks, Brian" or "Regards, Brian" or "Cheers, Brian" then that is much better than "- Brian" or nothing at all. Similarly, I include "Dear XXX," or "Hi XXXX, " or at least "XXXX," at the beginning of the message.
Unfortunately (and unfortunate for many reasons), science isn't a huge draw in a generalized audience (and both Mashable and TC aren't exactly science-oriented).
Oh and PS you should definitely try to see about some coverage here:
http://blogs.discovery.com/good_idea/
http://www.worldsciencefestival.com/
http://science.discovery.com/
I stopped reading TC a while ago because the signal to noise ratio started diving, but I wouldn't read it now even if it had great content. I don't care who has what first, I'll read who's comprehensive and honest.
Mike wants to be the new CNET and that's not going to happen by being a bitch about being first.
What's TC's goal? Covering web startups or covering web startups that Mashable hasn't written about? The content at TC has been going down hill for a long time, but this is really pathetic.
It's short sighted to not consider that a blog like TC wants to be the first to cover something; there's enough of an echo in the blogosphere already.
It sucks not to be featured on TechCrunch, but this is not a pivotal loss in the life of your startup by any means.
So really unless your target audience are techies, getting featured on sites like that really doesn't do much for you
I think that republishing someone else's RSS feed in full on your site is at best bad etiquette, at worst it's just plain stealing. I left a comment about it on the drupal page you linked to.
If you look at it, it is far from obvious that the content is being aggregated from other sources. Looking at the front page one might easily assume that this is all the sites own content.
There are no mentions of sources or links to sources on the frontpage. When you click on a link, you are not brought to the source, but instead to another page on the site which republishes the content from the source in full. Again it looks like this is the sites own content.
If you scroll down below the fold you eventually find a link to source but on the articles I checked this just links the the source sites main page and not to the individual article at the source site.
Link to the source, no full content. The full content articles come from related press releases on universities websites, etc
Also, the posts that really seem to draw comments and the most buzz are all about the titans of the industry (Facebook, Yahoo, Google, MS) They don't exactly need the PR but that's what people love to discuss and rant about.