
When reading recent articles in e.g.
Business Week ("How this kid made $60 million in 18 months"),
FAZ ("Internet zum Mitmachen") or
The Financial Times Germany ("$300 for a virtual living room") one could think that this time the traditional media guys don't want to miss the next Internet wave. At least it seems they want to be at the forefront of reporting about it. It is obvious that they are onto something or why would this thing be called Web 2.0, they might think?
While in Europe people read those articles from FAZ or The Financial Times Germany, nod and mostly move on, in the US Business Week is stepping on some other guys' turf and being critized heavily for covering things in the new Web 2.0 in quite a sloppy way. Not that FAZ is not mixing up things too, but just noone seems to care (or maybe know?). Of course as usual Business Week is also trying to attract their readers with catchy stories, and what is better than taking some Web 2.0 star kid, putting him onto their cover and making him a millionaire (although that is still only true on paper)?
Here a taste of the stuff that is being thrown at BW:
Good Morning Silicon Valley:
That $60 million figure is utter BS. It's tossed out in mid-article with virtually no explanation along with another suspect figure that values Digg at $200 million. Quite a fairy tale, no? Reminds me of the days when a black-and-white sock puppet interviewed fellow canines, the Garden.com billboard over 101 was still lush and everything was bubblicious.
Techdirt:
Suffice to say, BusinessWeek has written the ultimate Web2.0 hype piece without the slightest hint of skepticism about the numbers that it throws around. Digg very well may be sold at some point, and Kevin and the other Digg staff may make out very well. However, to suggest that they already have is pure bubble logic. Yeah, we've got some serious deja vu.