Hey Gary, thanks for the feedback. I was a writer on the story. If it's the number you're pointing too, we sourced it heavily. It's a valuation of an asset at a given time--sourced by a wide range of Web 2.0 insiders as well as vc and banking types.
AS for the story, it's not a valuation story. Rather, I intended to capture the antics of a guy with a good idea. Is it a bubble? Does it matter to the story we told? Kevin’s story points to changing dynamics in the valley. How would you have approached this?
Hope you're well...Jessi
Jessi,
If I were approaching the story, I would have tried to provide a convincing explanation of the number on the cover. It is not adequately explained or attributed.
Also I guess I would have tried to put the cover guy in context (as per Hof's comments) and tried to make the tone more skeptical. There is a lack of what we used to call "tension" in the piece.
I can only guess here, but the piece is so brief and lacking in attributed sources that it reads as if you wrote it up as a six-column section lead, and someone said "Hey, that's a cover!"
The valuation issue was raised by others, but I think that they have a good point. You say, "Nonetheless, people in the know say Digg is easily worth $200 million." Well, then why didn't you use that number? Why did you use $60 million? It's surprising to see a number like that on the cover but with no substantiation within the article.
Then you have the attribution of critical points to "people in the know" and the "some" and the "smart money." You have some quotes from the Haas guy but not much else other than insiders.
Also, and perhaps more importantly, I don't get a sense as to the virtues of his website, and why it is so fantastic and made him such a rich guy. That is just sort of given, to be taken on faith.
Sorry I couldn't be more positive.
This is a great blog
Commenting by HaloScan
