An Interview With Michael Arrington

L.G.: It's a pretty savage Darwinian environment out there, isn't it?

M.A.: Absolutely, except we live in a world where you're not being eaten by a lion when you fail, you just have to go get another job. It is Darwinian in a sense. This is a whole other subject, but people sometimes say that I'm a kingmaker, if I write about a startup positively, but that's not really true. I have called companies successful, I said this is going to be a winner, and they fail dismally. And the other way around: I say I don't like this startup and they do very well-it happens all the time. So I really just sort of ride a wave and try to say what's going on, but I really have very little impact on whether a startup is successful or not.

L.G.: But what you do have, it seems, is a lot of sources which you work relentlessly, and people seem attracted to TechCrunch because you and the reporters you've hired seem to be on the cutting edge of what is going on behind the scenes in the industry.

M.A.: We definitely know sources are important, and I cultivate them, and I do hammer them constantly.

L.G.: You have been all over Yahoo-Microsoft, or Fox Interactive-Yahoo, or whatever's going on there. What's the state of play? As we speak, what's going on there, Mike?

M.A.: There's a whole lot going on, and it's interesting. This merger, probably more than any one merger in the past, is being waged through the press, because they were such a big part of it in the beginning. Both sides are leaking things to the press, both sides are trying to manipulate the press to their advantage. Sometimes it's hard to tell a real leak from a fake leak, or just one that's being manipulative. But as far as I can tell, Microsoft still wants Yahoo; they want them bad. But they're not willing to just start increasing their offer to get there. They think that they can get there by playing hardball, and from what I can tell, Yahoo and the board will do almost anything, short of being sued or going to jail, to stop that deal.

L.G.: And you were just at Yahoo on Friday, right?

M.A.: Yeah, how'd you know that?

L.G.: Well, I could say that I have scary inside information, but I have to just admit that you told me you were on your way to Yahoo for a meeting.

M.A.: Yeah, I was there. I was just being pre-briefed on a couple products and launches.

L.G.: I see. To what extent do you think you're being used in this whole thing, since obviously a lot of people, including in the mainstream media, follow your website to figure out what's going on?

M.A.: Last night, for instance, I reported on a slightly different thing. I reported that News Corp. might be unhappy with their $900 million advertising deal with Google.  And they might be negotiating with Microsoft. Now I know that they are talking to Microsoft. I don't know if that's been in-person meetings or just a couple of phone calls saying, "We should talk." I don't know how deep they've gone, but I know it's happened, and I know that the leak originated at Fox, and it makes a lot of sense for them to just make sure that Google knows that they're wanting to go to another partner. Now, today, they're officially saying that's untrue and categorically denying it. So, clearly, they wanted the story to run because they wanted to make sure that Google knows that there are alternatives out there, but they certainly don't want to go beyond that. It happens all the time.

L.G.: How would you describe the philosophy of what you're doing here?

M.A.: What I like to do is post information far earlier than most journalists would post it. I think most journalists would maybe get a tip on something and then start digging, talking to all their contacts. Most of the tips I get are the kinds of tips that just aren't going to be confirmed by anyone. I might get somebody to say it's inaccurate, but when I start calling my other sources, they're just either going to not know, or if they're on the record for the company, they're just not going to talk to me. With things like the Google-Fox-Microsoft ad deal, on the record, that is not going to be confirmed one way or the other. I assume that real journalists would either not post anything or maybe they'd wait and try to find another source. I like to post the information early, and say, "Look, this is what I have and this is who I have it from." It's a single-sourced rumor, this is what they're saying, the source has been reliable in the past, and sort of leave it at that-and then let other blogs use their own contacts and see how things play out. And I think an interesting conversation occurs then —where it's not just me, it's a number of blogs playing any particular story and trying to find the truth. And sometimes the truth can be found much quicker that way than through the traditional journalistic means.

L.G.: How big is your staff now?

M.A.: We have eight or nine full-time. Erick Schonfeld I hired from Business 2.0. He's my co-editor at TechCrunch, he's out of New York-he's great. We have different styles but he's taught me a lot, and I showed him a few things about blogging and he's working out awesomely. And then most of the rest of the staff are on our international sites and on Crunch Gear, our gadget blog.

L.G.: And you have Heather Harde, your C.E.O. who came from News Corp. Is she in L.A.?

M.A.: No, she moved up here. So five of us work out of my house, including Heather, and two of those five are part-time guys that are developers.

L.G.: I see. And is your house still in the kind of pathetic-bachelor status that I've seen described in articles, with a shag carpet in need of shampooing and things like that?

M.A.: No, I ripped the carpet up and replaced it over the summer. But it's still just me who lives here and then my company comes in everyday.

L.G.: But you're still in the rented house, and you haven't splurged to get yourself into digs that would be impressive to outsiders coming in and seeking to be impressed.

M.A.: No, I haven't. It's funny because sometimes you walk into startups, and the best startups could be in the worst offices, because in Silicon Valley it's so hard to get good offices. So for people here, you don't really look at what you're walking into, you listen to the ideas. I mean, the house I'm living in here, it's in Atherton; it's in a rich area, on an acre of land. It's an old house, but it fits what we need perfectly. It's four bedrooms. We changed a few of them into offices, and I'm able to work from home and hang out with my dog. It's great.