Valleywag
Jason Calacanis, the publishing entrepreneur who sold a group of weblogs to AOL for $25m, has enjoyed sowing confusion about his plans. We've been fooled ourselves. There was the rumor run by Valleywag that the avid podcaster intended to hire Don Imus, another hint that he was drawn to online video. As an entrepreneur-in-action with Sequoia, whatever that term means, the hyper-active exec said he was wading through business plans submitted to the Silicon Valley venture capital firm. He announced a conference joint venture with Michael Arrington of Techcrunch. But several people, in a position to know of his plans, say these schemes are at most hobbies, or pure disinformation; the next venture is a search engine.
Calacanis, we hear, has already hired about 20 engineers to work on the project. Begun in the poolhouse of his Santa Monica home, it recently moved to an office nearby. Sequoia isn't merely giving him shelter while he comes up with a new idea; Roelof Botha, Calacanis' patron at Sequoia, has already committed the funds. Former associates of Calacanis, such as Mark Cuban and Jonathan Miller, his former boss at AOL, are also backing the venture.
So what's the idea? It's a cross between Wikipedia and Google. Calacanis' new site will create more digestible search results for popular queries such as the names of Hollywood stars, and tech products. The pages will be seeded, initially, with content gathered automatically from the web and other sources. But they will be open to contributions by readers. Sounds like Wikipedia? Yes: except Calacanis will employ paid editors to oversee the pages.
The project makes perfect sense for Calacanis.
1. Money. The bust came before Calacanis could cash out of Silicon Alley Reporter, his first startup. The establishment of Weblogs Inc, and its sale to AOL, restored his entrepreneurial reputation, but didn't make him as rich as poker buddies such as Jeff Dachis, founder of Razorfish. Calacanis wants to make serious money out of his next venture; he has told people his next venture will be the biggest thing he's done. He's too savvy to bet on podcasting, for which there's no significant advertising; he's long been fascinated by search marketing; of course he would address a big opportunity, and there is none bigger on the web.
2. Paid editorial. In building a blog group, and in the work he did for Netscape, Calacanis has always believed in paid editors. Remember, he comes from a traditional publishing background. It's a pattern: take a concept which relies on volunteer labor; copy; and professionalize. When running Weblogs Inc, the weblog group he sold to AOL, Calacanis, like Gawker Media, typically hired bloggers who had previously written for fun, and for free. In copying Digg's voting system on news headlines, when at Netscape, Calacanis hired away some of the top unpaid contributors to the social news site. He's already criticized Wikipedia, the collaborative encyclopedia, for its reliance on uncredentialed editors; it would be entirely consistent with his fast follower's strategy to copy Wikipedia, poach its top editors, and pay them.
3. Blogging. Calacanis is bound, I believe, still by the terms of a non-compete with AOL, so he can't simply replicate the blog network he sold to the Time Warner internet company. But the pages of his new search engine, if frequently updated with news, reader comments, and editorial write-ups, could end up looking much like topic-specific blogs. It's a good way for Calacanis to apply what he knows about lightweight publishing, without obviously retracing his steps.
So, the big question: will it work? One person who's seen a prototype describes it as labor-intensive — "very web 1.0." And even one of the former blog mogul's fans says: "It is extremely ambitious, and it will probably fail." The field is crowded, with companies such as Wikia, a new venture from the founder of Wikipedia; specialist search engines such as Spock; and established "human" search engines such as About.com, owned by the New York Times. Above all, Google itself is gradually enriching its main search results with content such as news headlines and images — and purging other search engines which sneak into its results.
But I wouldn't count out Calacanis. For a start, as we experienced at Gawker Media, he's a ferocious competitor. He loves the smell of battle. Second, there's a limit to the potential of user-generated content. The pool of volunteers is limited. A web 1.0 approach, hiring a team of editors to manage user-generated and aggregated content, sounds sensible, rather than backward. And is it foolhardy to go up against Google in search? Of course the field is crowded, and competitive. But that's because it's so profitable. Search marketing draws the ambitious entrepreneur, such as Calacanis, much as banks do robbers: that's where the money is.
Comments
From Jason Calacanis:
Search?!?! Oh please...
Also, the logic makes no sense: My noncompete is for blog networks--not audio/video.
Where do you get this stuff?!
At this point, "very web 1.0" should be a compliment.
He's very Lindsay Lohan in this photo. Maybe not in a good way.
He oddly looks a lot like his partner (or whatever) on Weblogs - Brian something. Avery?
Jason's criticized Wikipedia for relying on unpaid editors - really, where? I thought he criticized it for passing up untold millions by not carrying ads.
this is almost as good as the don imus stuff... i love you guys--you'll print anything. :-)
Hmmm, can't find a direct reference in writing. There's this... From Calacanis blog post. "I've been saying for a couple of years now that annonimity on the Wikipedia was unacceptable and would have to go away and it seems like even Jimmy Wales is heading in that direction. After getting his butt kicked for the past two weeks for not only getting duped--but also hiring--a Wikipedia editor who lied about his credentials, Jimbo posted the follow (re)proposal to a Wikipedia discussion group."
http://www.calacanis.com/2007/03/09/wikipedia-will-check-c...
Good write-up; not too much mud-slinging at JC. Whether its true or not, it is compelling.
Well, I do believe that a) wikipedia should eliminate anonymous editing (at least for the top pages, living bios, etc) and that b) wikipedia should have advertising so they can meet their mounting bills and hire some folks to manage major errors in things like living bios. Of course, I'm not the first person to discuss this... in fact Larry Sanger--the creator of wikipedia--was a guest on my podcast discussing the issue and what he's done about it at citizendium.
of course, I think only a very foolish person would try to take on Google or Wikipedia--let alone both at the same time!
It's a cross between Wikipedia and Google.
I just barfed a little.
@JasonCalacanis: That would be a reason to spin it as filling the space between the two, while still letting the media use the obvious Google and Wikipedia similarities to build up hype for the project.
And for seed content, Jason could go back to Netscape and convince them to sell dmoz.
Interesting that JC hasn't denied the substance of the post.
Personally, I think there's a huge opportunity in introducing explicit moderation into search, if done right. Big "if".
There are few things that are a bigger waste of time than baseless speculation on an entrepreneur's future plans.
Maybe "commenting on baseless speculation"....
Gabe: I deny it 100%... it's absurd. I do have a pool house however. :-)
@JasonCalacanis: Oh, I'm sure even you wouldn't be rash enough to boast about taking on Google. Particularly when you'll need to place high in Google search for key phrases, and Google's indicating it may clamp down on other search engines such as Technorati which create permanent "tag" pages designed to show up high in the results. That shouldn't be so much of a risk if there's plenty of original and reader-generated content on each page. And I guess you'll rely on a Google Adwords deal for revenue. So you'll probably downplay the search, and emphasize the competition against Wikipedia, which is a big but less intimidating target. But, sooner or later, this venture comes into conflict with Google. Which, like I say, isn't a bad thing: that's where the money is.
@ Jason, I'm not sure if it's at the level of Imus but I think you present interesting points.
The Wikipedia CEO is on the cover of Fast Company for April and I keep hearing more about them. Maybe they're working on making some moves. I love the site. It's always high on google searches when I'm looking for something, especially on technology.
@pillsandpez: Wikipedia CEO? Who that? Wikipedia is run by a nonprofit, which currently does not have a CEO. So don't look for big acquisitions there.
If you mean Jimmy Wales, his Wikia startup has picked up investors and made some smaller deals. But that's a separate project.
@ Mike, How can they have the same name?! Damn them! Thanks for clarifying. He looked spooky on the cover.
Jason is getting into the content game. Not podcasting, but more along the lines of Prom Queen.
Developing: Jason Calacanis, co-founder of Weblogs Inc., and now an entrepreneur-in-action at Sequoia Capital is working on a new company called, Project X.
Prom Queen with a pool house? I think I saw that movie....1988 spin off of Fast Times right? Hmmm
JC: Wikipedia works for one good reason and one reason alone, its asthetic, I'm very sorry you continue to flog the thought that EVERY bit of content and page on any popular site MUST contain advertising. Im not sure if its amusing or sad that you dont get it. Its ok to be out of touch a bit but theres a large demographic who detest advertising spam.
Jason Calacanis, co-founder of Weblogs Inc., and now an entrepreneur-in-action at Sequoia Capital is working on a new company called, Project X.
Imakenothing? With the comment below, that has to be an alias for Jimmy Wales.
Here’s the latest action: News Corp makes $5 billion takeover bid for Dow Jones — If the bid is accepted, the owner of Fox News would own the old, gray business media icon, the Wall Street Journal. What next?
Start a discussion:
Login with your username and password below. Or comment on this post via email.
Forgot your username or password? New User?