<![CDATA[Gawker: valleywag, business 2.0]]> http://tags.gawker.com/assets/base/img/thumbs140x140/gawker.com.png <![CDATA[Gawker: valleywag, business 2.0]]> http://gawker.com/tag/valleywag/business20 http://gawker.com/tag/valleywag/business20 <![CDATA[Do We Need a Restraining Order Against Josh Quittner?]]> The image associated with this post is best viewed using a browser.We never imagined Josh Quittner would burn a previous Valleywag editor in effigy, but after seeing the video he's posted on Time.com, we wonder if we might need a restraining order.

As editor of the late Time Inc. title Business 2.0, Quittner once employed Valleywag emeritus Owen Thomas (as well as your current Valleywag). But somewhere along the way, Quittner soured on Thomas.

Thomas jumped to Valleywag and Business 2.0 folded. When Quittner landed at Fortune, Thomas wrote about Quittner's inflated title, covered Fortune's suspension of his blogging privileges, and quoted the Scrabulous-playing columnist saying he had "too much time on my hands."

Quittner seemed to take it personally. After jumping to Time, he used the magazine as his personal burn book, noting in January that a Sony virtual world wouldn't create an avatar "as fat as your average tech-gossip blogger."

Now Quittner's at it again, with a Sims 3 review in which he creates a "Loser" character named "Thomas Woodchuck" and burns him alive (see clip above). As several tipsters have noted, the resemblance between Woodchuck and Thomas can't be missed — nor can the creepiness of teaching his daughter to drown an enemy in the pool.

It seems early to get too alarmed; there are worse things than being called an "unredoubtable... woodchuck" in an anonymous comments, or killed virtually in a videogame. We're just a little surprised Time indulges Quittner's grudge — or that the reporter, after all this time, still holds it.

]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5302260&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[Even Listicles Being Downsized at Fortune]]> Bad news is still big. It's just the articles that are getting smaller. 2008 was 80 percent less dumb than 2007, according to Fortune! A year ago, Fortune readers were treated to a full 101 moments of dumbness in an end-of-year comic look-back. This year? Only 21 dumb moments to be found.

A necessary disclosure here: I worked on this list for several years when it was put out by Fortune's now-defunct sister publication, Business 2.0. It was a pain in the tuchis! It was a lot of work! I had half-a-dozen factcheckers going full speed for weeks on that mother! Oh, and also, it was funnier when I wrote it.

So I can't blame Fortune for cutting back. Tough times, which make for great stories of business disaster, are exactly when advertising-dependent publications are least able to afford covering them. In fact, Fortune laid off some of the people who contributed to this year's list. Next year, I'm betting this one goes to eleven.

]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5120194&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[AOL wants to buy TechCrunch at a 70 percent discount to Arrington's nine-figure price tag]]> Time Warner's AOL and TechCrunch founder Michael Arrington have been talking for the past two months, with AOL offering Arrington $20 million to $30 million to acquire tech's most dutiful clearinghouse for startup PR. Kara Swisher says that TechCrunch wants more than $30 million; we've heard he's looking for more like $100 million. Arrington has perpetually shopped his site around; all this deal talk reminds us how, just the other weekend, we overhead him wishing he could just sell out and move to Hawaii. Which makes for a nice pipe dream, but a weak negotiating position. Another reason to be skeptical: This is not Arrington's first flirtation with Time Warner.

When Business 2.0, published by Time Inc., another arm of Time Warner, was on the rocks, its editor talked up a deal to save the magazine by merging it with TechCrunch. Those talks went nowhere. All of which makes us feel bad for TechCrunch coeditor Erick Schonfeld, who previously worked at Business 2.0; wasn't the whole idea of joining TechCrunch to escape Time Warner?

]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5024888&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[Icahn puffs up Yahoo board nominee's resume]]> Adam DellAdam Dell, Michael Dell's younger brother, is a venture capitalist with some successes under his belt, including HotJobs, which Yahoo bought. He'd make a fine Yahoo board member. So why does Carl Icahn feel it necessary to inflate his qualifications? Dell's biography, as supplied by Icahn, claims that Dell "is a contributing columnist to the technology publication, Business 2.0." Not since 2001, in fact, and the magazine itself closed last year.

]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=391089&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[Ex-Business 2.0 editor leaves Fortune for Time]]> Josh QuittnerJosh Quittner, former editor of the defunct Business 2.0, has extricated himself from his unhappy stay at Fortune by returning to Time, where he previously worked. Tellingly, Time editor Rick Stengel refers to him as a "writer" for Fortune, though he had the ostensible title of executive editor. Stengel's memo is included below. Quittner's new gig is his old gig, covering consumer technology, which takes him back roughly 13 years in the progress of his career. Funny, because we'd heard that Quittner had held serious talks with Michael Arrington about joining TechCrunch, around the same time he wrote a laudatory column about the tech blogger. All that puffery, and no job in exchange? A shame.

When I worked for Quittner at Business 2.0, he talked constantly about his long-held dream of going to a startup or launching a blog. That he's now choosing to stay at magazine publisher Time Inc. is useful as an economic indicator. Quittner boosted the Valley's comeback, and the business of blogging, long before other mainstream journalists. That he's turned bearish on both now could be a sign of personal cowardice. Or keen prescience.

April 16, 2008

To: TIME Staff
From: Rick Stengel

I'm delighted to announce that Josh Quittner is coming back to TIME to cover consumer technology with a regular column in the magazine and a daily blog on TIME.com. In his new role as editor-at-large, Josh will apply his singular voice to technology, writing both reviews of new products and features that explain what's most important to consumers in Techland.

Most recently, Josh was the managing editor of Business 2.0 and a writer for FORTUNE. He first had a byline in TIME in 1994 as a staff writer covering technology, back at the very beginning of the internet. He went on to launch "The Netly News," first as a website on Pathfinder and later as a column in the magazine. He subsequently served as editor of TIME.com—twice—as well as tech editor of TIME before moving to San Francisco in 2002 to work for Business 2.0. Prior to coming to Time Inc., Josh worked at Newsday in the early 90s, where he wrote a pioneering column called "Life in Cyberspace."

Josh will continue to work from San Francisco where he lives with his wife, journalist Michelle Slatalla (with whom he has co-written five books) and their three daughters, but I expect he'll be in the New York offices regularly. Josh is a great mind and a great brand to have back at TIME. We're fortunate to have him.


R.S.

]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=380415&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[Fortune columnist fails to disclose Arrington tie]]> josh-thumb.jpgJosh Quittner, the Fortune executive editor who's reportedly plotting his escape from his gilded cage at the magazine, has written a perfunctory profile of TechCrunch blog impresario Michael Arrington. Nothing we haven't read before — including the obligatory paragraph about Arrington's conflicts of interest in writing about startups even as he invests in them. Quittner observes that the practice seems to boost Arrington's reputation in the Valley. One conflict Quittner never mentions: As editor of Business 2.0, where I worked for him, he tried to strike a deal with Arrington to save the magazine by merging it with TechCrunch. The effort failed, landing Quittner at Fortune.

]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=372744&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[Ex-Business 2.0 editor dumping Fortune for housing blog?]]> What is Josh Quittner, the former editor of Business 2.0, doing for his next act? Since September, he's had an unhappy career at Fortune, the Time Inc.-owned corporate sibling which took him and a few other refugees from the magazine in. He's been earning what we hear is a mid-six-figures salary playing Scrabulous, and then writing about it. (Actual quote from a recent column: "Clearly, I had too much time on my hands.") The latest I'd heard on Quittner, my former boss, was that he was leaving Fortune to return to Time, where he worked before joining Business 2.0, as its Marin County-based tech correspondent. But he may have another exit strategy in mind. in 2006, Quittner registered roofmagazine.com.

The domain name now points to a blog that's been active since March 10. The writers are "Slatalla" — almost certainly Michelle Slatalla, Quittner's wife — and "Roofie" — presumably Quittner. The prose matches his voice, and the subject fits, since Quittner took an active interest in real estate while at Business 2.0. But real estate is a bread-and-butter subject for Time Inc.'s finance magazines. Josh, rather than starting your own blog, why don't you just apply for a job at Money, run by your former deputy Eric Schurenberg? That seems easier.

]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=372655&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[At airports, Business 2.0 refuses to die]]> http://valleywag.com/assets/resources/2008/01/business20-thumb.jpgTime Inc. has mostly erased Business 2.0 from its CNNMoney website after shutting the magazine down last year. But newsstands across the country, and readers, have not gotten the memo.

Valleywag's Mary Jane Irwin — who worked for me at Business 2.0 — snapped this shot of a waiting passenger devouring Business 2.0's final issue in the Portland, Maine, airport. Another reminder that Time Inc.'s incompetent reorganization of its salesforce, not a lack of demand from readers, killed the title.

]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=339784&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[Striking Daily Show writers turn on corporate parents]]>
When Viacom sued Google for $1 billion, it put a pretty big price tag on the value of distributing its content over the Internet. Now Viacom and other studios refuse to negotiate with their writers over how much they should be compensated when content hits the Web. Why? Because it's too early to tell how much its worth. Just like they do with politicians every night, The Daily Show's writers sniffed out the inconsistencies and put together this clip. Oh, that man holding the sign with a strategically placed finger? We hear it's former Business 2.0 editor Tim Carvell, one of the originators of the deceased magazine's "101 Dumbest Moments" franchise.

]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=323627&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[Fortune editor in town to boss ex-B2 staff around]]> ALEY.jpgRemember former Business 2.0 editor Josh Quittner, whose tech magazine got shut down by parent company Time Inc.? Now an executive editor at Fortune, he outranks, on paper, assistant managing editor Jim Aley — the man he replaced as Business 2.0's editor five years ago. Which makes the following curious: The New York-based Aley, pictured above, is in town this week. Valleywag hears he started off his visit with a breakfast with Quittner. And then Aley met with the remnants of Business 2.0's staff, who now make up Fortune's San Francisco bureau — without Quittner. Remind us again who's in charge here? And if you want your startup written up in Fortune, who's the right guy to schmooze?

]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=315238&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[Time Inc. insults Business 2.0 editor one last time]]> Josh Quittner, the former editor of the late, lamented Business 2.0 — where, I'll disclose, I worked for seven years before joining Valleywag — has gotten one more kick in the pants from Time Inc., the tech magazine's publisher. In a cover wrap sent to subscribers with the last issue, he's listed as the magazine's "managing editor," even though he's always gone by the title of "editor" in the masthead.


B2 masthead
At best, it's careless; at worst, a deliberate slap. Add it to the list of ways Quittner, a difficult, mischievous, but endlessly creative personality who arguably saved the magazine (and, with it, my career) from a much-earlier death, has been treated disgracefully by his employer. The only mystery: Why is he sticking around, save for the New-York-media-level salary?

]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=306803&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[TechCrunch and Business 2.0 never managed...]]> TechCrunch and Business 2.0 never managed to merge, but editor Michael Arrington has snapped up former B2 editor-at-large Erick Schonfeld. (This explains why Schonfeld recently revived his dormant blog to cover the TechCrunch40 conference.) Opinionated, arrogant, and whip-smart, Schonfeld is the perfect match for Arrington. We're looking forward to the fireworks at TechCrunch edit meetings — to which Schonfeld will be dialing in remotely from Brooklyn. [Bits]

]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=302161&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[The decline and fall of Business 2.0]]> Did Business 2.0 die a natural death? Or was it murdered? The story told so far about the tech-focused, San Francisco-based magazine's demise was an abrupt drop in advertising. But in his MediaShift column, Mark Glaser suggests that a poorly planned business-side reorganization by its parent company, Time Inc., is more to blame. Combining Business 2.0's salesforce with that of Fortune and Money led not to the expected boost in ads, but a drop that hit all the magazines, with Business 2.0 — where, I should disclose, I worked before joining Valleywag — the most vulnerable. The most intriguing tidbit: Glaser reports that TechCrunch, run by Michael Arrington, explored a merger with Business 2.0. Arrington, in a blog post, confirms the rumor, and, intriguingly, suggests that Time Inc. was "proactive in destroying" the magazine to favor Fortune.


Arrington is being far too generous in that murder scenario, I believe. He gives the executives at Time Inc. more credit for strategic thinking than they deserve. With the damage done, however, they faced a pragmatic choice of spending money to revive Business 2.0's ad sales, or reinvesting in Fortune, which now faces serious competition from Conde Nast's Portfolio. Can you blame them for making what was, to them, the safer bet?

New York-based media has never understood the Valley well, parachuting reporters in during the boom times, and abandoning it during the inevitable bust. (How long do you think Fortune's newly expanded San Francisco bureau, swollen with Business 2.0 refugees, will last during the next downturn?) That Time Inc. didn't know what to make of Business 2.0 isn't surprising. It's typical.

]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=302028&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[Who am I and why am I here?]]> question%20mark.jpg I'm Evelyn Nussenbaum. It's not an existential question. But in case you're wondering where the lovely and talented Owen Thomas has gone, the answer is Hawaii. With his spouse. Leaving me to fill his extremely large (but stylish) shoes. So who am I? The short answer is that I am a refugee from the late, great Business 2.0 Magazine—ok the October issue is coming out, but it's the last one. This is a collector's item, people! But my stint at the New York Post is probably the most relevant to Valleywag. OK, I was a business reporter, but I sat next to Keith Kelly and across from the King of All Gossip Columnists Richard Johnson—something must have rubbed off. I'll report, you decide. And you don't need to see a picture of me—I look fabulous, especially sitting here in my pj's.

]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=298215&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[A turnabout for Business 2.0's former boss]]> Josh QuittnerALEY.jpgTime Inc. has officially announced Business 2.0's closure in an internal memo obtained by Jossip. In it, Time Inc. executive John Squires explains that folding in some of Business 2.0's staff into Fortune will give it "the largest San Francisco bureau of any major business publication." The Wall Street Journal bureau will still be twice its size, but never mind — we assume Squires meant "magazine." No, what's interesting in the memo is what's not said.

Former B2 editor Josh Quittner, left, will get the title of executive editor, and Squires gives props to his tech chops in the memo. But Squires doesn't mention that as such, Quittner will be effectively outranked by his predecessor, Jim Aley, right, who departed B2 abruptly in 2002 to rejoin Fortune after Quittner arrived to take over the magazine. From what we hear, Aley, an assistant managing editor and the director of Fortune's technology coverage, will be the de facto boss of the tech-focused bureau, not Quittner. (Full disclosure: Before joining Valleywag, I worked for both Aley and Quittner at Business 2.0.)

]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=296809&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[Time Inc. sends secret ninja "kill teams" to shut down Business 2.0]]> We'd already heard that the October issue of Business 2.0 would be the last one published by Time Inc.; now, the New York Times reports on the Bits blog that it will be the last one, period. Talks with Mansueto Ventures, publisher of Fast Company and Inc., apparently failed; as we predicted, Time Inc. did not want to strengthen a competitor. A few staffers will join Fortune and Fortune Small Business. The rest will fall victim to what Bits colorfully calls "kill teams." This being Time Inc., don't expect black-suited corporate operatives. Or anything the least bit colorful. Instead, the teams will likely kill with kindness — and boredom. Time Inc.'s HR presentations — some of which, I should disclose, I sat through as a Business 2.0 employee — are legendary as cures for insomnia.

]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=296410&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[Keith Kelly repeats yesterday's Valleywag...]]> Keith Kelly repeats yesterday's Valleywag report that Mansueto Ventures, publisher of rival tech-business title Fast Company, is negotiating to buy Time Inc.'s Business 2.0, which is in the midst of publishing its last issue under the current staff. CNET, rumored to have also bid, has apparently dropped out of the sale process. [New York Post]

]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=295645&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[Who's bidding on Business 2.0?]]> The writing is on the whiteboard for Business 2.0, the tech-focused monthly magazine published by Time Inc. (and, I should note, my former employer). The October issue is definitely the last one to be published by the current staff, some of whom have already secured new jobs. But could Business 2.0 live on in some fashion? Time Inc. is ostensibly still entertaining offers to buy the magazine, if only for form's sake. But even if the sale process is a charade, some serious bidders have nevertheless emerged. Who are they?


The bidders, sources say, include CNET, the online tech publisher, and Mansueto Ventures, the publisher of Inc. and Fast Company. CNET's interest likely extends to the brand and the articles archive, while Mansueto might be more interested in Business 2.0's 600,000-strong mailing list of subscribers, which could bolster Fast Company's print circulation. But a sale of those assets while it might generate some cash for Time Inc., would also strengthen the buyers as print and online rivals to the magazine publishers, making those companies' bids unlikely to result in a deal.

]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=295262&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[Business 2.0 decision coming next week, or not]]> Folio reports that Time Inc., the parent company of Business 2.0, will be making a decision on the fate of the magazine next week, according to a source. The article, however, then quotes a Time Inc. spokesperson saying that the company "absolutely will not" be making a decision next week. The spokesperson in question is, of course, fibbing flack Danielle Perissi, so take her statement with a very large grain of salt. Heck, store it away in a Morton's warehouse.

]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=292864&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[Business 2.0 staff faces Fortune-ate fate]]> There's no official word on the fate of Business 2.0, the Time Inc.-owned magazine where I used to work. The publication, once fated to shut down after its September issue, is still alive, thanks to a hastily granted extension of life support. The staff is working on the October issue, while higher-ups consider offers to buy the magazine that streamed in after word of its impending demise leaked. But they seem to have resigned themselves to the fate of being absorbed into larger sister publication Fortune, based on this sign: A magazine logo near the entrance has been altered to read "Fortune 2.0."

]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=292511&view=rss&microfeed=true