Oh wow I disagree with this totally. One reporter gives a bad slant to a story and that is enough to make you give up on setting up and getting other PR? What am I missing here? Anyone who has ever appeared in a story in the news (I have multiple times) knows they always get things wrong and always angle to story to what they think is something interesting that will allow them to sell advertising. That is the business they are in. With all due respect to Jessica (who I don't know) this sounds to me very thin skinned and not exactly an example of overcoming adversity in the entrepreneurship world. Of course it's her right to not do interviews if she doesn't feel like doing them but the way PG presents the story it's as if this one incident was enough to sour her taste (and there were no other factors at play).
Edit: As would be expected say something (not delicately or gently enough) about anyone closely associated with YC and get downvoted. Maybe that's just because people will pay attention to the comment more and tend to react more emotionally than rationally.
Edit#2: As far as those who say "YC is successful Jessica doesn't need to be in the limelight it's important to realize that people read these essays who are not in that position. Or even close. So perhaps PG could have pointed that out in a more direct way so that those learning from his writings could understand the nuance of the decision.
> One reporter gives a bad slant to a story and that is enough to make you give up on setting up and getting other PR? What am I missing here?
Character? It's clear from PG's essay that she hates being in the limelight. What was very likely her worst fear about doing PR happened straight away. It's completely understandable that an incident like that would have had her just back away from it all as fast as possible. Especially when it's something she doesn't have to do.
Hey. I also hate being in the limelight. But if it's good for business I get over it and have. Just like I get over many things that I need to do in business to make it work. (I have cleaned toilets and done grunt work and still take out the trash. I do things with my wife in personal life that I hate to do in order to have a good relationship as well as I am sure everyone does).
It is not good for business. Journalists almost invariably corrupt any message one is trying to deliver. The return, on time and energy invested, ranges from "very poor" to "negative". It is the worst kind of market engagement, rarely attracting more than a herd of tyre-kickers. Good luck generating qualifiable leads from press coverage.
Sorry to hear that Jessica learned this the shittiest possible way. I had it easier, being simply misquoted on two occasions and seeing the pattern.
NB: Analysts are slightly better, because they take time to understand market structures, technology trends and value chains. This is because people pay them for information, rather than for column filler. It is not a coincidence that really good PR people move up to AR where they may actually see some benefit for their efforts.
Some people like climbing mount everest, others like giving speeches, others still like flying planes, driving fast cars.
You have 5 fingers on your hand and they are all different sized. Expecting them to all be the same is imbecile.
She didn't want PR for its own sake. She wanted to get a message out, and the tech press was less interested in the message than in how many clicks they could milk out of any drama involving YC.
Well perhaps she learned a lesson that if you are going to "lead" with a tasty vignette like that the rest of your message will be lost. So it's a lesson learned, right? Next interview she would perhaps not do the same thing and simply save the story for PG.
It might be easier to think of it as a lesson learned. It's likely obvious to everyone (Jessica included) that the media can't be implicitly trusted, but the true nature and impact of interacting with the media in that way may have not been completely apparent until that article happened. It's completely reasonable for Jessica to say "if these are the sorts of articles I can expect, and have to fight against, then the cost is not worth the benefit".
Oh wow I disagree with this totally. One reporter gives a bad slant to a story and that is enough to make you give up on setting up and getting other PR? What am I missing here? Anyone who has ever appeared in a story in the news (I have multiple times) knows they always get things wrong and always angle to story to what they think is something interesting that will allow them to sell advertising. That is the business they are in. With all due respect to Jessica (who I don't know) this sounds to me very thin skinned and not exactly an example of overcoming adversity in the entrepreneurship world. Of course it's her right to not do interviews if she doesn't feel like doing them but the way PG presents the story it's as if this one incident was enough to sour her taste (and there were no other factors at play).
Edit: As would be expected say something (not delicately or gently enough) about anyone closely associated with YC and get downvoted. Maybe that's just because people will pay attention to the comment more and tend to react more emotionally than rationally.
Edit#2: As far as those who say "YC is successful Jessica doesn't need to be in the limelight it's important to realize that people read these essays who are not in that position. Or even close. So perhaps PG could have pointed that out in a more direct way so that those learning from his writings could understand the nuance of the decision.