12 comments/trackbacks to “Why we did not publish The Naked Truth”

1. May 30, 2008: TechCrunch UK » Blog Archive » Disecting Naked

   [...] Next Web blog – normally great – has had a slight crisis of confidence and attacked TechCrunch UK’s report on the demise of Naked. Blogger David Petherick says they had all the [...]

2. 

   By Mike Butcher on May 30, 2008

   This is kind’ve an odd post. I’m not sure why you feel moved to attack me for simply reporting the facts, but hey, whatever.

   Here are the facts:

   Naked didn’t just have cashflow problems in May. It actually went into administration. You guys didn’t report that. Why not? You feel you need to protect companies from reality for some reason?

   The reference to Bonnier’s divource proceedings freezing his assets and stopping further funding to Naked wasn’t made by me – it was made by his co-founder. I’m just the messenger here.

   I didn’t “selectively unearth” anything about Bonnier. Just Google him yourself. There is a very long list of ventures he’s been involved in, most of which makes for very interesting reading.

   Some stories might read to you like soap operas, but the point here is what is fact and what is fiction, and what is legally reportable, not trying to “protect” readers from the information on the ground.

   You might have kept in close contact with your sources, but did they not tell you the company had gone into administration? I remain puzzled as to why you didn’t report that, when you are legally able to do so.

   I find it very odd – in an age where open and transparent conversation on the web has almost become a religion in some quarters – that some bloggers are now deciding to hide the facts.

   The Next Web is normally a great blog. It would be a shame to see it turn into a PR company.

   (BTW I look forward to discussing this with you further over a good Scottish Malt!)

   Reply

3. 

   By David Petherick on May 30, 2008

   Hi Mike, thanks for taking time to make a comment.

   Listen, I was not attacking you for reporting the facts, just being critical of the way that you reported the facts. I felt you were being a bit ‘tabloid’ – but that’s just my opinion, and your article was good reading – I really am sorry if you felt I was attacking you – no – I was being critical. Different.

   We didn’t have confirmation of administration status on May 7th – nor did we seek it – we just reported the message going out, and our thoughts about that. We were not protecting anyone, but we though it best to be supportive of people in some trouble, rather than shouting ‘deadpool’! So we said – take a look – ask us for an invite to see inside Naked.

   The fact that Naked is still up and running, and users can still issue invitations was what I’d say was an important omission from YOUR story (but one that I did not criticise) – and you and a lot of others people requested and received invitess to Naked through me a few minutes after I mentioned it, when adding a comment to your story on Techcrunch.

   Mike, I realise you are just the messenger with news, but sometimes it’s good to be selective and analytical in reporting what people tell you – for example with your coverage on Bonnier – it is selective – as is any piece of writing – to support your story. The fact that the employees at Naked may have been turfed out of work by an unwitting but vengeful wife or ex-wife trying to fill her boots is a great story – but not one we think deserves coverage here – we’re not writing that kind of blog. Well, not yet.

   I was made aware of administration status later in May, but did not think that was a story worthy of attention – we were just interested in the first place in the fact that someone had chosen a very honest, open, and transparent way to tell people they were in trouble – and reported about that to simply applaud the honesty, which we found refreshing.

   We also believe that there will be something still to come from Naked – because, unlike Techcrunch, we had seen and used the beta release – and we know there are moves in place to keep it alive – and if that does happen, then we’ll write about, or perhaps, reluctantly have to report its death. There was never a question of our hiding facts, just choosing not to write a story because it was, in our opinion not yet a story – a decision you I am sure have to make many times a day. We don’t think the story is over, so there’s no story for us yet.

   Speaking of transparency – here’s something I find very odd – how come it took you so long to find this story anyway? We were there with it a full three weeks ahead of you Mike! How about that? Perhaps it’s rather the case that someone pitched you this story by making direct contact to reveal the gory details? That would be a very PR sort of thing to do, wouldn’t it? ;-)

   And while we’re on PR – no, I don’t think there’s any danger of this blog becoming a PR company or paid mouthpiece – but thanks for the flattery. The Next Web Blog just entered the Technorati Authority Top 5000, which is not bad for something that only started in January. We’ll be sure to let you know at Techcrunch the moment we get any nice offers.

   The Next Web Blog respects transparency and honest debate, and we know you hold the same viewpoint Mike – but we just happen to both be writing different sorts of blogs. I think such diversity is good and healthy, as is being able to debate and offer different views on an issue publicly.

   I look forward to any discussion over a malt whisky Mike, and thanks for being so open and honest with your views. (I have some Glenrothes in mind, as consumed on Diggnation #144 in Amsterdam)

   Reply

4. 

   By Mike Butcher on May 30, 2008

   David, this is a lot of assumption on your part.

   - So basically this comes down to the fact that your reading of my story is that is was “tabloid”. That’s your opinion, not a fact.

   - You didn’t bother to check why the company had cashflow problems on May 7th. That’s kind’ve amazing.

   - I never said the site was not still running.

   - You refer to a “vengeful wife”. I just said Bonnier was getting divourced, that’s all.

   - You were “made aware of administration status later in May, but did not think that was a story worthy of attention.” Enough said.

   - “There was never a question of our hiding facts, just choosing not to write a story.” What’s the difference?

   - “How come it took you so long to find this story anyway?”. Did you actually HAVE a story? All you did was repeat their May 7 email.

   - “Perhaps it’s rather the case that someone pitched you this story”. No, actually, I just did some old fashioned reporting. Calling people etc.

   Reply

5. 

   By Jack on May 30, 2008

   The information that Mike identified about the founder made for an interesting read, and I think was valid ‘back story’ information.

   I fundamentally disagree that the best way to deal with a liquidation is to keep running. Costs will continue to build up and the hole being dug will just get bigger.

   Reply

6. 

   By David Petherick on May 30, 2008

   Let me deal with the key point here: did I actually HAVE a story? I did, and I do.

   I had lengthy one-to-one conversations and exchanges of messages with a number of individuals who were the core team around Naked, in conversations that took place just a few days after we covered the story of their sending a message to their private beta users.

   However, I decided in my old-fashioned style that there was not a story to write until there was a change in their status. There has been no change. When there is, you’ll hear about it here on The Next Web. Or we may decide it’s a non story – we’ll see.

   Reply

7. 

   By David Petherick on May 30, 2008

   @Jack – One does not necessarily incur costs by keeping a web site running. The business can be in administration, liquidation receivership or bankruptcy, but a third party, or an administrator, or someone who wants to may keep the lights on – or a hosting company can be paid in advance, and simply continue to fulfil their contractual duty.

   I think there is logic in keeping a private beta running, as if there is any rescue possible, there is an active customer base for investors to consider as part of the equation when making a valuation of the product and its intellectual property rights. Assume Google goes into liquidation – would they shut down their search engine and Adwords?

   Reply

8. 

   By David Petherick on May 31, 2008

   Just in case you missed this, Techcrunch added another story. Which was about our story – um – about their story.

   Read it here: http://uk.techcrunch.com/2008/.....ing-naked/

   Reply

9. 

   By Jack on May 31, 2008

   Ref. your comment above:

   Difference is, Google has a viable business earning cash. Naked doesn’t, nor is there any immediate prospect that this will change. Your comparison isn’t so much comparing apples with pears, but apples with s**t. No undue disrespect to Naked (good for them for trying, etc) but to draw comparisons between a failed BETA stage start up and Google is a flawed argument.

   Also, your statement that ‘it doesn’t necessarily cost anything to keep a website running’ is blatantly wrong, as no doubt anyone reading this can figure out for themselves. (Hosting charges, tech support, ongoing fixes if there are any stability issues with the BETA, etc)

   If you need to confirm this, ask one of your colleagues who knows about websites and costs.

   Reply

10. 

    By Jack on May 31, 2008

    btw, the AJAX comment editor isn’t working, otherwise I’d have corrected my spelling mistake above ;)

    Reply

11. 

    By David Petherick on May 31, 2008

    Thanks for the comment Jack. I obviously still have a lot to learn about hosting costs and what was it – teak supports? Are these supports to hold up the server racks and keep the betas stable? I always thought that was what the hosts were paid to do – along with serving drinks and welcoming people. Anyway, I’ll ask around – thanks for the tip.

    Just by the way – I have a hosting business operating in the US, UK and Australia, and started building web sites in 1995.

    Reply

12. 

    By Jack on Jun 1, 2008

    Come on mate, my spelling was always a mess.

    Mike

    Reply