Hey Look! My First Snarky Review!

From the San Francisco Chronicle. His main critique is that my title is misleading because I don't write about every single company in Silicon Valley. Wow. There are thousands of Web 2.0 companies, and frankly, most of them not that interesting. Even I wouldn't want to read that book. I wonder if he had a problem with Moneyball only being about the A's when the subtitle refers broadly to baseball? It's definitely a new one as critiques go, but Mr. Banks I am sorry to mislead you so.

And per the critique that the title doesn't apply to Jay or Zuckerberg, I'm not sure you got what the title means and reflects in terms of an overall Valley mindset. Quite possibly my bad. Jay took a company public that was worth more than $1 b. and is still in business today. That's actually considered a "win" in the Valley. Netscape ultimately was beat my Microsoft, so not sure if you're going to not count one you should probably not count both. [UPDATE: Marc sent me a note point out this was unfair. Microsoft "won" because of a monopoly, and AOL bought Netscape for a pretty penny.  I just meant a lot of huge wins aren't necessarily huge, profitable brands years later. But that doesn't take away the "win." It came out wrong though.] And the point re: Zuckerberg was he benefited from the phenomenon by being mentored by people trying to prove their second time; hence Facebook's financial structure and the reason Zuck has been able to hold onto such control.

But, my snarking back to him aside, they're valid points. What truly stunned me was this:

"Lacy portrays Adelson and Rose's mutual "man-crush" with good humor and relish, in a way that seems possible only because she is a woman. Despite their ritualistic grumblings about the media, the numerous men Lacy interviews have no trouble opening up to her over crepes at Ti Couz or drinks at the Fly Bar."

Wow. Usually it's only snarky gossip bloggers or anonymous Twitters that are comfortable being so outright sexist. Way to go, Mr. Banks! I applaud your absolute lack of a filter or political correctness! Of course, it could just be because I've been a business reporter in the Valley for ten years and built a lot of sources, but no, no you're right. It's because I'm a girl. 

Comments

[Marcus Banks]

Sarah,

That point came out the wrong way--I thought it was funny that guys would grumble about the media but obviously enjoy talking to you.

So the "dig" (if there was any) was at the people you spoke with, not you at all.

The entire first paragraph of the review firmly establishes your credentials, without any reference to gender.

[Andrew Galvin]

The only thing snarky about Marcus's review is Sarah's response to it.

[Robin Wolaner]

Actually, Sarah, I don't read the Chron anymore but checked this out and think it was a pretty positive review. Count your blessings -- they've let all the national press cover TBD without mentioning a word in our hometown paper.

[sarah lacy]

Sorry for the late replies! was moderating a panel today.

first off Marcus: thanks for the note. but i still think we have a difference of opinion here because nothing about getting that access was easy. it was hardly a matter of "oh she's fun! let's hang out" it was a business decision they made and in each case ones i spent years and years laying the ground work for. can you see how that assumption strikes me as a little offensive?

@andrew: don't read my blog if you don't want my opinion! this isn't my businessweek column. it's my personal site

@robin: i agree that it was a fair review and said some positive things. but i just found that implication offensive. i'm probably sensitive because i know everything i had to do and how hard i had to work to get to the point of getting that access. there were no short cuts. for someone to assume that and mention the phrase "only because she is a woman" one sentence before in the same graph is just offensive to me. (and to other people who read it today so i'm not alone here)

i take marcus as his word that it wasn't intentional. but honestly-- i'm pretty stunned and saddened chronicle editors would have allowed it.

[Marcus Banks]

Sarah,

I just posted a more full response on my own blog, rather than commandeering your comments page.

Please take a look at the most recent post on: http://mbanks.typepad.com/

If you choose to respond (and I hope you do) I may be slow in my own response, as I'll be traveling over the next several days.

[JeanHuguesRobert]

Sarah,

I wonder what would be that "special quality" that would make things possible only because one is a "woman"?

Is it charm or sex appeal?
Is it the mysterious "Sixth sense"?
Is it some form of "feminine intelligence"?

Or is the whole idea just sexism?

My guess is that these guys who answered your questions, they just love it when they figure out that, deep inside, you are actually ready to rumbble! -- kidding.

[Andrew Galvin]

Um, ok, but I guess don't read my comments if you don't want MY opinion.

[REM]

Sarah,

It's not because you're a girl that you get sexist responses.

It's because you're an attractive girl that you get sexist responses.

I remember being in Austin for SXSW and all of the locals who had *something* to say about your big interview always followed it up with the caveat "oh well, at least she's fine."

Such stupidity is one of the reasons I just moved out of Austin, but I digress.

Take it with a grain of salt. You're entrenched in an industry full of sexist geeks who hate women because they pay them no attention. Such responses are bound to come, but one can only hope that after so many years you've been able to grow a skin to them and keep on reporting like only you can do.

Cheers!

[R. E. Actor]

"Human beings (who are) confident in their own abilities and fulfilled by their own work need not rely on the opinions of others for validation." Quoth me. Just now.

To respond to your critics gives the critics far more attention than they deserve and only amplifies those wrong-headed opinions to a wider audience.

Which is why good actors and actresses NEVER read their reviews!

BUT: If you're in it for the money and notoriety, there's no such thing as 'bad' publicity.

In today's 24x7x365.25 information cycle, we are seeing the rise of 'instant response rage'.

It is a similar phenomenon to 'road rage', except that it involves neither motor vehicles nor firearms.

Instead of bullets, billions of free electrons are being blasted throughout the connected universe by a multitude of crackpots, ne'er-do-wells, ignorant critics, filthy hacks, politicians, and even a few dozen well-edumacated citizens, using our handheld devices to boast, to toast, and to roast each other with no more thought than we would give to breathing.

In the heat of skimming dozens/scores/hundreds/thousands of texts, emails, im's,buzzes, stumbles, shares, diggs, twits, disqis, blogs, rojos, and vlogs, we can react INSTANTLY to anyone and everyone who dares challenge our authority, disagrees with our FACTS, and/or mounts a textual assault on our manity/womanity.

Biologically, we're still little-advanced beyond the cave-drawing stage of self-editing before hitting the 'send' key.

We can only hope that in another millennium or so, human brains will evolve to give us the capability to pre-edit even our most intimate thoughts before we blast them across time and space for all eternity!