Great analysis, Pete. You've hit on a huge issue with PR campaigns. Many times the client wants the big, splashy hits in major dailies or magazines (or top blogs), only to see short-term spikes that don't generate leads. 
 
If your objective is to generate leads (which I assume is the case with most companies), focus on targeted PR and inbound marketing campaigns that reach specific buyers.

"Stop Begging TechCrunch to Write About You."? - Nope, Dr Blockbuster is sure it wasn't me. I would have remebered anyway, I think! :roflmAo: Anyway, us Scots NEVER do any begging viz: Sir Sean Connery, Mr Wallace ... William Wallace! 
Seems like an important point you're making though, and I shall download the webinar and schhtudy hard. 
 
alla prossima  
 
@DrBlockbuster  
Networks & Forums

Hooray! Thank you for making such an important point so clear with great data support. You have modeled two important concepts -- go where your market is and use data to make good decisions. Sounds so easy but many just do not understand this and prefer to dabble in fluff and BIGNESS versus what might be more effective.

This article got my full attention and i really liked the details to build the meaning of correct measurement versus what is current in the market. 
 
Tech Crunch is awesome, but its important to define your goals and your market, your clients and specially your measurement 
 
I say that when you feel that a site like tech crunch becomes that important to your CEO or others employees you have 2 choices: one is to make it work for you - not easy - and the other is to search the websphere, look for others techcrunches "wannabees" which may be the bet for the short future.

Once again, it's preaching to the choir. I love reading Tech Crunch (and HubSpot), but that's not where the customers are. Customers aren't interested in tech for the sake of tech. They want to know what it will do for them and their business. 
 
Technology is a tool (and the more tools you have in your tool belt the better), but it's not the Holy Grail. Sure it's fun--but put yourself in your customer's shoes. They want to know how your tool is going to help them do their job better and succeed.

Okay, so I totally understand your point, but think that overall the logic is flawed. I agree that your demographic is not on TechCrunch, but influencers for your product are. Many of the people that watch your weekly show, follow you on twitter, etc are influencers, and it's these people that will carry your message and ultimately deliver web leads to your front door via them, not from them. Also, you have to look at the effort and spend to obtain those two customers, because ultimately, those two customers may create enough ROI that it is still an important channel and better than others. Third, are you comparing apples to oranges? You need to compare the MarketingProfs customer’s lifetime value to you as a customer versus the TechCrunch customer. Do the 6 customers from MarkingProfs create the same revenue or margin as those from TechCrunch? If the TechCrunch customers are enterprise customers with multiyear commitments and the MarketingProfs ones are buying a basic package you may be better off with the TechCrunch ones.

You're missing the point of TechCrunch coverage (or maybe you are pointing out that everyone else is, too!). 
 
Unless your target customer is early stage web geeks, it's not going to create customers. 
 
What it WILL create is backlinks galore. A link from TechCrunch is SEO gold and it generally creates a big pile of splash coverage from secondary blogs as well as splogs. 
 
Also, it can help with credibility if you are in the middle of fundraising or finding partners. 
 
Finally, if you've got a young company with a promising viral loop, it can provide a good "seed". If every user results in an average of 1.13 new users, the big burst of TC users really helps the long term compound-interest math that goes with viral loops.

Very true ... this speaks to traffic quality. I've been on TechCrunch once, not for AuthorityLabs, but another project, and received a funding offer from someone who read the story. There are benefits other than traffic and sales, but your point is solid. Personally, I was expected A LOT more traffic from a site with almost 2mm RSS subscribers.

TechCrunch's coverage is usually inversely proportional to a company's business model-- I think that's sort of their schtick with their "deadpool" and "if it bleeds it leads" motto.  
 
That said, people who are begging techcrunch for a feature want American Idol fame rather then... well however it is that regular musicians get famous. Too late in the afternoon for interesting metaphors.

Although I am subscribed to Techcrunch for the latest updates in the tech world, I am not looking to get an online marketing service. This may be the common mindset of most Techcrunch readers and the reason why it didn't convert so well with Hubspot. 
 
Just like appearing on the front page of Digg, it is the "coolness" and excitement of getting the traffic spikes that matter. Of course, appearing on these sites is good for branding purposes as well. :) 
 
Wayne Liew 
http://www.wayneliew.com

C'mon guys...see Tony Wright's comment.  
 
Sure "begging" is a bit much - but HubSpot should be the FIRST company to point out the SEO benefits of having a site like TechCrunch link to you. 
 
2 customers: Whooptie-do. 
Improved Search Engine Positioning: Gold!

@Paul, Dr. Blockbuster, Glauco, Michael and Suzanne - Thanks for confirming my thinking.  
 
@Tyler. We use our own product, "HubSpot Marketer" version, to market our own business. It enables us to do closed loop marketing by connecting with our Customer Relationship Management (CRM) system. The funnel graphs above are built using that. The traffic over time per referring source comes with both HubSpot Owner and HubSpot Marketer.  
 
@Maria. You must have been on the debate team. Very good points. Here's some background. Of course, every company is different. But, in our case, my thinking isn't flawed. In the spirit of brevity, I just didn't discuss the points you brought up. Thanks for bringing them up, though. They are important points.  
 
I agree that there are many "influencers" in someone's buying process. And influencers might  
hang out or read different sites than the buyers. In our process,  
some times a webmaster or IT resource or a clued-in tech internet marketer are heavy influencers. Sometimes, albeit rarely, they are the actual decision makers. These people are likely to read techcrunch.  
 
Your second point is extremely valid. We also track the lifetime value of a customer. I'd have to look at that data in salesforce.com to determine whether the 2 clients referred from TechCrunch are better/longer term clients than the 6 from MarketingProfs. It's probably too soon to tell - in any statistically sound manner -  
if we only look at those 8 customers. However, marketing analyzes this data on a monthly basis. I know that MarketingProfs (paid and unpaid traffic) brings us our best customers from a retention perspective as well.  
We don't currently have an enterprise version. And actually, I'm pretty sure I signed up both of the people referred from TechCrunch myself and they are both startups. Your point is well taken, though. Examining lifetime value would complete the picture and guide a marketer towards the most *profitable* marketing activities. Thanks again for  
the great discussion.  
 
@Tony. You are right. I did say that the links from TechCrunch are great from an SEO perspective. And you are right, that coverage from techcrunch *usually* causes coverage by a bunch of other blogs. That *really* helps with SEO. When you are seeking funding or looking for partners, TechCrunch coverage is great. I'd also recommend ReadWriteWeb, Mashable, VentureBeat and a slew of other blogs that can lead people to you, in this regard.  
 
Also, your point re: the fact that one user can bring another if viral or word of mouth or networking effects are  
built into your application/business. In our business, and most software as a service businesses, 
that affect isn't built in - YET! Great points, though. Leads and sales isn't the only reason to get "blog coverage".  
 
@Todd. Yes. Beta testers hang out at TechCrunch waiting for the next startup to beta test for free.  
 
@Chase. Thanks for sharing that. I imagine that there are a lot of companies that get funding offers after getting covered by TechCrunch.  
 
 
@Andy. Yes it was too late for metaphors. I don't think I quite understand yours. If I read between the lines,  
you're saying that TechCrunch covers you when you don't want to be covered. And that startup entrepreneurs are hoping that coverage by TechCrunch will bring fame like American Idol. I don't think that usually happens, though. Maybe the Crunchies can do that. But, not a simple blog post.  
 
@Chad. I did point out the SEO benefits of getting covered by TechCrunch. Tony certainly elaborated on the secondary  
link effects that happen. I didn't say that. That's why we have really smart commenters, though :-) It'd be interesting to know how often that happens. You're right, though, you'd think that a few M subscribers would lead to more than a few customers. 
 
@All. The 2 customers that signed up as a result from TechCrunch probably covered the amount of effort and expense we put into the early PR work. Now, it seems, that TechCrunch covers us whenever we launch something of note or have big news. Which is nice. We're not complaining.

Ditto the accolades, Pete. This analysis speaks to the critical importance of targeting your audience when it comes to your PR strategy. Eyeballs feel good, but conversions are what bring home the bacon. Some of the more specialized outlets enjoy small but informed and highly motivated audiences.

Wow! enough said. And here I was thinking i might have something to add.