1. If you ranked the startups in attendance, do you think a 50th percentile startup would have gotten something useful out of Disrupt? A 90th percentile startup? (If so, in softer benefits like pulling together as a team or in something measurable?)
2. Do you think your traffic numbers for Trello would have looked substantially different on launch day without Disrupt? In 6 months?
In the first case, I wonder if there really are unfunded, 90th percentile tech startups that represent some sort of Cinderella story that just need the spotlight to get funding and attention. In your case, I wonder if 6 minutes on stage compares to a decade of organic SEO and trust (via your blog), running the most popular programming Q&A site, and cross-promotion opportunities from FogBugz, Kiln, Copilot, and others.
After I thought about this for a while, I concluded that perhaps that panel of judges wasn't equipped to evaluate a deep technology company.
VCs and press have very short attention spans. They are only interested when someone they know and respect is interested. Because they are constantly bombarded with crap, they constantly have to make decisions who to pay attention to and who to ignore and dismiss out of hand.
If you just pay your own fare to get a table nobody is vouching for you. This sends a signal that if nobody does why should anybody else? Now the companies presenting on the stage are there because Techcrunch is implied to have reviewed the whole industry and picked the cream of the crop. Because there are fewer of those it is easier for VCs and press to focus their attention. Spotlight is scarce and is usually pre-negotiated.
Going to conferences is fine if you are gathering industry intelligence or looking for very specific types of customers / partners, but to really attract VCs / press you better have inside track beforehand.
The one point I would add about the Startup Alley is that during the schedule of the conference, there isn't enough time left for people to to browse the alley. There needs to be another few hours in the schedule just for browsing, checking out sponsors, etc. Less is more
(P.S: I'm using Trello now!)
There's a huge difference. The battlefield companies DO get a lot of attention and, imho, it's a great way to launch (but I'm repeating myself - see http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2011/09/15.html).
The startup alley companies have a lot of things going AGAINST them. Most importantly, they're not battlefield companies. That means that in most cases they were NOT chosen by the TechCrunch editors to present on stage. Now, I'm not saying that the TechCrunch editors are 100% great at picking interesting startups, but the bottom line is that it may be that you didn't get value out of Disrupt because your startup isn't the kind of startup that VCs and the press are interested in hearing about.
The one thing about these conferences that kind of sucks is that there will always be a bunch of startups that are desperate enough to get some attention that they'll go to the conference and pay for a table even if they can't present on stage, and these companies collectively form a kind of low-rent district with a faint whiff of despair, so that even if you have the greatest startup in the world, you'll almost be tainted by association with them.
There are some redeeming features:
* Buying a table is a cheap way to get into the conference... much cheaper than attending as normal full-priced attendee.
* If you have a great idea there's still some chance of getting noticed. At Disrupt ONE of the Startup Alley companies is chosen to be a finalist in the competition.
* Some of the VCs who are at the conference looking for investment ideas WILL at least stop by your booth for a minute to see what you have to offer, so if you are really convinced that you have a great startup IF ONLY PEOPLE WOULD LOOK AT IT, this is your chance.
That said if you keep showing up at conferences and finding that nobody actually wants to hear about your startup, it may be time for a different idea.
Most people didn't let the Arringtongate crap distract them too much. Yes, it is incredibly obnoxious when the press decides that their petty dramas ARE the news, but for the most part the staff of TechCrunch up to and including Arrington did a good job of keeping the conference 95% focused on startups. They seemed to suck in a lot of attention with their soap opera bullshit, and then take all the negative part of that attention for themselves, leaving the startups with some positive attention. I certainly can say that none of the political stupidity in any way harmed us as a startup. (It may have helped... the fact that the winners of the show were all Arrington investments made it much easier to swallow the fact that we didn't win!)
FINALLY - it sounds like you went to the conference to "absorb insight, meet visionaries and explore the highs and lows of startup culture, funding and innovation." That's not a good reason to go to ANY conference, least of all Disrupt. As a startup, you can't afford the time or the money to hang around absorbing culture. Don't do ANYTHING without a GOAL. The goal of a conference like Disrupt (for startups) is to meet VCs and press. Nothing else. If that is not why you're there you are at the wrong place.