From the article: "What matters is: Are you profitable? Are you building something great? Are you taking care of your people? Are you treating your customers well?"

All of those questions can be answered without needing access to a companies ledger. Jason answers those questions himself in the article.

I think his point was that stories about those questions don't get as much readership per unit of reporter effort, hence they aren't being written.

Posting 37signals' revenue numbers would have zero impact on that.

And plenty of these plumbers and barbers and cafes probably do great work and treat their employees well. Do you really want to read articles about all of them? I don't. What makes a company newsworthy (unless it's as a case study) is its size, or potential size.

In his books he develops a very humanistic look at the role of businesses in our lives. As entrepreneurs, employees, and as customers. I won't be able to do the ideas justice here, but I will try:

A business obsessed with revenue and growth is like a person obsessed with how many breaths they have taken, or how much food is in their pantry -- these are means to an end, not ends in themselves. Food is required for life but it's not the purpose of living. Businesses as conceived by Semler and Fried aren't designed to maximize revenue so much as make the world a better place (#include your essay about google being almost a nonprofit).

It may be that stories of plumbers, barbers, and cafes wouldn't be interesting to you. I like to hear about people living enjoyable lives, delighting their customers, and making their corner of the universe a better place. It's a lot more psychically healthy than reading about people trying to gain the most while providing the least (the tech crunch articles Jason refers to)

So many people seem obsessed with getting a large quantity of money, and only then trying their hand at building a fulfilling life. I have always thought of Semler as running things in reverse: how do we design a seven day weekend that is cash positive?

(Semler's book, The Seven Day Weekend, is highly recommended to anyone who wants to hear more)

then "But articles of that type are case studies, not news"

first "Do you really want to read articles about all of them? I don't."

then "I've been running one for the past 7 years. And I'm interested in reading about others."

I think what you want is for Jason to have said "I wish the technical community were focused on case studies of awesome companies rather than news stories about funding and growth." Which I think he would agree with, and would remove your points.

(Not that case study vs news is a real dichotomy -- what's stopping someone from calling news about a round of funding a "case study about getting funding"? Why can't there be news stories about how awesome the customer experience at X has gotten?)

In fact, we see case studies as news (and even less-than-news) all day long here and elsewhere. You can tell by the titles that generally come from blogs and usually look clickbait-y: "How Company/Developer X achieved goal Y," "Why Language Z helped us triple our revenues," etc.

"Why can't there be news stories about how awesome the customer experience at X has gotten?": If you really want to know, I advise you to read "Storytelling: Branding in practice".

You are logically incorrect. Well, by your own logic. How can you publish news about a current event? To be written as news it has to be happened in the past.

I believe that businesses in this space are run with old-fashioned tools (management methods, process optimisation techniques, technology) for reasons of tradition and lack of information sharing rather than anything inherent to the businesses themselves. My experiences with business growth accelerators leads me to believe we as a community re-invent the wheel an enormous amount, and anything that helps me reduce that is of interest.

Sure, we have a different metric for success, but that doesn't mean there aren't unusually successful small businesses (that will remain comparatively small) that might have something interesting to say.

I myself side with the 37 signals guys that profit is king, but that takes nothing away from my friends that are in start ups chasing big coin.

Either is a viable strategy and i think it's terrible that this community doesnt allow both to co-exist as viable options.

I think it does. There are many of us that are focused on either lifestyle or profit-driven businesses and those articles are often received well. What isn't are articles attacking the funded companies' approach.

Companies would also pick vendors based on financial stability, for which profit is probably a major factor, although cash in the bank would also be.

Or maybe it would happen if investment rules relaxed and private equity (Private Equity or direct investment like second market in non-public companies) happened, as communicating financials to lots of investors would still be relevant.

Personally I believe there are many great lessons to be learned from those local/profitable businesses which if written I'd gladly consume. If the press would only dig for those types of stories I'm sure they would come back up with gold.

As an entrepreneur who is interested in growing a long lasting and sustainable business there are many lessons which I can imagine a seasoned business owner, no matter the market, could teach me (i.e,: how had they dealt with times of feast as well famine. What was it like when they had they'r first repeat customer, etc.).

"What makes a company newsworthy (unless it's as a case study) is its size, or potential size."

To be honest I believe this sums Jason's point in one line.

The current tech culture doesn't seem to acknowledge nor celebrate the stories of those founders, entrepreneurs, developers, or business minds whose offerings are geared towards providing impecable customer service; so that doesn't get written about fairly frequently.

Now I may be wrong in my observations but it would seem as if this current generation of the tech vanguard simply aren't interested in those things. The signal, which has become an ever increasing continuous one, seems to be about more, more and bigger, bigger, bigger.

Hey, maybe that's all there is to it, but I'd like to believe we've got much more in us than simply who can amass the largest seed round, or who has had their Series A round over subscribed.

Again, I may be wrong but just a thought.

The real world is a better movie. Real people, real work, real life make for interesting stories. I would much rather read about healthy business, regardless of size, than sizeable business, regardless of health. Jason Fried was on target.

Although one part of me says that the message is good, the other part says - why dont they publish their size? Like you rightly said, the value that many people would attribute to their words would vary based on size.

And the other thing is, many of these concepts that they tout might only work for a particular size. that is another reason we need to know how big they are.

What makes a company "newsworthy" is a good PR firm!

In startup's context, fund raising is definitely a change, and revenue numbers may be a change (when they are surprising or previously undisclosed). But building a sustainable business, treating customers well or even being profitable should be long-lasting and timeless. It's interesting to keep reading about these issues in Hacker News, but these are not exactly news.

It's like business fundamentals ("common sense"). The press never talks about them but it doesn't mean the industry doesn't care or doesn't treat them as important.

37Signals' numbers are not public. "Talk is cheap" as they say.

I don't disagree with what he is saying in the quotes - that people focus too much on raising money as "business success". This is without question. But then again I still do not understand the value of 37Signals (compared to any other software company with aggressive marketing), at least not from the press they get. How are they being any more transparent?

All I know from recent reports is employees supposedly work 4 days a week and they have some sort of brainstorming sessions to come up with new ideas. What does the 37Signals software do? Specifically, not just some marketing buzzword. What does it do that I can't otherwise do without it? Are there some YouTube videos showing the software in action?

How do I know it's not just a Ruby on Rails consulting business for a few steady clients (who have an inseparable attachment to Rails), as opposed to a "unique" software company with amazing products? How do I know they're not just selling a Rails framework? So I have to install Ruby, Rails and a gazilion of their custom scripts to use their "product"?

I guess you've not looked at http://37signals.com before posting this?

> So I have to install Ruby, Rails and a gazilion of their custom scripts to use their "product"?

No. You need a browser though, because it is web-based.

I have looked at their website several times. It just never grabs me. And I'm not inclined to give them my email address to try out their amazing "solution".

I personally don't think it is that great, with many pain points that I encounter - which, I will concede, may be a case of using the wrong tool for the job over any shortcomings in the product itself - but it is better over having no group messaging system at all if you are working with multiple people at a distance.

Do you also sell something people do not need? And does it make you uncomfortable when people who do not need it mentions that to an audience via HN, the same way 37Signals keeps working to make mention of itself, or have others do so, in publications with large audiences.

If I have no need for a service someone is selling and I never hear about that service, then I have no reason (maybe even no ability) to to state what I think about that service. But if in the course of reading the "news" I am continually reminded of the service's existence, I may be inclined to comment. That is the risk you take with PR and advertising, or internet-based hype in general.

So it seems that 37Signals sells the use of their forum software (constructed from Ruby on Rails, i.e., free software), hosted on 37Signals' computers. I am getting a clearer picture now.

I'm not by any means suggesting that you're stupid or out of your league, but simply that you are talking about something that you are clearly completely unfamiliar with. Have you ever managed a team of people and projects? Once you do you will understand what an incredible pain in the ass it is to rely on email and spreadsheets. Full disclosure- I am NOT a 37Signals customer, nor do I know anybody affiliated with the company. Simply that project management software is a very real need for a very large number of teams. One of their partners created Ruby on Rails to create Basecamp, then released the framework for anybody to use and remained as a core contributor.

Why would you care about that? How could this person from antiquity know anything useful?

Interesting.

Jason's problem doesn't seem to be with the reporting; it's only coincidental that it's easier for press to report on the businesses he finds fault with.

Well you know that's not going to happen especially since he made this statement below:

"We have 35 employees at 37signals. We could have hundreds of employees if we wanted to--our revenues and profits support that--but I think we’d be worse off."

So he isn't simply saying that he feels he could expand his business and have "hundreds of employees". He is saying that his "revenues and profits" would support "hundreds of employees".

Think for a second how much profit you need to support "hundreds of employees".

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he was misquoted on that. If not, he's simply full of shit. This is BS to challenge Donald Trump.

Second, I think you are underestimating just how profitable 37signals probably is. They have scaled a few tight products with high recurring revenue to a very large number of customers with a tiny team. I've worked at companies with hundreds of employees and knew their revenue numbers and the model 37signals is executing puts those numbers well within reach.

"just how profitable 37signals probably is"

As an aside to this discussion: If they are actually that profitable it's a good idea to fly below the radar and resist making statements about how wildly profitable they are. Doing that might entice competitors to enter the same market and regardless of whether they succeed or not that could kill the goose.

Sometimes of course things are out in the open and it can't be avoided (lines at the restaurant or with public companies, or Oracle posting their 24x7 software support rates where a guy out of his house can do the math). Sometimes you want the publicity for one reason or another. But despite the openness of the internet there are still things that you want to keep to yourself lest everybody and their uncle decides to move into your neighborhood.

I think a lot of people are sick of the crap written on TechCrunch for reasons that are hard to define. Mostly they have turned the innovative process into a form of TMZ, which glamorizes a field that is meant to build things to make lives better. Very few articles have anything to do with companies building these types of innovations, and profits have nothing to do with it. A response might be, well Scientific American writes those stories. Yes, and that's precisely why Scientific American is a respected publication oft-cited by Steve Jobs.

Too many stories on TechCrunch are titled something like "[Insert clever startup name] raises [insert some absurd amount of money] to become the [Facebook, Twitter, Foursquare, Birchbox] for [Work, Finding a cab, Healthfood]. These stories are ridiculous and cover mostly crap ideas that don't solve any real problems.

It's surprising that 37 signals isn't labeled a "lifestyle" company, which is practically like leprosy when it comes to funding and media attention.