If the fee is going to investors, I think it's bad.

If the fee is going to organizers for logistical expenses or heck even profit, I think it's usually fine.

1. In TechCrunch50's case, it is going to organizers.

2. I don't think TC50 makes most of its money from entrepreneurs looking for funding. They make a lot of money from rich execs and VCs. Contrast the angel groups and they make almost 100% of the money from entrepreneurs. This is a huge differentiator for me.

The problem with with the incentive structure it creates. If you are paying investors directly, its like paying someone to listen to a sales pitch. You will not get the same result as you normally do with your sales pitch. If you are paying organizers, you have to think about how the incentives work too. It may not take much to get investors into a room. Dinner, networking. You may be simply paying them indirectly. A startup has no real way of knowing if they got a bang for their buck.

If investors were paying, they would know. They won't be visiting very often at a high price tag if the pitches aren't good and if the chances of closing a deal aren't good.

That's my point. Most investors have to pay a couple grand to attend TechCrunch50.

> The Keiretsu Forum, meanwhile, said that while TechCrunch50 charges all but the entrepreneur to attend ...