When the author revealed that he's invested in one of the companies being profiled, he lost credibility immediately. There used to be a concept called "conflict of interest" that journalists and media paid attention to.

It's especially ironic in this case, given the subject matter. The supposed point of this piece is that some companies are shying away from publicity, yet the article itself seeks to publicize them. It's almost like the humblebrag of publicity: "These guys begged me not to write them up in a national news outlet!"

I'm sure the companies mentioned are interesting, and that the founders deserve the success they've achieved. And the author raises some good points about substance vs. signaling. But the self-interest in this piece is naked and jarring.

Stinks for you since such people are in a good (the best?) position to comment. That the disclosure was so naked should make you even more comfortable.

The media doesn't generally show as much interest in B2B companies as they do in B2C companies.

This is true, but also true because B2B is generally boring. A majority of readers will never use an analytics platform or a sales CRM software.

How is this anything more than a self-interested puff piece? (As an investor, the founders' success is his success, right?)

The topic is an interesting one, and an article exploring the net impact of under-the-radar companies versus the high fliers on the Silicon Valley, US and global economies, particularly one that presents some data, could be very enlightening.

i would argue for the opposite of this article - it serves the public's interest for successful companies to be known. we might want to become customers. we might learn something that applies to our business. it is a public good to know where power and influence lies. and it is good to know so others will compete with them. :)

i think the reason why a lot of firms shy away from publicity is that if you're making money, you don't need people to know about it - can attract competition.

a lot of the publicity heavy firms are profitless - they hope to make money based on users or attention.

I don't think you're arguing for the opposite of what I'm proposing and I agree with you. I would just like to see some substance, whether in broad terms of the overall market or a narrower look at specific firms.

It doesn't matter how much money/projected money they made/are going to make. Money talks.

Notably, the article didn't state whether EdgeSpring was profitable yet. If its only "success" so far has been its acquisition by Salesforce, that could explain why nobody has ever heard of it.

A lot of companies we often hear about aren't profitable.

Not so quiet anymore...

The quiet succes is B2G. If there was no Government spending and CalPERS gambling, there would be no SV.

A perfect example is the South African who would be a one and done without our Rich Uncle Sam borrowing to invest and subsidize his markets.