If you haven’t yet been introduced to Twitter Lists (they are in beta), you are in for a treat. As you use Twitter, and over time amass thousands of people that you follow, you’ll quickly find that paying any meaning full attention to the stream is impossible. Such an experience certainly explains the speculation that Twitter’s retention rate is abysmal. Whether or not the numbers reflect reality, one thing is certain, TweetDeck and other platforms are largely successful because of the inability for users to manage Twitter accounts and followers ON Twitter.
Enter Twitter Lists
Since day one with Twitter, it occurred to me that the one things really missing from Twitter was segmentation; the ability to group users or topics so you could get a quick update on an industry or peer group of interest, instead of everyone at once. Twitter Lists enable just that; set up a list for your friends and you can follow JUST them, without the distraction of everything else going on. So, what are the lists every tweeter should have?- Friends – Personal friends, they are going to talk about everything and you care to pay attention because you really do… care
- Family – Sure, your mom might not yet tweet but your cousins, siblings, and kids do (erm… might). Twitter is the new Sunday family dinner. Keep in touch.
- Coworkers – A blend of friend and family (be honest, with whom do you spend more time?) your coworkers are your comrades in arms. Help each other out and pay attention to where they are having lunch.
- Partners – This a little “friends close and enemies closer” situation as well as an opportunity for synergy. When your partners scratch your back, make sure you scratch back (say that ten times fast)
- Industry peers – Are you in marketing, design, engineering, real estate, or farming? Who are the influencers and mavens that keep you on your toes?
- Competitors – Admit it, we all know you’re keeping tabs (want to hide who you’re watching? You can set up your Twitter List as private).
- Local news – Print is dead. TV is dead. News feeds are dead (yeah, I said it). A Twitter List of your local news stations and reporters helps you keep tabs on what’s going on in your neck of the woods. Right now.
- Areas of interest – Sports, knitting, Star Wars, bookkeeping, Lord of the Dance. You know you better than I do so there isn’t much I can do to help you identify what you like. Good luck.
- Industry news – I keep this list separate from Industry Peers; following Michael Arrington is different than following TechCrunch. As an eBay seller, you follow Marsha Collier; follow @ebayfans because you sell on eBay.
- Jobs – Just a suggestion. You never know. Follow the job boards and recruiters for your industry and they’ll litter your twitter stream so much you’ll think the recession is over. Not that you’re looking, but we all know what you do when corporate beaurocracy pisses you off…. you can browse Monster or just pull up your Twitter List and sit back watch what you could be doing instead.
Related Questions
Because venture capital manifests for opportunity; it doesn't respond to programs designed to serve founders. Cities that want more local VC need to produce the deal flow, exit track record, and co-investment conditions that make a region worth allocating to. Asking VCs to "come support our startups" is the wrong frame entirely.
Entrepreneurial people do things without waiting for permission, resources, or approval, because they're wired to see what needs to be done and act. In conventional organizational structures, this looks like insubordination, distraction, or poor follow-through. It isn't. It's a fundamentally different operating mode that organizational environments consistently misread as a performance problem when it's actually a management and structure problem.
By substituting public capital for the structural reforms that would attract private capital. By funding programs that look like support but don't build the investor relationships, talent density, or sector credibility that make a region fundable. Good intentions with bad frameworks are expensive.
That's the argument Paul makes directly. A city's economic development office asking whether founders can find the right mentors, connect with the right investors, and access the right deal flow infrastructure is asking whether the city has invested in ecosystem infrastructure, not whether it has hosted pitch competitions. Governments underwriting purpose-built ecosystem infrastructure would produce better outcomes than funding another cohort of another accelerator running on ad hoc tools.
Every product team faces it: when you need a capability, do you build it or embed an existing infrastructure provider? The correct frame is not "can we build it" (you probably can) but "should we be the ones who built it" (almost certainly not, if a specialized provider exists). Building a feature, buying a SaaS tool, and embedding infrastructure are three different decisions with different cost structures, risk profiles, and competitive implications. Getting them mixed up burns years of engineering time and leaves you with something that can't compete with a company whose entire existence is the capability you half-built.
