Instigator Blog

I’m not Fred Wilson (who posts ideas and sees them built almost instantaneously) but I’m going to post about something I’d like to see as a Twitter application and maybe, just maybe … someone will build it.

Fred (and many others) are certainly right — the value of Twitter is in the links. We’re seeing real-time search engines like OneRiot put an emphasis on links, and sites like TweetMeme and MicroPlaza that help organize links by popularity. Twitter itself, through Twitter Search is supposedly working on indexing the content of tweeted links to improve its search results with more context. Ultimately none of these systems do exactly what I want.

So here’s what I’d like to see (and it could be a Twitter app, website, integrated into a desktop app, etc.):

1. Ability to display a list of tweeted links based on interests. For example, I might want to see links for venture capital, startups, montreal and recruiting. So I want the links categorized by self-defined interests. The system would have to index the content of the tweeted links, otherwise I don’t think it would be smart/accurate enough to give me the best content just off keywords or hashtags in tweets.
2. A URL shortener with tagging. Before indexing the content of links, I think we need a URL shortener that allows us to tag content, like del.icio.us. Hashtags are helpful (and could be used as part of the assessment of links) but there’s not enough space for real tagging in 140 characters. But imagine if you had a URL shortener where you could input a bunch of tags into a separate field. The tags wouldn’t be displayed in the tweet but they would be associated with the URL as a way of identifying the URL and its content. That would help my proposed system a great deal. I’d love to see tagging of tweets built into a URL shortener like bit.ly and then integrated into desktop apps like Tweetdeck. People are fairly comfortable tagging content, and this would add richness tweets and tweeted links.
3. Ability to rank list of tweeted links by who submitted them. I don’t want to see every link within these categories, it’s too much. So I want to see the links ranked (or filtered) by people I follow, and then allow me to open up the firehose to everyone (which encourages friend discovery.) And ideally it would rank the people I follow as well - by some kind of reputation system (a measurement of the relationship b/w me and that person, how often their links are re-tweeted, etc.) This should bubble up to the top the best links from the best people in the right categories.
4. Ability to rank list of tweeted links by other factors. Some kind of algorithm is needed to determine the ranking of tweets. Showing only links from people I follow is step one, and implementing reputation on those people is step two. But ultimately displaying popularity of links (based on retweets) and adding other variables could be useful too. But this isn’t the core priority, and this is where most other systems in my mind fail; they focus almost exclusively on popularity of links. That doesn’t help me find the needle in the haystack that really matters to me.
5. The system has to learn. It would be great if the system learned what I liked over time, to improve the algorithm for displaying a sorted list of the best tweeted links by category/interest. This could include a favorites feature. It might also track how often I click the various links to recognize what content I’m most interested in, and from which person (which in turn could increase that person’s reputation.)
6. Only show me the links. I don’t want to see the content of tweets - I just want the links (and the submitters’ names.) I find systems that display the tweets are too noisy and messy. The tweet content doesn’t really matter; if the system is smart enough to tell me this is a valuable link from a valuable source, I don’t need to see the message the submitter tweeted the link with. Just give me nice, clean links.

The goal is to capture all the tweeted links of value from the Twitter stream (both from people I follow and those I don’t.) And the secondary goal is to help me discover new people worth interacting with based on the links they’re submitting.

In the spirit of giving, I wanted to throw this idea out there and see what people thought. And maybe, someone will build it, or some element of it. I think in its initial form you would need a URL shortener with tagging + a site for displaying the links in some ranked fashion. The limitation in this system is that the only content that might get picked up initially is content from tagged tweets, which would require people to adopt a new URL shortener. There may be smart ways to overcome that though.

I’ve also got a domain we can use — http://linktwits.com. This was inspired (of course) from Stocktwits, which I think is a brilliant system. I’d be happy to use this domain name for the project.

And, I’m happy to help in any way that I can. I’d certainly be a user of the system, and maybe I can help with other elements of it…

Startups change. It’s the nature of the beast. Ideas change. Plans change. Teams change. The one constant for startups is change. But how can a startup handle and excel through so much change?

Some companies have a very strong system of corporate values in place. They use it as a definitive guide for everything they do. They use it as a decision filter for hiring, feature development, etc. Google’s “do no evil” can be considered one such corporate value, although I wonder if it’s definition is too open for interpretation.

Here are two great examples of companies that have DNA-like corporate values, with slightly different styles:

• Atlassian’s Corporate Values: Open Company, No BS
• Comparative Values

Using strong, well-defined corporate values as a decision filter is very interesting. Startups face so much uncertainty and so much change, it’s incredibly easy to fall off the path of success. It’s tempting to chase every opportunity, make quick decisions to keep momentum, and “do what’s necessary to hopefully survive.” It’s easy to lose your vision and ability to execute on it effectively.

One of the most common startup failures is a lack of communication with customers (as obvious as communicating with customers might seem.) Beyond that, you see patterns of startups that had an idea, assumed it was great, built something, launched it, and kept on running based on intuition, instinct and opinion. And most of the time, they failed. We see the importance of getting out from behind the computer screen, interacting with customers, testing assumptions, etc. But beyond that, where do company values play a role?

So these are questions running through my mind — hopefully you can help me answer / discuss them:

• How important is it to have strong, well-defined corporate values?
• Have you ever created any, or participated at a company that had strong values?
• Can strong corporate values serve as a worthwhile decision filter?
• Can using corporate values as a constant decision filter improve a startup’s response and resilience to change & craziness?
• Do companies stick with them through thick and thin, or abandon them when it’s convenient?

I believe companies have a personality. I believe they have a culture. And I believe startup founders have to visualize that personality and culture upfront and build a team to evolve and refine things from there. The definition of us is important. But how important?

Cheesy, I know, but it’s early in the morning and I’m still shaking out the cobwebs.

Extreme Venture Partners, a small Toronto-based venture firm focused on early stage startups, just announced ExtremeU, a 12-week summer program for 4 lucky startups. This looks similar to Y Combinator, Techstars and other similar seed fund incubators.

Kudos to the EVP people for getting this off the ground. If you’re interested in the program, follow Farhan Thawar on Twitter. He’s VP of Engineering at ExtremeU and will be running the show.

On a side note, I hope I can be involved in some way, even just to check out the 4 startups’ pitches during the process!

In Canada, this concept is quite new. (Bootup Labs in Vancouver has or is working on something similar I believe.) And there’s been a lot of discussion about how to implement similar programs effectively. David Crow wrote a great thought piece on the subject, “Incubators, accelerators, and ignition. If you’re at all interested in the Canadian startup scene, check that out.

But here’s a slightly different concept from Polaris Venture Partners — Dog Patch Labs.

Dog Patch Labs offers free office space, Internet access and other amenities to startups. What do the startups have to give in return? Nothing. There are no signed, legal papers giving Polaris first rights to invest. Polaris doesn’t take equity right away. Granted, they don’t provide the same level of support as you’d find in other seed fund incubators, but they are available and around to assist.

“…Polaris is practicing a kind of “open source” entrepreneurship. There’s an implicit understanding that the venture firm will have first crack at funding a promising Dog Patcher, but only as what he [Mike Hirshland, GP] calls a “‘first sponsor’ goodwill thing. No economics, no rights/obligations.”

There are quite a few recognized names in the Dog Patch, but so far Polaris has only backed two kennel startups - LOLapps and Plinky.

Regardless, for Polaris it’s worth it. They get a hands-on view of the startup world, right down to the nitty-gritty level where all the innovation takes place. As the article points out:

But even if Polaris never funded another resident of Dog Patch, it’s worth the cost. The lab affords an up-close and personal eye on the future to help inform the firm’s other investments. It should also help foster the good will of the entrepreneurs who pass through—making it more likely they will come back to Polaris in the future.

If you want to read more about the Dog Patch, I would recommend you read Mike Hirshland’s blog and follow him on Twitter.

Dog Patch Labs concept is a great idea and could work quite well in Montreal (or elsewhere in Canada, or the US). Startups in Canada definitely need the guidance of experts, veteran entrepreneurs, etc. - more in the mode of ExtremeU or other seed camp incubators - but it would be incredibly smart for a progressive venture firm in Canada to setup something similar to the Dog Patch. Huge goodwill and an incredible, hands-on and deep view into active startups on the ground floor.

Check out this tweet from @exectweets (I believe originally from Tom Stewart):

CEO paralysis caused by trying to look simultaneously through a microscope at every cost & a telescope at the future

It was too long to re-tweet effectively without having to edit it, so I decided to write a blog post instead.

To say what exactly? Simple this:

Between the telescope and the microscope which wins?

I’ve been told a few times, “The role of CEO is to keep the lights on.” That puts us squarely in the world of microscopes. But on the flip side — is a business with its lights on but no potential for massive scale really worth keeping around? A lot of businesses get to survivability but struggle to go beyond that. And oftentimes going beyond simple survivability (which in and of itself isn’t really “simple”) means gut-checks, innovation, tough ass decisions and brain power. That throws us back into the world of telescopes.

What are you looking through right now? A microscope or a telescope? Or both? Are you paralyzed?

Customers. Love ‘em or hate ‘em, we all need them. They’re not always right, they’re often elusive but they’re the lifeblood of any successful company. And that’s true for a business-to-consumer play (B2C) as much as it’s true for business-to-business (B2B) organizations.

One of the risks in dealing with customers is only speaking to a few of them and assuming that every customer and prospect thinks the same way. It’s easy to get caught up with a handful of very vocal customers that are suddenly driving product development. There’s a chance those customers speak for everyone else, and following them makes sense; but the opposite is equally true (and likely more true.)

Companies tend to start with good intentions when it comes to customer dialogue, but it easily falls to the wayside. I’ve seen this with startups that are very successful and those that are not so successful. The very successful ones get overwhelmed with feedback, lose control and can’t figure out how to communicate effectively anymore. The not-so-successful ones turtle, scared to speak with customers, or frozen into uncertainty.

The challenge for startups - in any situation - is to always been in communication with customers and prospects. It’s what Steve Blank and Eric Ries call customer development.

Andrew Chen writes a great blog that you should read regularly. One of his recent posts is: Talk to your target customer in 4 easy steps. It’s not complicated to communicate with customers and prospects but it does take guts, effort and persistence. It has to become part of your company’s culture to do so.

Here’s another interesting, and ultra-simple survey tool: survey.io brought to you by KISSmetrics and Sean Ellis. Sean’s producing some great content on startup marketing; go check it out.

Survey.io produces only a handful of questions (they’re always the same), so you can have a survey up and running in 5 minutes or less. The most interesting (and scary!) question for startups is this one:

How would you feel if you could no longer use [product]?

• Very disappointed
• Somewhat disappointed
• Not disappointed (it isn’t really that useful)
• N/A - I no longer use [product]

That gets right to the heart of things - it really comes down to whether your product is a painkiller or vitamin.

Whether you’re just starting out, you’re in the middle of development, or you’ve launched and you’re chasing customers — you need to look for ways to easily, quickly and logically talk to customers … all the time. Make it part of your startup’s culture.