I've been reading Fred's blog for a few years now, but I think this post ignores or underestimates quite a few things that you need if you want to be a thought leader:<p>1. Be early - Fred was one of the first VC bloggers to give people a real time glimpse of his thoughts.<p>2. Be consistent - There were some notable VC's who blogged before him, but none with the daily pace he has consistently met for years. This regularity is hugely important.<p>3. Be successful - He has amazing credibility based on his investment portfolio. With their thesis driven approach, USV has assembled the best collection of "Large communities of engaged users" in tech. He has also invested in companies that have become some of the biggest brand names in tech e.g. Twitter/Zynga.<p>4. Be talented - I can think of a few VCs that meet most of the above criteria, but Fred is a really good writer with a strong POV. He almost always brings a fresh thought to stale issues and rarely uses his blog as a commercial for his investments.<p>5. Be Human - If you read Fred's blog you know what music he's into, where he vacations to, what his kids are interested in. He's a full personality, not just a repository of info about term sheets or financing structures.<p>I think the points that the OP makes are important, but are not the primary cause of Fred's success.
I suppose it's interesting to think about <i>how</i> Mr Wilson built his community, but more important is the sort of community he's managed to build and the question of whether it's a good or bad community. A community isn't an end in itself, and as someone recently pointed out, one of the great things about the internet is that it allows people to <i>escape</i> the communities they physically live in. (Think about the gay Midwestern kid in the wheelchair from <i>Milk</i> for a moment.)<p>If words like "good" and "bad" aren't to your liking, please substitute productive/unproductive, useful/useless, interesting/boring, liberating/stifling, or whatever arbitrary dichotomy you prefer.<p>As for the AVC community, I don't find it particularly interesting. It attracts a lot of fanboys, especially Android fans who consider anyone who buys an iPhone to be sheeple brainwashed by the Steve Jobs reality distortion field. And it attracts a lot of people who are basically promoting themselves or their businesses, and they're trying really hard to exude <i>gravitas</i>. Fuck gravitas.<p>Community is not an end in itself. A community is just as likely to embody dynamics that enforce a soul-crushing conformity as it is likely to be nurturing and supportive. All communities are mixed bags—I think that's inevitable, but don't hold me to it—and the processes that <i>create</i> a community are going to <i>shape</i> the community and the way its members interact, so I would suggest looking at AVC and asking yourself whether you want to create an AVC like community before you decide to consciously harness, deploy, or whatever those processes to create a community.<p>Oh, and the idea that you can replicate anything involving a group of people using a recipe-like approach is ridiculous. Life's complicated.
I started reading/commenting on avc back in 2005 and it was actually because of Fred's music interests. I had found the blog because of his old music podcast he did with his family (Positively Tenth Street). Not sure how many within the avc community were introduced via that method but I didn't see it touched on within the link. I started reading avc for the music, and ended up staying for the tech discussion.
I like the writer's breakdown, but all of this is common sense to me. It can all be boiled down to: (1) write good, engaging content and (2) respond promptly to readers' comments.