Just like you.
Let's look at the 5 main steps I followed:
1) Get the basics in place
2) Invest in yourself
3) Find your crew
4) Write like a human
5) Compound momentum
Profile created: January 21st
February: +29 followers
March: +53
April: +151
May: +5,595 🤯
Save yourself 3 months. Copy what worked for me:
Just like you.
Let's look at the 5 main steps I followed:
1) Get the basics in place
2) Invest in yourself
3) Find your crew
4) Write like a human
5) Compound momentum
• Build a relevant profile
• Follow the right people
• Start engaging & posting
@IAmClintMurphy wrote a deep dive on this:
https://t.co/7LOpRCKepL
I paid thousands of dollars and spent 500+ hours studying Twitter to provide you this free guide.
— Clint Murphy (@IAmClintMurphy) March 21, 2022
How to grow from 0 to 20,000+ followers in six months or less:
• Engage with larger accounts, add value to their conversation
• Finetune your positioning with their feedback
• Build relations in DMs after engaging
My rule of thumb:
• 20 replies
• 1 Tweet
• 3 DMs
Every day!
If you can, spend some money to learn from the best.
I took two different courses:
1. Create, Publish, Profit by @creation247
2. Audience Building by @blakeaburge & @SahilBloom
Both were excellent, with different angles.
I love these tools, and use them daily:
• Analytics on steroids: @blackmagic_so
• Scheduling & ideas: @TweetHunterIO
• Content production: @NotionHQ
• Grammar: @Grammarly
What would you add?
Your crew:
1. Provides energy & feedback to supercharge your writing
2. Engage with each other's posts to increase distribution
From early DMs, I owe a lot to @Denis__Shatalin and @dagorenouf.
Today, people like @BrianFOConnor and @EvergreenMEP fuel my fire.
You have figured out what to do
You have studied how to do it
Now you have to do it
From 500 followers, you have initial distribution.
Now the fun starts: it's writing time.
Remember Clint's basics of writing:
• Write 2-3 threads per week
• Pay attention to formatting
• Learn to write stories
• Hook = everything
• Look at the data
• Clear > clever
• Give value
But most of all: write like a human.
• Explore your niche & curiosity
• Share what you're learning along the way
• Use an authentic voice, write as you speak
• Don't be afraid to take a stance - some controversy is great
Boos don't block dunks!
- Kobe Bryant
Your mind, your audience, and the Twitter algo.
They all love the same: consistency.
Big goals, small steps.
Keep batting.
My 2,681st Tweet got more impressions than all the previous 2,680 Tweets combined.
If I can do it, you can too.
1. Follow me @polak_jasper for more on people & execution.
2. Retweet this thread to help me reach more people.
https://t.co/2tmnVPT8lS
Profile created: January 21st
— Jasper Polak (@polak_jasper) June 2, 2022
February: +29 followers
March: +53
April: +151
May: +5,595 \U0001f92f
Save yourself 3 months. Copy what worked for me:
https://t.co/abdQDjEw0s
the leap of faith between consistency and compounding pic.twitter.com/nC7berS1xn
— Jack Butcher (@jackbutcher) June 2, 2022
More from All
You May Also Like
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
