The 20-Minute Media Machine

Every corner of the internet has been conquered by aggregation accounts.

Sports runs on highlight accounts, news runs on clip accounts, politics runs on quote accounts and virality lives off meme pages.

There are accounts with millions of followers that do nothing but repost other people’s content, repackage other people’s news, or aggregate interesting discoveries.

Being an internet archaeologist is now a full-time job.

While the format is now ancient, its economics are still absurd (near-zero production cost, daily output, compounding follower growth), with a public playbook and zero barrier to entry.

Its adjacent cousin, clipping, has also exploded with the purpose of compounding value not to a single account but to a person or thing, and UGC at scale is also the GTM belle du jour.

However, Venture capital, an industry that runs on being early, has almost entirely ignored these formats.

4 verbs, daily

There is one exception.

Cliche, I know.

But as mentioned in my latest a16z media breakdown, their media machine pumps charts. 1 team member (Moses 👋) finds 1 interesting chart a day, rebrands it in a16z styling regardless of where it came from, adds a line of context, posts.

And the viral charts are only the most visible half. a16z increasingly aggregates general-appeal artefacts too - famous-dropouts lists, tech-history compilations - branded in their styling before release.

Broad content travels and if the artefact is dressed in your visual identity, the brand rides every share into many rooms.

The whole format is 4 verbs. Find, rebrand, comment, repeat.

That is it, the unit of work is 20 minutes a day.

Curation is judgment made visible

The reflex objection is that aggregation is not differentiated, because anyone can repost content.

But what you choose to surface, every day, in public, is part of your pattern recognition running live. 30 days of picks can tell a story about how a fund sees its market.

Consider them small, frequent, unfakeable acts of attention.

For a16z the goal is breadth, but for others, it can be more curated.

The accelerant is unique data

Aggregation gets an order of magnitude more powerful when the thing being aggregated is data only you have, or even data everyone has that nobody has bothered to present.

Carta is the proof at scale. Their insights team turned cap-table exhaust - data generated by the product doing its normal job - into a stream of charts, and those charts made Peter Walker one of the most followed voices in venture.

The product produced the data —> the data became the media —> the media now markets the product.

Murph now runs a similar play in partnership with Harmonic. Their mega-funds-at-seed analysis was built on data everyone theoretically can access, presented in a visual nobody had seen. Familiar question, novel treatment… now, the chart starts the conversation rather than joining it.

Starting the conversation is a big part of owning the narrative around a topic.

For example, when Kimi-K3 dropped the other week, hundreds of accounts reported the news and split the same recycled attention between them.

Arena.ai posted their own leaderboard showing the model taking the number 1 spot, and took 20 million views. They were not reporting, they own the scoreboard it happened on. Reporting the score would be a commodity, whereas owning the measurement is a moat.

Your fund has this too

You do not need Carta's dataset or Arena's leaderboard.

You just need to notice what your own work already produces.

I have written before about the sawdust approach - the offcuts of work you are already doing. Your screening funnel, your pass patterns, your portfolio's hiring, the sector claims appearing in this quarter's decks. If your fund is running AI over inbound now, the sawdust is piling up faster than ever —> structured market data, at volume, that no journalist or rival can reproduce, because only you have the mill.

The sawdust is the internal version of the aggregation account.

External picks that we mentioned first proves you watch the space. But your own exhaust really proves you are in it.

The vacant verticals

Everything above plays to the broad market. Beyond it, almost everything is empty - and to be clear about what I mean, the vacancy is not "robotics fund reposts viral robot videos." That is aggregation as noise.

The vacancy is a layer deeper - the boring, load-bearing information a niche runs on, that founders want, surfaced consistently, packaged recognisably, with a line of judgment attached.

For example…

• A defence fund posting 1 procurement filing weekly, rebranded, with a sentence on why it matters.

• A bio fund on trial results.

• A fintech fund on regulatory filings… and so on.

Deliberately boring inputs - the fund's job is knowing which boring input matters, and the account performs that job in public. I have not seen many niche fund do this deliberately, which is remarkable given it would cost ~20 minutes.

Even platform teams are sitting on the adjacent version. Hiring data across a niche is that niche's talent flows, and nobody is the record of them.

Likewise If I ran a regionally focused fund, this is the first thing I would build - own every conversation around funding data, founder-relevant news and state filings in the region.

Regional information is uniquely starved of aggregation - it lives behind local news paywalls and in state registries, and mainstream never surfaces it because it does not scale. A fund that becomes the feed for its region's startup information becomes infrastructure for that region's founders. Every founder in the geography reads you before they pitch you.

Within a niche you could also lift the simpler a16z archaeology playbook per-sector: first decks, early screenshots, founding tweets of the companies that became huge in your sector. Every sector has a mythology, some have no curator.

Why the seat is empty

3 reasons.

1. Status. Curation feels beneath a firm that produces thought leadership. But the thought leadership mostly goes unread, and the aggregation account would not.

2. The original-content bias. Fund marketers are hired to make things, so choosing instead of making feels like not doing the job. But imo, editing is the scarce skill.

3. The feedback loop. Aggregate content is boring before it compounds - and then suddenly it is infrastructure.

How to run one

The unit… 1 thing a day/week/month. A filing, a deck, a move, a structure, or ideally - the clearest number from your own sawdust. If it cannot be regular, do not start - the cadence is eventually what builds the moat.

The template… 1 consistent visual treatment, so each unit is recognisably yours before anyone reads a word.

The line… 1 sentence of why it matters. The line is where the judgment lives, and builds your funds world view.

The test… after 30 units, complete the sentence - "they believe ___ about us."

Somebody will own each of these verticals within 18 months. It costs 20 minutes a day to be first.

Is this for everyone?

Maybe not.

Even if you never build the account, build the muscle. Sweep your sawdust once a month. Aggregate something - your screening funnel, your niche's filings, your sector's first decks.

Judgment is built as much in the picking as the making.

Laurie, Refinery Media

If you made it all the way through, thanks so much for reading! A thousand VCs now open this every week. If it's helped you think differently about marketing, Venture, or storytelling, please send it to someone in your orbit.

If you enjoyed this, read more from our top posts:

• The audience problem in Venture Capital

• What would it look like if Benchmark did content?

• How To Measure VC Content Against The Outcomes That Count