Get live statistics and analysis of Andrew Wilkinson's profile on X / Twitter

Co-founder of Tiny w/ @_Sparling_. We own @Metalab, @Serato, @Letterboxd, @AeroPress, and 35+ other wonderful companies. Author of Never Enough.

3k following387k followers

The Entrepreneur

Serial builder and acquisitor who turns beloved niche products into thriving businesses, co‑founder of Tiny and steward of brands like Dribbble, Letterboxd, Serato and AeroPress. Author of Never Enough and a loud, thoughtful voice on product, efficiency and the future of work. Tweets like a founder on espresso: prolific, opinionated, and impossible to ignore.

Impressions
0
$0
Likes
0
0%
Retweets
0
0%
Replies
0
0%
Bookmarks
0
0%

You call yourself a serial founder, but your tweet history looks like a caffeine-fueled memoir: equal parts brilliant business moves, unsolicited life advice, and the occasional million-dollar bonfire, guess you treat capital like you treat coffee: strong, hot, and sometimes up in smoke.

Built Tiny and assembled a portfolio of beloved, culturally significant brands (Dribbble, Letterboxd, Serato, AeroPress among 35+ others), turning niche passion products into sustainable businesses and earning a massive, engaged audience along the way.

To create, acquire, and nurture small product-led companies that people love, proving that lean, product-focused teams can outcompete bloat and bureaucracy while making work and products more meaningful.

Small teams scale better than layers of management; good products and strong design win hearts and markets; transparency and storytelling attract customers and founders; technology (like AI) should be used to teach, scale craftsmanship, and make everyday life better.

Exceptional at acquiring and scaling beloved niche brands, crystal-clear POV on product and company design, magnetic storytelling that drives massive engagement, and an uncanny ability to turn lessons (and failures) into shareable, viral threads.

Can be blunt and occasionally provocative in public threads, risks oversharing personal losses or hot takes that fuel debate, and may underestimate how nuance gets flattened on X, leading to polarizing reactions.

Use threaded micro‑case studies: break big lessons (acquisitions, product fixes, hiring, failures) into 4, 8 tweet threads with clear takeaways. Pin high-performing threads, repurpose them into short videos/voice clips, host occasional Spaces with founders from your portfolio, engage with creators and designers (Dribbble crowd loves visuals), and finish posts with one tactical takeaway so followers can share and implement immediately.

Owns 35+ companies including Dribbble, Letterboxd, Serato, and AeroPress; wrote Never Enough; 371,118 followers on X; ~21,348 tweets; famously tweeted a thread about losing $10,000,000 and another about his 5‑year‑old using ChatGPT for 45 minutes.

Top tweets of Andrew Wilkinson

Elon Musk fired 6,500 employees at Twitter. A little birdie told me it's down to: - 2 designers - 6 iOS developers - 20 web developers - Around 1,400 sales and operations people How is it possible that we are still using this website? Two words: Parkinson's Law. Have you ever wondered why seemingly simple tech companies have tens of thousands of employees? Sometimes, it's because they have huge sales forces or tech support/operations people. But often it's also due to Parkinson's Law. Parkinson's law is like lighter fluid for bureaucracy. It's a business tapeworm that slowly eats away at companies, making them less and less efficient and innovative over time. Parkinson's Law is the idea that the work will generally expand to the amount of time, budget, and number of people allocated to it, and no matter how many people you allocate to it, those people will feel busy. They'll feel busy because, due to the excess time/slack in the system, they'll start focusing on less and less important tasks. Here's how it manifests on an individual level: Let's say you have a report due in a week. The report might only take you around five hours to finish if you really focus and work efficiently. However, because you know you have a week to complete it, you might find yourself spending a lot more time on it than you need to. You'll be more prone to distractions, take longer breaks, or perhaps decide to add more details, tables, graphs, and so forth. Essentially, the task becomes more complex and time-consuming purely because you have more time in which to do it. And here's how it manifests across organizations: Imagine a big tech company. A social media company with various departments. Each department has tasks that it must complete to contribute to the overall productivity of the company. Now, suppose each department is given a budget and a set amount of time to complete its tasks for the year. According to Parkinson's Law, each department will use its entire budget and the entire allotted time, even if the tasks could have been completed more efficiently. This is because as resources and time increase, departments tend to become more complex and less efficient. For example, a department might add more steps to its procedures, requiring more approvals and creating more paperwork, which slows down the process. Or it might use the full budget on additional personnel or equipment that doesn't necessarily improve productivity. The department might also use the full budget to justify the same or larger budget for the next year, since budgets in many organizations are often determined based on the previous year's spending. This is a phenomenon known as "budget padding" or "spend it or lose it" mentality. Inefficiencies can also develop in staff allocation. If a department expands, it might add managerial positions that aren't strictly necessary. More employees are hired to manage, creating layers of bureaucracy that may not contribute to productivity and can even slow decision-making. I have seen this occur over and over again in my career. The larger the team, the larger the budget, the longer the timeline, the less gets accomplished. I'm very curious to see how many more tech companies come to this realization. So often, good times + revenue growth = Parkinson's Law.

11M

What @elonmusk just did with Twitter ads is brilliant. He just made every major creator on the platform a financial beneficiary. When Twitter sells ads, the community gets a slice. Alignment of incentives. Same thing with paid subscriptions. When creators get paid, Twitter

3M

Shit on @elonmusk all you want, but he has The Now Habit. As soon as he has an idea, he takes action towards making it happen. This is inherently chaotic, but for better or worse, it's likely a big part of why he's so successful. Rapid action, iteration, and experimentation.

3M

Most engaged tweets of Andrew Wilkinson

Elon Musk fired 6,500 employees at Twitter. A little birdie told me it's down to: - 2 designers - 6 iOS developers - 20 web developers - Around 1,400 sales and operations people How is it possible that we are still using this website? Two words: Parkinson's Law. Have you ever wondered why seemingly simple tech companies have tens of thousands of employees? Sometimes, it's because they have huge sales forces or tech support/operations people. But often it's also due to Parkinson's Law. Parkinson's law is like lighter fluid for bureaucracy. It's a business tapeworm that slowly eats away at companies, making them less and less efficient and innovative over time. Parkinson's Law is the idea that the work will generally expand to the amount of time, budget, and number of people allocated to it, and no matter how many people you allocate to it, those people will feel busy. They'll feel busy because, due to the excess time/slack in the system, they'll start focusing on less and less important tasks. Here's how it manifests on an individual level: Let's say you have a report due in a week. The report might only take you around five hours to finish if you really focus and work efficiently. However, because you know you have a week to complete it, you might find yourself spending a lot more time on it than you need to. You'll be more prone to distractions, take longer breaks, or perhaps decide to add more details, tables, graphs, and so forth. Essentially, the task becomes more complex and time-consuming purely because you have more time in which to do it. And here's how it manifests across organizations: Imagine a big tech company. A social media company with various departments. Each department has tasks that it must complete to contribute to the overall productivity of the company. Now, suppose each department is given a budget and a set amount of time to complete its tasks for the year. According to Parkinson's Law, each department will use its entire budget and the entire allotted time, even if the tasks could have been completed more efficiently. This is because as resources and time increase, departments tend to become more complex and less efficient. For example, a department might add more steps to its procedures, requiring more approvals and creating more paperwork, which slows down the process. Or it might use the full budget on additional personnel or equipment that doesn't necessarily improve productivity. The department might also use the full budget to justify the same or larger budget for the next year, since budgets in many organizations are often determined based on the previous year's spending. This is a phenomenon known as "budget padding" or "spend it or lose it" mentality. Inefficiencies can also develop in staff allocation. If a department expands, it might add managerial positions that aren't strictly necessary. More employees are hired to manage, creating layers of bureaucracy that may not contribute to productivity and can even slow decision-making. I have seen this occur over and over again in my career. The larger the team, the larger the budget, the longer the timeline, the less gets accomplished. I'm very curious to see how many more tech companies come to this realization. So often, good times + revenue growth = Parkinson's Law.

11M

Shit on @elonmusk all you want, but he has The Now Habit. As soon as he has an idea, he takes action towards making it happen. This is inherently chaotic, but for better or worse, it's likely a big part of why he's so successful. Rapid action, iteration, and experimentation.

3M

I started my company 16 years, 3 months, and 5 days ago. Today, it went public. But let's rewind for a second... 5,939 days ago, I was a barista at a small cafe called @2percentJazz2, in Victoria, Canada. I made $6.50 an hour. Two guys, Chris and Jeff, started coming into the cafe. They'd sit there all day drinking espresso and typing away on their laptops, using the wifi. After weeks of this, I asked them what they did for a living. Didn't they have jobs? They told me they were "web designers" and this — sitting on their laptops — was their job. As I dug in, they told me how it worked: They asked local businesses if they needed a website, then charged them a couple thousand bucks to make one. They could whip a website together in a few days, and each make $1,000. Simple. This blew my mind. And at that moment, I realized something: I wanted to be the guy drinking the espresso, not the one serving it. Chris and Jeff were clearly smart, but I knew some basic HTML and figured I could do the same. I decided to try it out. When I got off my shift, I took the bus over to a book store downtown and bought a book called 'Bulletproof Web Design' by Dan Cederholm (@simplebits) to hone my skills. Then, I googled "freelance web design jobs" and found a tech job board called Authentic Jobs made by this guy in Utah, @cameronmoll. There were hundreds of posts, mostly from startups in San Francisco, looking for freelance web designers. I decided to try to win one of these contracts, but I had a critical insight: Nobody wants to hire an 18-year-old barista to build their website. So, I decided I'd create a fake design agency. Using tricks from Dan Cederholm's book, I whipped together a slick looking site and called my "agency" MetaLab (after the tag in HTML). The website was very vague as to what exactly MetaLab did, who worked there, or where we were located. It also featured a cringe-inducing tagline "We Help People Make Cool Stuff." Like an email spammer, I started sending emails to every single web design job post I could find. I was met with crickets, until I got an email from a guy named Kavin Stewart (@kavinstewart). He worked at a startup called Offermatica in San Francisco and told me he needed an interface designed for a web app. I barely understood what a web app was, but I assured him I could do it. He proposed a $2,000 USD budget and my eyes went wide. This was more than I earned in a month, and the project was just a few days of work. I walked into the cafe the next day and quit my job. I told myself that if I could just make enough money to wake up whenever I wanted and comfortably make rent, I'd be good. The rest is history. But I slightly overshot. I still own MetaLab, but along the way me and my business partner @_Sparling_ started dozens of companies, then began buying wonderful businesses, including one (Dribbble) — amazingly — from Dan Cederholm, the designer whose book I bought when I first started. Today, Tiny went public, and as of this moment has a market capitalization of just under $800 million. I can't even begin to explain how mind boggling this is to me. This has not been a feat of entrepreneurial genius. My key skill has been choosing incredible people to work with, both internally and externally, and I wanted to say a huge thank you to everyone who has worked at Tiny and our various companies over the years. And a special thanks to @simplebits, @cameronmoll, and @kavinstewart for helping with my first step😉 Watch for us on the TSX Venture Exchange under the ticker TINY (how cool is that ticker?). https://t.co/tlpgiEO2MU

2M

What @elonmusk just did with Twitter ads is brilliant. He just made every major creator on the platform a financial beneficiary. When Twitter sells ads, the community gets a slice. Alignment of incentives. Same thing with paid subscriptions. When creators get paid, Twitter

3M

People with Entrepreneur archetype

The Entrepreneur
@dagorenouf

Salesman and builder.

759 following127k followers
The Entrepreneur
@coltybrah

building / built multiple 8 figure brands.

675 following78k followers
The Entrepreneur
@codyschneider

follow to learn how to build AI agents that do marketing to grow your business building @graphed with @maxchehab

4k following63k followers
The Entrepreneur
@chainyo_ai

Building the infra layer for AI agents. Founder @ Kubeply

322 following644 followers
The Entrepreneur
@ceodotmika

ceo.mika on IG - Join CEO Club below (free)

41 following10k followers
The Entrepreneur
@blakeandersonw

✝️

1k following70k followers
The Entrepreneur
@bambino_moon

J’analyse et conçois des systèmes d’offres Shopify qui boost l’AOV et la conversion | 10k+ stores utilisent nos architectures ⟡ apps.shopify.com/moonbundle

1k following8k followers
The Entrepreneur
@arquiguru

+10 años creando emprendimientos inmobiliarios y compartiendo lo aprendido. Emprendedor inmobiliario, arquitecto y co-fundador de Proinvest y Nuevo Concepto.

1k following5k followers
The Entrepreneur
@aribk24

22 + building @24labsai | +$10m ARR

377 following40k followers
The Entrepreneur
@arcknight_tech

SEO Strategist, YouTube Expert and AI SaaS Founder 👉 rankingturbo.com 👉 skool.com/ai-powered-seo 👉 conversionblitz.com

294 following133 followers
The Entrepreneur
@TheJeremyHaynes

We help high ticket businesses scale. Results not typical. No income claims. For education only.

1k following23k followers
The Entrepreneur
@antonosika

building the last piece of software @lovable prev physics

1k following82k followers

Explore Related Archetypes

If you enjoy the entrepreneur profiles, you might also like these personality types:

Ready to grow on 𝕏?

Join 9,000+ creators who are posting smarter, engaging better, and growing faster with SuperX.