Twitter co-founder Biz Stone took time off from his myriad of witty talk show appearances to slap around a just-published Fortune cover story that was titled–get it?–“Trouble@ Twitter.”

Wrote Stone, in part, on his personal blog in a post titled “The Trouble Bubble”:

We founded Twitter, Inc. in March of 2007 and while we have long said it’s about the users, not the service, we have nevertheless enjoyed favorable media coverage. What took so long for somebody to write the article that says we are falling apart? The normal press cycle is to put a company on a pedestal and then knock it down. It’s much more interesting that way. Twitter has had so many ups and downs you’d think we would have had more negative press. To me, it’s like watching the movie Rocky–he’s up, he’s down, he’s out, he wins!

He correctly points out Fortune’s reliable proclivity–see Google, Facebook–to write a wildly positive piece about the latest tech phenom, followed by a smackdown, followed by a they’re-back! tome.

Now, it is the San Francisco microblogging company’s turn.

(In Fortune’s defense, you try selling a magazine these days without a hookish cover line! Hence, the hit-you-over-the-head wounded bird motif here.)

But vegan-y, nice dude that he is, Stone ends on a positive note:

“For a long time, we refused to hire a communications group and now that we have one, I’m having fun teasing them about this Fortune article but the truth is, we’re long overdue to be knocked down by the press.”

While it must be pointed out that Rocky suffered from brain damage in the last installment of the famed movie franchise, BoomTown awards a Stone-cold win for Mr. Biz-boa!

Here’s the full post:

The Trouble Bubble

We founded Twitter, Inc. in March of 2007 and while we have long said it’s about the users, not the service, we have nevertheless enjoyed favorable media coverage. What took so long for somebody to write the article that says we are falling apart? The normal press cycle is to put a company on a pedestal and then knock it down. It’s much more interesting that way. Twitter has had so many ups and downs you’d think we would have had more negative press. To me, it’s like watching the movie Rocky–he’s up, he’s down, he’s out, he wins!

Fortune magazine finally stepped up to knock us down with a cover article, “Trouble@Twitter.” Here are some examples of how this works. After mostly positive coverage of Facebook, Fortune finally published an article in April of 2009 titled, “Is Facebook Losing Its Glow?” However, later that year they published, “What Backlash? Facebook Is Growing Like Mad.” Google received similar treatment. In July 2010 Fortune published, “Google, The Search Party Is Over.” Later that year, they published, “Google Continues To Gain Search Marketshare.”

We’ve had lots of positive press from Fortune in the past. In July of 2010 they published an article titled, “Twitter’s Business Model: A Visionary Experiment.” The article ended with, “Facebook might want to take notes.” It may seem odd, but from my perspective, this means we are being taken very seriously. Twitter is an important company and it’s under scrutiny from journalists–this is exactly how it’s supposed to work. Now it’s our job to prove the reporters wrong so they can write an article later about how we have made dramatic progress.

The Twitter team is an incredibly dedicated group of people who truly believe they are doing the most meaningful work of their lives. It’s also a very small group of people when compared to the other companies Fortune is investigating. We still have under 500 employees–many of them working weekends and nights to fulfill a potential that is palpable. For a long time, we refused to hire a communications group and now that we have one, I’m having fun teasing them about this Fortune article but the truth is, we’re long overdue to be knocked down by the press.

Earlier this week, the Knight Digital Media Center penned a post on the full disclosure policy of All Things Digital.

Titled “Transparency for Journalists: AllThingsD Shows What It Can Look Like,” it’s a very nice review of what we do on the site.

“What I like about these statements is that they aren’t cookie-cutter corpspeak or legalese. They’re human–and even humorous–revelations,” wrote Amy Gahran. “Each writer gets to decide which topics she or he wants to cover, and how. This can get pretty personal, and that’s a good thing. “

We think so too at ATD, which is why you should check in with a whole new bunch of full disclosures we have posted recently, since adding a half-dozen new staffers.

You can click in from our About Us page to read a disclosure penned by each person on the site with editorial responsibilities.

It’s important to us to have them there, as we feel that being transparent and honest to readers is the first step in our commitment to fairness, accuracy and ethical standards.

The Knight story had some good advice at the bottom of its report for crafting a solid disclosure policy:

Publish your key disclosures in one place.

By publishing the ethics statements as static pages, they’re not only easier for readers to find–they’re easier for search engines to index and rank. Transparency is not just about disclosure, but about visibility (which in the online age entails findability). If you dole out disclosures in dribs and drabs, buried within specific articles or posts, you’re less likely to gain the visibility needed to make transparency effective.

Leave what to disclose up to the individual.

The most effective transparency statements are personal, not cookie-cutter. Don’t require journalists to disclose information that they would prefer to keep private. But similarly, don’t prohibit them from sharing whatever personal information or context they wish to offer. Ultimately, these disclosures are about people, not organizations. Editors and managers can supply examples and encourage good judgment–but if a writer really thinks it’s important to let readers know that he votes Republican, vacations in Brazil, volunteers as an abortion clinic escort, loathes cilantro, or has a favorite Beatle, that’s his business.

Make it easy for journalists to update their statements.

Life goes on–which means life circumstances, current concerns, and personal views constantly evolve. New issues always come up, so a journalists’ transparency statement should be a living document that the journalist can modify at will. Make sure your content management system makes this easy. It’s not a good idea to edit this document daily (that could make you look obsessed with what others think), but it should be revisited at least annually or every few months.

Another freaky but compelling movie trailer–this one for “Unknown,” a bad-guys-stole-my-identity thriller set in Berlin and starring Liam Neeson and January Jones.

It’s got a lot of action and special effects, but it looks like the complex story is at the center of the action.

Enjoy:

“I mean damn, did you even see the test
You got D’s, motherf*$@%&, D’s! Rosie Perez”
– Kanye West

No position in a company is more important than the CEO, and as a result, no job gets more scrutiny. Sadly, little of this analysis benefits CEOs, as most of the discussions happen behind their backs. This post is a step in the opposite direction. By describing how Andreessen Horowitz evaluates CEOs, I am at the same time describing what I think the job of the CEO is. Here are the key questions we ask:

Does the CEO know what to do?

Can the CEO get the company to do what she knows?

Did the CEO achieve the desired results against an appropriate set of objectives?

1. Does the CEO know what to do?

One should interpret this question as broadly as possible. Does the CEO know what to do in all matters all of the time? This includes matters of personnel, matters of financing, matters of product strategy, matters of goal sizing, matters of marketing. At a macro level, does the CEO set the right strategy for the company and know its implications in every detail of the company?

I evaluate two distinct facets of knowing what to do:

Strategy–At Andreessen Horowitz, we like to say that in good companies, the story and the strategy are the same thing. As a result, the proper output of all the strategic work is the story.

Decision-making–At the detailed level, the output of knowing what to do is the speed and quality of the CEO’s decisions.

The Strategy and the Story

The CEO must set the context that every employee operates within. This context gives meaning to the specific work that people do, aligns interests, enables decision-making and provides motivation. Well-structured goals and objectives contribute to the context, but they do not provide the whole story. More to the point, goals and objectives are not the story. The story of the company goes beyond quarterly or annual goals and gets to the hardcore question of why? Why should I join this company? Why should I be excited to work here? Why should I buy your product? Why should I invest in the company? Why is the world better off as a result of this company’s existence?

When a company clearly articulates its story, the context for everyone–employees, partners, customers, investors, and the press–becomes clear: When a company fails to tell its story, you hear phrases like:

“These reporters don’t get it.”

“Who is responsible for the strategy in this company?”

“We have great technology, but need marketing help.”

The CEO doesn’t have to be the creator of the vision. Nor does she have to be the creator of the story. But she must be the keeper of the vision and the story. As such, the CEO ensures that the company story is clear and compelling.

The story is not the mission statement; the story does not have to be succinct. It is the story. Companies can take as long as they need to tell it, but they must tell it and it must be compelling. A company without a story is a usually a company without a strategy.

Want to see a great company story? Read Jeff Bezos’s three-page letter he wrote to shareholders in 1997. In telling Amazon’s story in this extended from–not as mission statement, not as a tagline–Jeff got all the people who mattered on the same page about what Amazon (AMZN) was about.

Decision-making

Some employees make products, some make sales; the CEO makes decisions. Therefore, a CEO can most accurately be measured by the speed and quality of those decisions. Great decisions come from CEOs who display an elite combination of intelligence, logic, and courage.

Courage is particularly important, because every decision a CEO makes is based on incomplete information. In fact, at the time of the decision, the CEO will generally have less than 10 percent of the information typically present in the ensuing Harvard Business School case study. As a result, the CEO must have the courage to bet the company on a direction even though she does not know if the direction is right. The most difficult decisions (and often the most important) are difficult precisely because they will be deeply unpopular with the CEO’s most important constituencies (employees, investors, and customers).

In my personal experience, the best decision that I made in my career–the decision to sell the Loudcloud business to EDS and become Opsware the software company–would have lost by landslide had I put it to a vote with my employees, my investors or my customers.

As CEO, there is never enough time to gather all information needed to make a decision. The CEO must make hundreds of decisions big and small in the course of a typical week. The CEO cannot simply stop all other activities to gather comprehensive data and do exhaustive analysis to make that single decision. Knowing this, CEOs must be continuously and systematically gathering knowledge in their day-to-day activities so that they will have as much information as possible when the decision point presents itself.

In order to prepare to make any decision, the CEO must systematically acquire the knowledge of everything that might impact any decision that she might make. Questions such as:

What are the competitors likely to do?

What’s possible technically and in what timeframe?

What are the true capabilities of the organization and how can you maximize them?

How much financial risk does this imply?

What will the issues be, given your current product architecture?

Will the employees be energized or despondent about this promotion?

Great CEOs build exceptional strategies for gathering the required information continuously. They embed their quest for intelligence into all of their daily actions from staff meetings to customer meetings to 1:1s. Winning strategies are built on comprehensive knowledge gathered in every interaction the CEO has with an employee, a customer, a partner, an investor, and so on.

2. Can the CEO get the company to do what she knows?

If the CEO paints a compelling vision and makes fast, high-quality decisions, can she then get the company to execute on her vision and decisions? The first ingredient in being able to do this is leadership, as I outlined in a previous post, Notes on Leadership.

In addition, executing well requires a broad set of operational skills. The larger the organization, the more elaborate the requisite skill set.

In order for a company to execute a broad set of decisions and initiatives, it must:

Have the capacity to do so–in other words, the company must contain the necessary talent in the right positions to execute the strategy.

Be a place where every employees can get things accomplished–the employees must be motivated, communication must be strong, the amount of common knowledge must be vast, and the context must be clear.

Is the CEO building a world-class team?

The CEO is responsible for the executive team plus the fundamental interview and hiring processes for all employees. She must make sure that the company sources the best candidates and that the screening processes yield the candidates with the right combination of talent and skills. Ensuring the quality of the team is a core part of running the company. Great CEOs constantly assess whether or not they are building the best team.

The output of this capability is the quality of the team. It’s important to note that team quality is tightly tied to the specific needs of the company in the challenges that it faces at the point in time that it faces them. As a result, it’s quite possible that the executive team changes several times, but the team a) is high-quality the entire way and b) there is no attrition problem.

Is it is easy for employees to contribute to the mission?

The second part of the evaluation determines whether or not the CEO can effectively run the company. To test this, I like to ask this question: “How easy is it for any given individual contributor to get his or her job done?”

In well-run organizations, people can focus on their work (as opposed to politics and bureaucratic procedures) and have confidence that if they get their work done, good things will happen for both the company and them personally. By contrast, in a poor organization, people spend much of their time fighting organizational boundaries and broken processes.

While quite easy to describe, building a well-run organization requires a high level of skill. The skills required range from organizational design to performance management. They involve the incentive structure and the communication architecture that drives and enables every individual employee. When a CEO “fails to scale,” it’s usually along this dimension. In practice, very few CEOs get an “A” on this particular test.

Netflix’s CEO Reed Hastings put great effort into designing a system that enables employees to be maximally effective. His presentation on this design is called Reference Guide on our Freedom and Responsibility Culture. It walks through what Netflix (NFLX) values in its employees, how they screen for those values during the interview process, how they reinforce those values, and how they scale this system as the number of employees grows.

3. Results against objectives

When measuring results against objectives, start by making sure the objectives are correct. CEOs who excel at board management can “succeed” by setting objectives artificially low. Great CEOs who fail to pay attention to board management can “fail” by setting objectives too high. Early in a company’s development, objectives can be particularly misleading as nobody really knows the true size of the opportunity. Therefore, the first task in accurately measuring results is setting objectives correctly.

We also try to keep in mind that the size and nature of the opportunity varies quite a bit across companies. Hoping that VMware (VMW) can be as capital-light as SolarWinds (SWI) or trying to get Yelp to grow as fast as Twitter doesn’t make sense and can be quite destructive. CEOs should be evaluated against their company’s opportunity–not somebody else’s company. Let me share a funny story, which illustrates a CEO really owning delivering against results. This story is from Robin Li, CEO of Baidu (BIDU). He shares that on the day of Baidu’s IPO–usually one of an entrepreneur’s most exhilarating days of his entire life–he sat at his desk terrified. Why? Listen to how Robin owned delivering results:

In 2004, we raised our last round of VC money led by Draper Fisher Jurvetson…and Google, one of our great colleagues. Then a year later, in 2005, the company went public. The ideal price was $27 [the stock's initial offer price] and it closed on the first day at $122. It was great with us for many of the Baidu employees and for all of the Baidu investors. It was a very miserable thing for me because when I decided to take the company public, I was only prepared to deliver financial results that match the price of $27 or maybe a little higher, $30, $40. But I was really shocked to see that the price went to $122 on the first day. So that meant I needed to deliver real results that matches an expectation much, much higher than what I had prepared to do. But in any case, I thought I had no choice. So I put my head down and focused on operation, focused on technology, focused on the user’s experience, and I delivered.

Once we’ve taken all of this into account, we see that black-box results are a lagging indicator. And as they say in the mutual fund prospectuses, “past performance is no guarantee of future performance.” The white box CEO evaluation criteria–“does the CEO know what to do?” and “can the CEO get the company to do it?”–will do a much better job of predicting the future.

Closing Thought

CEO evaluation need not be a byzantine, unstated art. All people, including CEOs, will perform better on a test if they know the questions ahead of time.

Ben Horowitz is co-founder and general partner of Andreessen Horowitz. He co-founded Loudcloud, later renamed Opsware Inc., in 1999 and served as CEO of the company before it was acquired in 2007 by Hewlett-Packard. He was most recently vice president and general manager of Hewlett-Packard’s Business Technology Organization Unit.

And Twitter search is indeed a powerful tool, which is why I use it as my homepage. But at the risk of being obvious, let’s spell out exactly what Twitter search does: It lets you track, in real-time, what people are talking about… on Twitter.

Which means that as fast as Twitter has been growing in the last year, it’s going to need to get much, much bigger before it gives you a real sense of what people are interested in on the Web. Right now, searching Twitter just gives you a sense of what a relatively small, self-selecting group of people are interested in.

Today’s example: The Amazon (AMZN) “glitch” story, which surfaced yesterday and been the top “trending” story on Twitter for the past 24 hours or so.

It’s of enormous interest to Twitter users, who sound off on the topic, using the keyword “amazonfail,” every couple of seconds. Outside of the Twitter hothouse, though, it’s not making much of a sound.

Last night, “Amazon rank” and “amazonfail” showed up at 14 and 38, respectively, on the Google Trends Top 100 list. But by this morning there was no trace of the story on the tracking tool.

Granted, this isn’t exactly apples and apples: Twitter is supposedly showing you what people are writing about, and Google (GOOG) shows you what they’re searching for. And Google’s own view of the Web is skewed, since it only values what people are searching for and linking to, not what they’re actually doing. But if Twitter was truly representative of the Web, you’d expect at least some overlap.

Could it get there someday? Conceivably. Twitter has a powerful hockey stick growth chart, and the four million U.S. users that comScore (SCOR) counted in February are almost certainly a low-ball guesstimate. More important, it’s up 1,000 percent from the year before. But that four million–or call it eight million, for argument’s sake–is still a footnote compared to Google’s 148.9 million during the same period.

If Twitter really does become both a commonplace verb and an activity–something average computer users do several times a day in the same way they use Web search–then the numbers above don’t matter, because Twitter will get there soon enough. But my hunch is that Twitter is going to permanently appeal to subset of the Web’s population (which includes professional self-promoters like me).

Which means that Twitter search will remain a niche product too. Valuable enough, particularly for brands that need to know what voluble people are saying about them. But hard to argue that it’s a must-have acquisition at any price. Or at least at the numbers that are floating around right now.

[Image credit: bosslyn]

The stock seesaw for Yahoo–fueled this time by a story in The Wall Street Journal claiming that former AOL CEO Jon Miller was seriously buttonholing private equity firms for money to buy the Internet giant–continues.

Yahoo shares rose seven percent due to the report, to $11.50, up 76 cents.

Unfortunately for everyone but stock manipulators, the Journal story had a lot of problems, including the highly pertinent fact that Miller has not been actively working on such a deal with any more effort that he had been over the last six months.

The Journal was basically correct that the idea of buying Yahoo (YHOO) has long intrigued Miller, who has not particularly hidden that sentiment, for a long time.

In fact, it is an idea that has drawn interest from many in the media and Internet space.

That is, except Microsoft (MSFT), which many investors still hope will revisit its failed takeover bid for Yahoo.

While a Microsoft spokesman would not comment yesterday, top sources there said they had not been working with Miller on such a deal. The Journal obliquely suggested the software giant might be involved.

Finally, while the Journal did call the Miller effort “informal,” it is actually even more casual than that. No money has been raised and Miller–along with his partner, Ross Levinsohn, in the Velocity Interactive Group–has not been mounting the kind of organized campaign described in the Journal, said several sources.

“Nothing is different now than it was last week, or even months ago,” said one person close to the situation. “It’s a mystery why that story came out now and who would put this out.”

While sources close to the situation BoomTown spoke to today also noted that Miller and Levinsohn have been in many meetings with potential investors about Yahoo, most of those people have sought them out rather than vice versa.

And none of the talks has been serious, as the pair have mostly been spending their time raising a $300 million fund for Velocity.

“When someone asks for a meeting to discuss investing in Yahoo and is credible, it’s not unusual to meet with them,” said one source close to the situation. “There have been a lot of conversations for a long time, but it ebbs and flows and most lead nowhere.”

That’s been especially true since the economy has collapsed and the credit markets have dried up, making it hard for anyone to raise the tens of billions of dollars it would cost to buy Yahoo or any company whose shares have waned.

The prices mentioned by the Journal were also unusually high, from $20 to $22 a share for Yahoo, or $28 to $30 billion in total. That is almost double its recent valuation.

“Anyone would love to get Yahoo for a bargain, but it is a complex and troubled situation too, so it’s also hard to pin down anyone to truly put up the money,” said another source. “No one can put it together and no one would at those prices either.”

But Yahoo remains an enticing target, despite its troubles, given its huge Web traffic and panoply of attractive online assets.

That’s been especially true as Yahoo’s shares have dropped well below $10 a share, from close to $30 earlier this year.

And Miller would be well positioned to take on a Yahoo deal, if it were possible. He has been mentioned as a candidate in its recent CEO search, after current CEO Jerry Yang announced he was stepping down.

Miller was also the choice of Carl Icahn, when the activist shareholder was waging a proxy fight against Yahoo, to lead it. It was a scheme that never panned out, mostly due to Miller’s indifference.

Miller was later Icahn’s top choice for a Yahoo board seat–Icahn got three after he settled with Yahoo and is now on its board.

But a noncompete agreement with Time Warner (TWX), which fired Miller abruptly from AOL several years ago, was enforced by the company, preventing Miller from becoming a director.

That noncompete is in place until the end of March, which would present yet another obstacle to Miller leading Yahoo.

Several sources said Miller has discussed interest in figuring out how to revive Yahoo with Icahn many times and they serve on a board together. But Miller has not discussed it formally with Yahoo leaders or made an kind of approach to the company.

What is most intriguing about the Journal story is why it would appear now, except that dubious Yahoo rumors have become too common of late, all of which have been debunked.

Just last weekend, for example, an inaccurate report appeared in the Times of London that, ironically, had Microsoft and Yahoo in a convoluted search deal, with Miller and Levinsohn as the picks for co-CEOs. All parties mentioned in that full-of-holes report denied it was true.

Full disclosure: Both the Times and the Journal, as well as this Web site, are owned by News Corp. (NWS).

And the media giant has–in the last year–been deeply involved in discussions with both Microsoft and Yahoo about potentially doing various kinds of deals and partnerships with its interactive assets, including MySpace.