Post by Josh Cons

A lot of the consensus around LinkedIn content is wrong. We see the data across dozens of active accounts every week. Here are some myths worth correcting: 1. "I should pull back from posting because my reach has been down." That's not how it works. One of my own posts last week got 15 likes and 1 comment. Probably my lowest performing post in a while, and I spent a decent amount of time on it. The next post got 40 likes and 20 comments. Fine by me. Overthinking a slow week does more damage than the slow week itself. 2. "50,000 impressions this month would be a meaningful benchmark." When the GTM head reports to the CMO or CRO, 50,000 impressions doesn't make the argument. Compare that to: we made a post that got 21 likes, we tracked it with links, and it drove three qualified conversations we're in the midst of closing. One of those is worth more than all the impressions combined. It feels good to chase big numbers, makes you pound your chest, but virality is short-term and rarely drives pipeline. 3. "The algorithm is pushing shorter posts. Longer posts are dead." My take, unchanged for three years: a post could be one word or 3,000 characters. If it's captivating, drives a message, and is relevant to your brand, it's good. I mix it up myself. Some posts are 4-5 punchy sentences, and some are fully fleshed-out frameworks that use every character available. Quality is the only variable that matters. _ The content that works is the content that's consistent, specific to the audience you're trying to reach, and measurable against pipeline. The rest doesn't matter.