Content strategy and philosophy

Greg Wyatt • April 27, 2026

What follows is Chapter 40 of A Career Breakdown Kit, and part two of a three part series on Personal Branding.


Except it isn't. There are various definitions I revolt against, with good reason, in a job search.


Personal branding, hidden jobs markets, ATS compliance, and all the others. Terms that seem to hide secret wins, not replicable steps, especially when hidden behind a paywall.


I call it the title that's expected because of the questions job seekers ask me.


You may recall my article on the Hidden Jobs Market breaks it apart and rebuilds it into a cohesive multichannel marketing strategy that allows you to access the whole of your jobs market.


And so it is with my personal branding series.


This isn't about your brand. Or even about your reputation.


It's about pushing content that starts conversations with relevant people - such as peers, former colleagues, recruiters with a vested interest in these content areas, and even people that can put you closer to a job. Not forgetting fellow job seekers you can share experiences with - as long as you don't dwell on the negative.


And it's also about writing in a way that is both true to you and your profession - because conversation has to follow in the same voice as you write, and should support your work, when in work.


It's a strategy and philosophy that mirrors earlier chapters on networking, doorknocking, getting found and converting interest.


It isn't about writing credible statements in a content savvy way that shares unprovable anecdotes, hacks that lack substance, and where a funnel means more than a lesson. That way is the way of social media marketing - this is about conversations that matter.


40 - Content strategy and philosophy

 

While a personal brand might be the goal, your content strategy should be the priority. It can be applied even if you don’t like the idea of branding.


Much is made about LinkedIn’s algorithm and how you need to do this that and the other to get engagement.


You can look at it differently, ignoring the algorithm on the whole, and still achieve much the same.


These are the outcomes I aim for and see when writing content:


  • Start conversations
  • Help others
  • Sharpen and spark ideas
  • Raise awareness and trust
  • Have a laugh and a chat


I’ve gained friends I’ve never spoken to and friendly acquaintances I only know through ‘comments.’


As well as paying clients who have benefitted from my service.


Just as importantly, I have more credibility with candidates who place weight on LinkedIn content.


Content makes it easier for me to start conversations.


It’s important for me that I either enjoy the content and its consequences or find it fulfilling.


I don’t talk openly about my personal life, family or challenges. Something I agreed with my wife when I started publishing content.


Instead, I show all of myself in my words - quirks and all. So that if we ever speak in real life, there isn’t much of a disconnect.


Start with other people’s content


Find content writers who inspire you and use them as a catalyst for your own words.


There are two ways to do this.


Firstly, if you’re thinking about writing on LinkedIn, you are presumably already reading content.


What inspires you? What do you enjoy reading? Which authors resonate with your career, your values, your goals and the problems you solve?


When you read their content, do you engage and comment? Do you connect with them? Do you ask them who they recommend as writers in your field?


Secondly, look within.


What do you want to be known for in your career?


Maybe it’s procurement or your CIPD membership. React or agile. 5 Whys or Gemba.


If these are areas that interest you, use the LinkedIn search bar to find posts on these topics.


Now filter the results by ‘Posts’ and ‘Sort by’ latest.


Read through the results both for posts that interest you and those that have high engagement (less likely on a niche topic).


When you’ve found inspiring content, what next?


One first step in content creation is to respond to these posts with your own ideas. Less ‘Agree’ and more how you might respond in a real-life conversation on this topic.


Commenting on other people’s posts is a good way to find your voice, particularly if the conversation continues.


Like any skill, writing takes practice, and comments are a low-friction way of developing your tone.


If a comment sparks interest from other readers, it can be a concept to build on as a post in its own right.


The other benefit of this kind of niche content is that those who engage are likely to have similar interests to you.


Make sure to read other comments and see if there are more conversations to be had.


The comments you build with them can be the start of a mutually beneficial relationship.


Check out their profiles - do their interests and values reflect yours?


These are people to connect with, then DM to continue the conversation.


Check out their posting history, which will be available on their profile - there may well be a lot of interesting content to absorb.


With conversation comes content. Ideas and discussion that grow are an effective way to share your voice.


Here’s a suggestion for how you can do this in practice:


  • Look for 5 posts daily that interest you professionally - manually, using a search, or checking what your valuable connections are up to
  • Engage and comment on each
  • Check out new relevant profiles - connect and follow their content
  • On each post, look at who is engaging and respond naturally
  • Try to connect with 5 new relevant people from these interactions
  • Perhaps follow up with a message
  • Take note of the most interesting conversations and at the end of the week pick at least one to inspire your own posts
  • You don’t need to publish them if you aren’t comfortable - save for later if not


I’d avoid the viral content that combines relevance + relatability + entitlement + readability. These writers are more interested in engagement numbers than your specific interest.


You can see the truth of their words in how they respond in the comments sections.


From a marketing perspective, different types of content have different places in your lead generation:


  • Awareness
  • Interest
  • Consideration
  • Evaluation
  • Purchase


Each post, comment, DM and real-life conversation can relate to these steps and support your goals, even if you aren’t treating these as a marketing activity.


Time and time again


There’s a lot of investigation into optimal times to post. It’s more important that you are available to reply attentively in the first hour.


The course of a post is often dictated by the performance during this time.


I actively reply to comments for around an hour a day with LinkedIn on in the background of other work.


How much time can you set aside per week and per day for content?


Even if you only write a couple of posts a week, this will probably take a couple of hours.


You can expect low performance initially, with some exceptions, as it takes time to build inertia.


Set aside a sustainable amount of time each week and commit to it over a period - try for 10-12 weeks and track how things have developed.


You may find it becomes an enjoyable task. Try not to get distracted by engagement for its own sake and keep your goals in mind.


Types of content to try


Engagement on LinkedIn is built primarily on relevance and relatability. Even ragebait, given it drives strong feeling.


You can write a 100% relatable post that everyone takes relevance from and see massive engagement. Though that engagement may not serve your goals.


Or you can write a post that is 100% relevant to the problems you solve in your career, and the people who will find it relevant are from a small niche facing the same problems.


This is why a photo of you with your dog will fly, while a carefully thought out post about the optimisation of widgets in a byzantine setting will appear to be shouting into a void.


Or you can blend the two through storytelling, pivoting observations into business content, and copywriting formulae like AIDA (attention interest desire action) and PAS (problem agitation solution).


Everyone will have different forms of content that will be effective for them.


What do you want your ideal readers to experience?


What would ‘you five years ago’ would find helpful?


Do you want readers to see you as a credible expert?


Someone who is authentically vulnerable?


Your warts and all personality?


Someone who stands out in a sea of competition?


Someone who is thought-provoking, helpful, or altruistic?


The answers are much the same if you posed these questions of interviewing.


This is no coincidence, given your message should be consistently delivered no matter where it is received.


With that in mind, here are some content ideas you can try:


  • How you might solve a problem specific to your industry
  • Stories from your everyday life
  • The challenges in your job search
  • Observations on a news story and how it relates to your work
  • A flair post highlighting your availability
  • Asking for thoughts on an idea you are interested in
  • Sharing insight you find fascinating, whether that’s films, video games, science or sport
  • Stories from your career where you can show growth (everyone loves a hero’s journey)
  • Business frameworks, processes and techniques you find useful - Pomodoro Technique, scientific method, STAR, what do you use?
  • Equipment you use for work
  • Developments in your workplace and culture
  • Thoughts on content you find inspiring
  • Memes, humour, satire


Google content ideas for LinkedIn or ask ChatGPT, Claude and others.


I wouldn’t use AI to write articles. I do use them for ideation and to sense check.


‘Write me a post for LinkedIn that shows the link between Tesla cars and how to develop an HR strategy.’


The vulnerability of writing


You can be a content creator without ever publishing a post if you continue conversations through comments, connections, DMs and real-life.


This avoids sticking your head above the parapets and is low risk, but misses the gain of publishing your own content.


I know that some people are held back for fear of failure. I can tell you that clicking ‘send’ is always a high point of anxiety for me in sending newsletters. Imagine how I felt when I clicked Publish for this book.


What’s the worst that can happen with a carefully thought-out post?


Tumbleweed?


If no one reads it, you can always post it again another time.


Disagreement?


Loads of people disagree on my posts - you’ll see from my comments that I am always constructive in my dialogue and typically this supports the intent of my post.


Everyone has an opinion and they are welcome to theirs - as long as it’s constructive, there is always a learning opportunity.


Trolls?


These people exist and will at some point rear their ugly heads. I imagine them naked on the Underground, which takes the sting out of their vitriol. I’m sure it’s their unhappiness that drives their behaviour.


Marriage requests?


Unfortunately, dubious and toxic behaviour isn’t uncommon.


Don’t be afraid to block and report if you receive harmful messages.


As long as you are constructive in what you write and you work to build a conversation, it’s unlikely anything bad will happen. You will open yourself up to the opportunity of new relevant people starting conversations with you:


hiring managers, recruiters, peers, fellow job seekers, and friendly strangers.


Weight and depth of opinion


A couple of years ago, I had a message from an out-of-work Sales Director asking for some feedback.


He’d shot a video for LinkedIn where he talked about why he should be snapped up and received a lot of praise for the post. However, he was confused because a CEO he trusts told him it was poor and made him look boring.


He knew I’d give him unvarnished feedback, which was what he needed to find some clarity on what had happened.


Truthfully, the CEO was correct.


What had happened?


All of the positive engagement was from fellow job seekers and people who wanted to support him. That he’d done it was praiseworthy in itself and was rightly celebrated, rather than the quality of what he had produced.


None of them had hiring authority or were in a career similar to someone who would be his line manager.


The video didn’t show him how he comes across in person either.


While the positive feedback was fantastic for validation, his video worked against him. What might happen if a hiring process thought his video was boring when the role being recruited for has persuasion as a key requirement?


I’m pleased to say his redo was excellent, showing off his charisma while delivering the same message.


Who can you rely on to be this CEO for you in your career?


Why you should start now, even if you don’t see any benefit for months.


Starting cold on LinkedIn can take time to get traction.


When your first post bombs you might never think to do a second.


Going in with the expectation of little impact for the first three to six months is healthy in making a sustainable habit.


If you’re out of work though, three to six months may seem too far off to be worthwhile when there are many activities that offer a quick turnaround, such as applying for jobs.


I’ve spoken to many job seekers who’ve been out of work for more than six months and had decided not to write content at the outset of their search.


If they had, they might now be seeing the benefit of their work.



Salary on the job description

By Greg Wyatt • November 11, 2026
I've written many variations on the article below, over the years, and it seems sensible to revisit given the UK government's announcements around salary transparency. On the whole, I'm for it, with the many advantages it brings. But like a lot of things in recruitment, there is a more involved discussion to be had, especially when this fix treats the symptoms, not the rot. That's not to say the fix isn't worth doing, just that it won't fix many of the problems underlying a lack of transparency. This article is a little dated, in terms of the research shared, but I think the points are as relevant as ever. Originally published May 2023 Salary on the Job Description? Yes, the headline is trolling. The question should be ‘salary on the job advert?’ You wouldn’t confuse a job description with an advert, would you? This is a subject rife with disagreement around ethics and practicality, and worth broaching again considering recent campaigns in the UK to increase salary transparency and ban the ‘what’s your current salary?’ question. Let’s focus on some practicalities first, based on UK research I ran last year for my “Accessing a Candidate Short Market” guide:  Job boards can penalise you for not listing salary. As of December 2021, Totaljobs penalises adverts that don’t list salary, and these aren’t sent out as job alerts to candidates (who may be passive). These adverts are considered sub-standard. Unlisted salaries attract fewer qualified applications. This was estimated to be between 20% and 45% fewer, across the job boards I talked to. LinkedIn reported that not only can you expect more applications, you may also expect better-qualified applications when the salary is advertised. My work supporting senior job seekers confirms this - many would not apply to adverts that had no salary or "competitive salary" because they felt this was a waste of their time. There is less emphasis on salary negotiation from the candidate side, due to transparency in pay. This is a key part of equity, relating to gender, race and intersectional identity. According to Payscale 's research, white men are most likely to negotiate the highest salary. It’s simple – if you advertise vacancies and don’t list salary, you risk receiving fewer, less suitable applications. Then there’s the ethical question, where a common argument is that there is ‘no ethical reason that salaries can’t be listed’. Now, while I’m a proponent for advertising salaries, where possible, I think this ethical argument isn’t the right one - ‘can’t be’ is a strong statement. I think a better question is ‘how does this do harm’ when establishing reasons for not listing salary. This balances pragmatism with the most important aspect of ethics. It can be a complicated question too in scenarios like this: How do you establish salary transparency for job families across multiple regions where the local pay is established by HQ in one country? Currency exchange rates and cost of living mean that a fair salary one day may not be the next, therefore flexibility in not listing salary may be ethically the right thing to do if the intent is right. What about new vacancies that serve to solve a business problem and can be recruited at different levels? What about practical situations like recruiting hard-to-fill vacancies during a wider redundancy programme, whereby listing a salary would create concern in unrelated areas of that unsettled business? It's not always as simple a question as we’d like to think. If you’re facing a complex situation in advertising a role, I recommend describing your stance in the advert itself, if you legitimately can’t state the salary. At the same time, as we’ve seen in the US, legislation to enforce salary transparency creates situations such as Netflix apparently advertising a range of $90-900k. Who does that help? The problem with this kind of legislation is that companies can comply while continuing the behaviour that led to the legislation in the first place. It’s palliative, rather than treating unfairness at its root. We should also consider the unforeseen consequence of salary transparency, such as this research which appears to show a reduced link between performance and pay: Influence of Pay Transparency Helping candidates negotiate better pay or terms is a privilege I enjoy. And there's more to understanding someone's existing remuneration than simply establishing whether they can afford to move. Sometimes these conversations reveal that someone is being underpaid. With evidence of what their experience and contribution might command elsewhere, they can go back to their current employer and make the case for a pay rise. That might mean they decide not to move at all. Which is a perfectly good outcome for them, even if it isn't for the vacancy in the short term. It also opens up the counteroffer conversation early. If their employer could resolve the reason they're considering leaving, I'd rather understand that before they accept an offer elsewhere. There's a benefit for prospective employers too. A new employer may budget £52,000 for a role, believing that to be market rate, based on historic data. But if conversations with suitably experienced candidates reveal that their existing remuneration, expectations and other opportunities consistently indicate otherwise, there's good reason to revise either the budget or the requirements. If that budget does prove unrealistic, and it's the same budget other team members are measured against, it can also create the argument to revisit everyone's salaries - subject to affordability, of course. After all, it's cheaper to retain fairly paid staff with all the knowledge they have than to replace them. Of course, conversations with candidates aren't a substitute for proper salary benchmarking. But they can reveal problems that wouldn't otherwise be apparent. There are also situations where understanding the whole package matters. What if someone currently receives a 16% pension contribution and moves to a role offering a 10% pay rise but only a 5% pension? Car allowances, RSUs, tax-efficient packages? Remuneration is a more involved conversation than simply salary. And none of this means someone's existing salary should determine what they're worth to their next employer. If their previous salary was unfair, using it to determine their next salary risks perpetuating that unfairness. And if an employer routinely offers a 15% increase on previous earnings, the new salary may have little relationship to the contribution that person can make. It makes sense to pay commensurately with contribution and capability, rather than what may be irrelevant history. So I understand the reasons for wanting to ban questions about previous salary. They're often used badly. But I think there's an important distinction between asking to establish someone's worth and asking to understand their circumstances. One can perpetuate unfairness. The other can help identify and correct it. If legislation restricts these conversations, I'll adapt how I offer this support. But I'd hope any restrictions recognise the difference between using salary history to determine an offer and voluntarily discussing remuneration to help someone make better decisions. I hope you’ve found these thoughts helpful to start a broader conversation in your business. My thoughts aren’t set in stone, so please let me know your opinions if you disagree. Thanks for reading. Regards, Greg p.s. While you are here, if you like the idea of improving how you recruit, lack capacity or need better candidates, and are curious how I can help, these are my services: Commercial, operational and technical leadership recruitment Manage part or all of your recruitment on an individually designed basis for one client Outplacement support Email me on greg.wyatt@bwrecruitment.co.uk if you'd like to discuss.

Tone deaf - No problem, pt 6

By Greg Wyatt • November 5, 2026
It's interesting revisiting this article from 3 years ago, especially now AI products are more embedded in market. If anything my view on AI is more polarised, bringing many new opportunites, brand new problems, as well as the existential angst many are talking about. For me, codifying my experience with AI tools means I can help more people, while freeing up my time to do more human work. It's certainly helped with job seeker support, and increasingly so in my recruitment work. Mainly it's giving me more time to talk to people, and when homogenous AI applications at scale are one new problem, as well as the increasing threat of deep fake interviews, in person conversations might be a necessary exnovation (just googled that - what a great word that I will now abuse at scale). While the article below has dated somewhat, I think the threat it assesses has never been more pertinent. I've said for some time that AI might be the death of knowledge and judgement, even so far as 'meaning', something that this recent research also indicates . Importantly the research doesn't say the recommendations were wrong, just how they were followed. Read that article and think about how AI recommendations on applications relate. I've certainly found them more problematic, so far, than the old school ATS style ranking and filtering - because of the false confidence they convey, especially when dealing with non-traditional applications. Things may improve, or so is promised. And while words might be the first facility of LLM, they are still the core facility, given all it does is determine the most probable answer in its outputs (I know I'm being reductive, some of the developments from AI are amazing). Whereas words should be the consequence of thoughts, lead to the development of thought, and distil ideas in a way you can act on. Much like job adverts should be the consequence of effective job analysis, rather than a polished word that lacks meaning. The greatest risk for me in recruitment isn't so much the answers AI offers, but that we become so reliant we forget to ask better questions. I've edited down the previous article, but if you're curious, you can see it here . September 2023 I’d commented about my hearing on a social media post on deafness. ‘Have you looked into these hearing aids - they’re designed to overcome head shadow’, came the impromptu reply from a hearing aid specialist. Head shadow? Not a phrase I’d heard before, despite having no hearing on one side, which effectively creates a sound-free shadow to my right. See, when I had mumps at 18 months it killed the vestibulocochlear nerve in my right ear and damaged the one on the left. But it was my balance that showed the nursery assistants that something was wrong - I kept falling over for no reason. I expect they thought my slow response was normal naughty-boyness. Balance, intermittently poor audio processing, energy required to maintain attention in noisy environments and that bloody tinnitus - all these issues are far more annoying than not being able to hear in one ear. That and not being able to tell where sounds come from. “Over here, Greg!” is the most useless call on a football pitch. And the head shadow thing? Well, it’s never been an issue - I just turn my head when in conversation. It might look like I’m turning to kiss you, but it’s just a conversation I want honest. Sure I miss out on certain audio cues, but it’s rarely an issue. Anyway, curious as I am I looked into the £4,000 hearing aid that solves head shadow by placing a microphone on the deaf ear and projecting it into the the good ear. Quite the brute force tech solution and one I’m sure some benefit from. But the key issue is one of reverb. While the product is good, it would impact the quality of sound in my good ear, which seems a pointless trade-off for me, when my process of life is more effective than shiny tech. It’s ironic that I consider myself highly excitable when it comes to technology developments, yet I’m never an early adopter. Because I always ask myself, other than giddiness, what problems does this solve and how will it enhance my life. And so it is for AI in recruitment, and the shininess of tech in general. They are positioned as solving problems, and indeed they do, but in many cases, it’s the wrong problem that detracts us from the real opportunities for better processes. Simpler administration, speed and scale are clear benefits. And some of these AI-branded automations are excellent. The Star Trek-style auto-translator makes me giddy. As does the sales bot conversation-as-a-human sales video that’s doing the rounds. But AI for writing? What problem does that solve? For me, it depends on what you consider sales to be. Is sales pitching a generic message and hoping someone will bite? Or is sales laying out the facts so that the right person can reach an objective decision? A decision which might mean getting in touch, or changing their view on what needs recruiting. For the former AI writing seems to solve a problem. The words are certainly better, but the message is even worse. Yes: prompting. But if you can prompt the right message, why aren’t you just writing it, so that you embed that knowledge for use across other mediums - conversations, meetings and so on? While AI writing does not meet the requirements for the second type of sales. You can only do this by establishing the right facts from a briefing, consultation or interview. Then interpret this with meaning to the right people so that it creates the right impact. Sales as data visualisation, if you will. And if AI doesn’t work for sales in this way, why would it work for content or marketing? I think the answer depends on whether you value contextual insight or not. Until AI is better at asking questions that create meaningful conversation, it’s a non-starter for me. I say until because this hesitation will be moot in the next year or so. Because it isn’t what AI is now that’s the opportunity - it’s what’s coming soon. I can’t wait to see what’s next. Until then, AI, for writing, is a question of in one ear and out of the other. Which, if you’re deaf in the one, is quite the problem. Go learn copywriting instead, and listen to how it transforms your approach to recruitment. Then layer tech on top, when it’s ready. Thanks for reading. Regards, Greg p.s. If you like good recruitment and you need help with it in the UK, drop me a line. DM on LinkedIn, email greg.wyatt@bwrecruitment.co.uk , whichever you prefer.