Personal Branding, pt 2

Greg Wyatt • May 6, 2024

In the last edition, I introduced how personal branding can support a job search, and why you should avoid the type of content many people aspire to - going viral.

You can read it here.

Today, we’ll get a bit closer to actually publishing content, with the principles that lead towards it:

  1. Building your content philosophy and plan

  2. Types of content to try

  3. Weight and depth of opinion

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

Next week, I’ll share some posts and content writers that show an effective approach. and which you can emulate.


  1. Building your content philosophy and plan

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

I think you can look at it differently, and still achieve much the same.

Get your core approach right, then you can tweak what you do to find the right gains. Rather than start with chasing engagement.


If writing content is an idea you’ve been toying with, it’s a good idea to think about the outcomes you want to achieve, and then work back to set a plan.

If the only outcome you are interested in is a job, the next question should be, is content the right area to focus on, or are there better activities to support your goal?

Everyone has different skills and outlooks on life. If it simply isn’t in your wheelhouse, there are other activities you can do that may be more effective.


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

As well as paying clients, who’ve benefitted from my service.

And 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.

What I don’t do is talk openly about my personal life, family and 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.

That’s my philosophy to content and the boundaries I set for myself.


What about the plan?


Writing content isn’t just about publishing LinkedIn posts.

Replying to comments. Commenting on other people’s posts. Continuing conversations in DM. These are all required to get content to work for you.

From a marketing perspective, these all have different places in your lead generation funnel:

  • Awareness

  • Interest

  • Consideration

  • Interest

  • 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.

Indeed you should be aware of how people react to your visible words, in a way you might not be aware of (more on this next).

It goes to follow that if you use LinkedIn for Personal Branding - everything you do should be intentional, even throwaway comments.

And of course, this all takes time to do.


I write six or seven posts a week, typically in the evenings.

For me, it’s a form of journalling, and there is a lot of content I’ll either never post or will revisit at a later date. A post normally takes me 10-15 minutes to write, and somewhat longer to edit.

I post mainly in the mornings, where I have a bit of time to respond to comments.

There’s a lot of investigation into optimal times to post, but I think it’s more important that you are available to foster any engagement by replying attentively in the first hour.

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

I find if a post gets 20-30 engagements in 60 minutes, it will typically see 10 times that over its lifetime, which is mainly a week.

I actively reply to comments for around an hour a day, but I use LinkedIn for other parts of my role (research, business development etc), so I’m always online.

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, that will likely 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 time - try for 10-12 weeks and track how things have developed.

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


  1. Types of content to try

Engagement on LinkedIn is built primarily on relevance and relatability.

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.

Who doesn’t like a cute dog?

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


I mix my content up across 5 pillars:

  • Job search advice

  • Recruitment advice

  • Market observations

  • Things that interest me

  • Satire

I find these interest different audiences, and their own networks sometimes come across my posts, starting new conversations and awareness in other areas.


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

A good way to think about what might help you is what you want your ideal readers to experience.

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

Someone who is authentically vulnerable?

Your warts and all personality?

Why you stand out in a sea of competition?

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


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 on films, video games, science, sport

  • Stories from your career, where you can show growth (everyone loves a good ‘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/culture

  • Thoughts on content you find inspiring

  • Memes, humour, satire

Google “content ideas for LinkedIn” (which came up with this article ) or ask ChatGPT, Gemini or others.

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

However, many people use AI and get a lot of engagement, so there’s little reason not to experiment.

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


  1. 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 someone he trusts, a CEO, 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.

However, 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.

The lesson I took from this is to establish the weight and depth of opinion, whenever you seek feedback.

While the positive feedback was great for validation, his video actually 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.

Let’s say that the CEO in this story was called Steve.

Who is the Steve in your career?

Whenever you do anything, consider “what would Steve say?”

Whose feedback should carry most weight?


This is one problem with critical posts on LinkedIn.

For example, posts that criticise poor recruitment often get a lot of engagement.

But how does that post support the career goals of the author?

Could it backfire, if someone in a hiring process sees that?


A good analogy here is that LinkedIn is like an open-plan office. You may think you are having a private conversation, but what if the wrong person is listening on the other side of a partition wall?

You may never know the decisions they make, from the words they come across.

Is that fair? Probably not.

Does it happen? I’m afraid so.


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

Starting cold on LinkedIn can take many months to get traction.

That’s not always the case, but 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, especially if you need a job within a couple of months, and there are many activities that offer a quick turnaround, such as applying for jobs.

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

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


While negative visualisation is a helpful way to see why you might start a long-term activity now, here’s another one that relates to the philosophy section at the top.

Personal branding for me isn’t about getting a job - it’s about starting and continuing conversations with the right people.

It can be helpful in work when you aren’t looking for work. For idea sharing, networking, and keeping in touch. Even to promote your business.

And should the worst happen in future, when you find yourself out of work again, you’ll have that continued inertia from consistent posting.

So yes, it might not pay off in the short term, from a cold start, but if this is something you can sustainably do long-term, it can be an investment in your future.

As well as, if you are lucky, something that does pay off in the short term, such as if the right person sees your flair post.


I’ll give you an example of a good flair post, as well as other content and content writers to emulate, in the next post.

Thanks for reading.

Regards,

Greg

p.s. this post is a day early, as I have a challenging work week ahead, so have written all my content early

By Greg Wyatt March 23, 2026
This might seem a weird chapter. Surely you look at a job advert, maybe even read it, then decide to apply or not? Yet a job advert is more than just what's presented on a job board. It's a microcosm of everything in recruitment, including everything wrong, and you can learn a lot about what to expect in your job search by the least intentional of words. And when you do read a job advert, in its entirety, there are only two questions you should ask of it: Am I qualified? Should I be interested? It's somewhat odd that 99% of job adverts don't actually try and help you answer that. But maybe that's why employers say job adverts don't work. And why you don't think they do either. While you're here, why not check out A Career Breakdown Kit in its entirety? This series of always free chapters is an advert, after all. But it was never supposed to be an easy book to read, just accessible and comprehensive. I expect most readers are over 50, ND, or other marginalised demographics, considering these will likely be the longest out of work in our 'diverse and inclusive' world. If you're 'in demand' though, you'll probably click apply and wonder what the fuss was about. 44 - How to experience a job advert This chapter is about job adverts, what they are and aren’t, how you might experience them, how they might inform your decisions and your responses. I say experience rather than read because not all adverts are written or read. What’s a job advert? A job advert is the first step in a multichannel commercial approach to filling a vacancy. It’s the inverse of your job search taking a multichannel, through-the-line approach - we go where the candidates are. It’s the first step because it’s the first thing you experience of that vacancy irrespective of whether it’s a: Listing on a job board A post on social media A DM from a recruiter A phone call from a hiring process A referral Or any other means by which you become aware of a vacancy Each of these is a marketing or sales channel that may result in a candidate's application. It’s regrettable employers don’t necessarily see it this way because of the transactional nature of much recruitment process. They think it’s sticking a job posting up on LinkedIn. Employers forget that when you experience such an advert you first make the choice to entertain that advert rather than a yes or no to ‘Should I apply?’ Indeed much advertising neglects the psychology of a job move, which principally relates to problem awareness. How you experience an advert, what may encourage you to progress an enquiry and what you are prepared to put up with in the process relate to your situation and the problems you currently face. Are you out of work, needing any job to pay the bills? Are you in work, desperate to escape a toxic culture? Are you gainfully employed yet wouldn’t mind a bit more flexibility to pick the children up from school? Are you apparently smashing it, with that missing something you don’t even know about, and the right vacancy might improve your lot? And everything in between. The answer to these questions informs your experience of any advert. Because many employers don’t consider what informs an experience and think people would be lucky to work there, it’s rare that more than the minimum acceptable skill will be applied to an advert. As discussed in Better use of job boards, the emphasis is on more rather than better. It’s often thought that ‘if we can reach more candidates, we might fill the job.’ Rather than appeal to the right people for the right reasons. And so we are in a market where an advert attracts hundreds if not thousands of applications, most of whom are wholly unsuitable. What isn’t a job advert? A job advert isn’t a fake job, although many of these are listed. They aren’t Job Descriptions either - the next chapter explains why this distinction is important. While you may spend much time perusing job boards and talking with fellow job seekers, reading their posts on LinkedIn - I’d expect most employers have little awareness outside of their own sphere of what happens in the job seeker community. They’ll advertise how they advertise, instruct agencies how they instruct agencies and run their process how they run their process. I wonder how many great employers use Workday as an ATS, fill their jobs suitably, and have no knowledge of how Workday is viewed by job seekers who have dozens of Workday accounts, one per application? It’s true terrible employers might do the same. In one of my job advert consultations I had a detailed conversation with a Talent Acquisition Manager of a local technology consultancy. I can say that they are a jewel in the crown of technology development in the UK, have top 1% compensation, offer career development, and are a fantastic place to work. I know this because I have spoken to many people who have worked there. All speak highly of them. Yet the advert we reviewed had a number of red flags: £Competitive salary Generic company first text Confusion around job titles If you were an ideal candidate who decided not to apply because of these red flags you’d have missed out. There are two considerations in how an advert might be put together. The first is whether it is a product of a transactional process or whether the hiring team recognises potential candidates are driven by selfish reasons and seek to understand ‘what’s in it for them.’ (I’ve mentioned WIIFM (What’s in it for me) a few times now - answering that is key to good marketing) The second is the direction of travel - are you reading a job board advert or have you been contacted proactively about the vacancy? A transactional process is defined by information transactions with a focus on speed and volume. It places less emphasis on qualitative measures such as accuracy, specificity, relationships, and empathy. Instead you can define the process by a series of information transactions and exchanges: Job description Advert Suitable number of relevant applications Suitable number of interviews Offer Starter The goal is to fill a vacancy. A non-transactional process recognises the importance of relationships and that to build trust the right information needs to be put forward. Though the steps are much the same, at each stage the question is asked: ‘Does this give the candidate the right information to make an informed decision?’ Here a candidate is everyone who interacts with the vacancy outside of the hiring end - even a reader who chooses not to apply. The goal is to create a process that draws the right person forward while leaving everyone with a good experience. It’s not just about decency - it’s about long-term commercial outcomes. If you want the right person to thrive over the long term the process has to reflect this goal. While all the ‘nos’ might be commercial opportunity in future - future candidates, future customers - who knows? These are the archetypes. In reality, recruitment falls somewhere along this spectrum, often changing at different stages in the process. Intent matters even if the execution is flawed. Why does it matter ? Because a healthy rule of thumb is to reciprocate the level of care you experience. If you come across a transactional process - treat it transactionally. This isn’t inherently bad - it’s just the way of the process. The employers may still be good to work for. When and whether to apply Irrespective of how a role is recruited, there will be non-negotiable essential criteria that inform whether or not you are suitable. If you can establish these criteria you can confirm whether to apply. The problem is these criteria aren’t always stated. Sometimes they are implicit to the context - if the role is employed by a rapidly growing scale-up, it’s likely they’ll need someone with that experience. Hopefully this context is alluded to in the advert. It will need critical thinking to parse. Sometimes these aren’t defined at the outset and become mandatory when there are too many candidates in view. Sometimes these are hidden by Goldilocks or illegal discrimination - not too experienced, not too inexperienced, not too old. Sometimes the employer can’t divulge essential criteria. The other problem is that some essential criteria aren’t essential, such as when a company writes unrealistic shopping lists. Yes, it’s a FUBAR situation given it’s pretty hard to tell whether you’re a suitable candidate or whether you should even apply. Nonetheless - if you choose to apply your application must show how you can meet any essential criteria you can identify. If that’s the only thing your application does - it must do this. In my experience, transactional processes are the hardest to unpick, with adverts going something like: Here at genericorp we are proud to be recruiting for a in our market leading innovative environment. You’ll be doing You’ll need In return you can expect a £competitive salary. Apply with a full cover letter and updated CV. Only successful candidates will be contacted. Familiar? Whereas the rare non-transactional adverts give more of a narrative about why the right person might think to apply or give you avenues for finding more information. A note on inbound enquiries. With automation allowing volume outreach the effort to produce transactional DMs, emails and messages is pretty low. You might think when you receive such a message that you are already in the running - in many situations you are a transactional prospect. I’ve even heard some recruiters InMail #OpenToWork profiles only to improve their response rates. While not all messages are this way these are potential reasons you might not hear back when you reply to a recruiter. It’s not quite the case with phone calls which have yet to be executed through automation (some platforms promise AI call automation already). Again, you can separate transactional from non-transactional straightforwardly. Transactional leads with selling the job. Non-transactional seeks to explore if you are the right candidate. If the vacancy isn’t right it’s best to find that out as early as possible and save everyone time. Inbound enquiries are still adverts, in a different medium. Try not to treat your job search transactionally by default. Your goal isn’t to apply for hundreds of jobs. Your goal is to start conversations that count. By prioritising adverts in the right way you’ll improve your odds with high stakes applications. You’ll gain time and energy for other activities, including taking time away from your job search to recharge. 
By Greg Wyatt February 26, 2026
So here were are, the start of a new series. This series may be around 10 editions, looking at the things other industries do that we can implement into recruitment. These were written 3 years ago, right at the start of the AI zazzle, and in some ways have dated quite a bit. In others, the way in which they haven't dated at all, because the principles of how we live our business lives can be universal. So, I'm not sure yet, how much editing I'll do, whether there will be any inclusions, or whether I'll leave articles intact, as a moment in time. I've learnt all of these notions from candidates and clients, as I came to understand the function of their vacancies. Hearing about the daily practice from people doing jobs, I couldn't help but notice the same relevance in recruitment. So while these articles are hardly comprehensive, perhaps they'll make you look at your candidates differently, in what we can learn from them, and how that might improve our recruitment. Why five? December 2022 Ask anyone involved in active recruitment what their key problems are, and they’ll likely talk about skills shortages and candidate behaviour. On the face of it, problems which are out of our control, worthy of complaint with little opportunity to find improvement. But what if these were issues that weren’t entirely out of our control? What if we could apply a replicable process to understand what’s really going on, and how we can make a difference? Fortunately, we needn’t invent the wheel, as other industries have already done this for us. One such is 5Y, or Five Whys, a problem-solving technique that was developed by Toyota in the 1930s. It's part of the Toyota Management System that has inspired much of my work. Five is the general number of “Why?”s needed to get to the root of a problem. Often you can get to the heart of the issue sooner, sometimes later. Often there are multiple root causes. More than just solving problems, it’s about establishing practical countermeasures to prevent these problems from coming up in future. 5Y is an example of Toyota’s philosophy of “go and see”: working on the shop floor to find out how things work in practice to find ways for iterative improvement. This isn’t a theoretical idea to try out on a whim – it’s based on grounded reality and almost always works. There are two costs – time and accountability. Here’s a practical example, then a recruitment one. (Names have been removed to protect my identity) Problem 1 : The children were late for school. Why? Traffic held us up. Why? We left the house late. Why? The children weren’t ready on time. Why? Their school uniforms weren’t prepared. Why? We hadn’t set them out the night before. Here the countermeasure is to get everything ready the night before, rather than blame traffic for being late. Perhaps we might have gotten to school on time without heavy traffic, but that is an element out of our control. Of course, here there is another root cause – very naughty children – but better to focus on the simple changes. And sometimes traffic is the root cause after all, once you’ve ruled out other elements in your control. (2026 note: my eldest now often drives my youngest to school. A time laden solution I hadn't considered three years ago. Now I don't care if they're late 😆) Problem 2: Candidates keep ghosting us. Why? They weren’t committed to responding. Why? They didn’t accept my requirement for a response. Why? They saw no value in my requirement. Why? I didn’t create an environment where this requirement has value ( root cause 1 ). Or because they are very naughty candidates, with a bad attitude. Why have we allowed someone with a bad attitude in our recruitment process? Because we didn’t prequalify them well enough ( root cause 2 ) The first root cause is something we can work on by giving candidates what they need, building trust, and working to mutual obligations. There are many ways to do this – I’ve already talked about examples in previous newsletters. It comes down to good candidate experience and reciprocity. The second root cause requires us to work harder at understanding candidate needs, aspirations, behaviours and attitudes at the outset of a recruitment process. There’s a reason for their behaviour. We can be accountable for finding it. That’s no mean skill to develop, yet an essential one for anyone whose core responsibility is recruitment. And it’s hard to do in a transactional volume process, so the question then becomes, does your process help more than it hinders? You can apply 5Y to any issue you come across, as long as you are prepared to be accountable. At worst you may find that the things that were out of your control are at fault. In this case, you are at least armed with good information to report to your stakeholders, by ruling out other possibilities. What’s the point of doing all this? For me it’s continually improving how I recruit, with the consequence, in the example above, that I am rarely ghosted at all. And you can 5Y any issue you come across. Are poor agency CV submissions their fault, or in part down to your briefing and process? Are skills genuinely scarce, or is your requirement unrealistic? Is it true that your agency hasn’t listened to you, or do you engage the right partners in the right way? 5Y has the answers. Regards, Greg