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 February 5, 2026
Walk a mile May 2023 “It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen.” That’s how 1984 starts, the classic dystopian novel by George Orwell. What does it make you think of? I don’t know about you, but thirteen to me is both an unlucky number and an improbable one for a clock to strike, evoking curiosity and trepidation. It makes me want to read on. George could have instead written an opening like “it was a dark and stormy night”, to evoke a sense of darkness at night, during a storm. I gather that cracker is often derided as the worst opening line of all time, not just for the words, but for how it’s a representative experience of the entire book. Some people love it. For me, it’s up there with “My favourite client is an innovative market leader” “To apply, send an up-to-date CV, and cover letter, stating your current salary to greg.wyatt@darkandstormyknight.com ” “If you haven’t heard from us within the thirteenth strike of the hour, please assume you were unsuccessful” Or even “We don’t discriminate on the grounds of….” What do you think a dream candidate experiences when they come across them? Especially one that is selfish and feels like they’ve no reason to consider a new role yet happens across yours by happenstance. The irony is that if you dig into the websites of agencies and employers that write these words, they’ll often extoll disruptively good candidate experience, values alignment and culture fit. But what do their words and behaviour show, and how is that experienced? Flipping it around, the questions might be “What can we do to create the best experience for the high-performing person we want to employ at this step in our recruitment process? What can they benefit from? How can we make their journey more palatable? What are we missing?” As smoothly as these questions roll off the tongue, it’s not just the steps taken, but the ones before, in-between and after. While it doesn’t just benefit your next employee, it benefits everyone - your other candidates, you and your stakeholders. Of course, there’s no need to gaze so navelly if you hire people well enough. But, if your adverts aren’t working or if your process doesn’t fill vacancies, you can either work on things in your control or accept those that aren’t. What you shouldn’t do is blame candidates, agencies or the market if your own affairs aren’t in order. Having a recruitment process whose consequence is both good candidate experience and serves to better fill your vacancies – that’s something in your control. It starts with putting yourself in the shoes of your candidates and giving them what they can benefit from. Do this through your words, show it through your actions. You could consider Attention , Ikigai , and Definition for your messaging. What else? How about considering the situation of the “successful candidate”? What if they are likely to be happily employed, sceptical of a move and have no interest (yet) in updating their CV or writing a cover letter? If you require an updated CV, and they don’t have the time, what are the chances of this candidate (who you’d love to employ) not applying, and how would you ever know? What if you offered an informal call or to answer any questions before an application? (Research shows that offering multiple means of getting in touch improves response rates) What experience might they benefit from in the opening salvo of what might be an advert, message or website? What reasons can you give them to build trust, commit to your process and see it through? Do they want to be told something is a brilliant opportunity, or shown why it may interest them? What if they’ve wasted many lifetimes going through never-ending interview processes, and might just benefit from knowing what your process is? Why couldn’t you highlight your interview process in your advert? What if they needed an accommodation? Perhaps they’re ND, have a disability, struggle to find childcare at short notice. Who knows what’s going on in their lives where minor amendments can find suitable gains? Rather than say “we don’t discriminate on the grounds of” (discrimination is illegal for protected characteristics in the UK - what are the reasons it needs to be said in an advert?), why not instead show how you are inclusive and accessible… which IMO, is what the points above contribute towards. That’s just for advertising. What if your job descriptions were clear & concise , suitable & sufficient and true & fair ? What if you provided interview questions in advance of interviews? This is currently advised as good practice in the UK for autistic candidates. Does it give an unfair advantage to people that don’t need this accommodation? If not, why not allow everyone the same access? My answer is it doesn’t give an unfair advantage. It allows everyone to fairly evidence their capability on a more even playing field. How might that affect the experiences of you and your candidates? What if you clearly managed expectations? What if you highlighted bottlenecks and delays, rather than not saying anything? “There won’t be any news this week as Gary is unexpectedly away from the office. Can I come back to you on Monday? How are things with you by the way?” What if you answered questions before they were asked ? The list is endless, and it starts with establishing what your successful candidates could experience. For an example of how it might come together, here is the basic structure of my job board adverts: Attention – the hook that will appeal to a carefully established ‘right candidate’ Ikigai – why they might be interested in further investigation, what they can expect from an employer they might benefit from working for Definition – a line or two on what makes the company the company; two to three lines on what the role is and its context; no more than three minimum viable requirements the successful candidate should have. An invitation to talk to or email me, with any questions or accommodations that may help. No need for a CV if it isn’t to hand. “All applications will receive a reply within three days.” The boring bits: what you can expect from me; what the interview process is, with any notable points; time frames. This is a loose structure and will vary in length, detail and style depending on who it’s for. While some people confuse me as a dedicated Headhunter (I’m an appropriate-multichannel recruiter that does headhunting), I make half of my placements from advertising. Yet many of these adverts produce hires that weren’t actively looking. Two more editions to come: Trust Me, and Negative Space. Then we move on to a new series: Innovation from Iteration. Regards, Greg p.s. the last line in 1984 is “he loved Big Brother”. And that’s the end of the story. And then there were none. And that was that. And so it goes. All was well. Bonus points if you can name any of these books from their final lines. P.p.s. While you are here, if you like the idea of improving how you recruit, and you're a UK employer, why not drop me a line and explore whether we can improve everyone's experience together 
By Greg Wyatt February 3, 2026
What follows is Chapter 14 of A Career Breakdown Kit (2026) . I've updated it yesterday, having done a little digital hygiene and the revelation I have fallen foul of two fake jobs. Or rather they are real jobs I'm recruiting for, which have been scraped without my permission, then hidden behind a signup screen. Why not google "Engineering Manager Bircham Wyatt Recruitment" and see how it looks to job seekers? What makes this particularly egregious is that in both cases AI appears to have been used to alter specific details of the role. Such as including a salary that is well, well above the budget for the role. As well as being a waste of time for someone wanting to apply, there's the cost of their private details, and were the employer to see the advert, potential internal reputational risk of employees seeing a fantasy salary. Looking at Trustpilot reviews, to gain access to one there is a paid subscription. The second appears to sell CV writing services to applicants. Both appear terrible from what customers say. A real job that is worse than fake, if you happen to come across it. I expect people are getting wise to these odd listings; however when one vacancy appears umpteen times in a google search, with only two leading to a real listing, it's easy to assume they are all fake. "Be aware of fake jobs" is one of my top 10 pieces of advice shared in today's LinkedIn Live with Simon Ward. If you are around at 1pm GMT, please join us by clicking here . 14 - Fake jobs Picture the scene. You’ve gone through the emotional turmoil of losing your job. Or maybe something’s happened at work to galvanise your decision to make a change. You take a bit of time to figure out what the right next move is. You go through the obvious channels to see what jobs are out there - job boards and other websites which promote jobs. Your first reaction is one of hope and optimism - there seems quite a bit out there - maybe you’ll secure something quickly. If you happen to be reading this, new to a job search, indeed you might. Many people in this market quickly realise that a significant number of adverts do not represent jobs that exist. A double whammy in your emotional rollercoaster of recent weeks. There are a few categories to go through, but the outcome is the same: an advert that, at best, wastes your time. The recruiter perspective When we advertise a job, we allow time for applications to come in before assessing them and starting the interview process. Let’s say the volume is manageable and the outcome is not guaranteed - for example, when a candidate you want to offer decides to take a different job instead. There are no villains in this scenario. It’s common enough that risk is a factor when advertising. If a recruitment process takes six weeks from advert to offer, it can make sense to leave the advert up in case you need more candidates in your pipeline. What about if your process takes three months? Illness, holiday, lack of availability, unexpected deadlines - all can delay a process. There are many tools and suppliers which support a hiring process, one of which is the job board. Often features are developed to support ‘what happens if things go wrong.’ These same tools can lead to issues you may experience: Scraping Scraping is when one website takes content from another and relists it. This can happen as an affiliate / aggregation / commercial arrangement, or to drive traffic to the scraping website. The idea is that this increases eyeballs on the content. In the context of job adverts, you can see this everywhere. Indeed and LinkedIn have both relisted adverts from elsewhere at various times. It's changing because some job boards have now secured high volumes of traffic and want to monetise that traffic while keeping control of the adverts. An indication that this happens is when you click ‘apply now’ and it takes you to another website other than the employer’s. This can happen multiple times. Every time a job is scraped, there can be parsing errors where data from fields are incorrectly transferred. If the original advert is updated, the scraped adverts won’t necessarily be updated. Scraped adverts can give inaccurate or outdated salary, location, or even job information. They can also stay listed when the original has closed without the employer ever knowing about it. This is a form of 'legitimate' scraping intended to benefit the employer through additional applications. There is a second type of scraping. As of 2nd February 2026, one of my vacancies has been scraped, without my permission, by apparently two different organisations. In the first you can only apply by signing up. It lists a salary that I haven't disclosed elsewhere is not commensurate with role responsibilities. If you click on my Company Name, it will tell you I am a large multinational recruiter, employing 51-100 staff. Which is 51-100 more people than I employ, if you don't include me. Let's ignore the AI word soup company profile they've lumped on me for now. Some of my other adverts this website shares are slop summary overviews. Including the same job at 40% to 60% of the salary in the first advert. It's the same for the second, except here the salary invented is well above the hypothetical top budget. Looking deeper at both companies, on Trustpilot, both offer subscription services to access jobs that are hard to cancel. While one offers what appears to be bait and switch CV writing services. Several reviews are from employers who have experienced similar to me, with instances of outdated vacancies that no longer exist. What a sham. Relisting As a feature for advertisers, many job boards allow an automatic relisting of adverts to ‘bring it to the top of the pile.’ These relists can occur throughout the lifespan of an advert. Six weeks in, an advert may appear new, even though a candidate might be about to be given a job offer. The vacancy is live, but your application may not be considered because the process is too far along. This can also happen manually for many reasons. I’ve taken down a job after a couple of weeks to rewrite it based on fine tuning from an interview process. Or when a candidate has declined an offer put forward to them. Or when a vacancy has been put on hiatus. The reason for a manual relisting might be unknowable if it isn’t stated in the advert. It isn’t necessarily for a bad reason. If I were to relist an advert, it would only be because I need more candidates, in which case your application would be read. In many situations relisting can encourage an application that won’t be assessed. Laziness Adverts can remain listed because someone forgot to take them down. This is more likely to happen if there isn’t a cost per advert, such as on an employer website, or if there is an unlimited contract. Evergreen vacancies Some vacancies are perpetually advertised to enable a candidate pipeline for a specialism. There might be no vacancy now, with anticipation of vacancies in future. This is more common within larger employers or a specialist recruitment agency. I spoke with a Talent Acquisition Manager recently about the positive side of an evergreen vacancy. She told me for that vacancy they are always recruiting, having mad eight hires in six months - it's a business as usual vacancy. I would hope this is made clear in the advert. Fishing Sometimes adverts harvest applications on the off chance that a related vacancy comes up. I remember a Cambridge agency that used to scrape employer adverts, list them as their own, then submit those CVs speculatively to the same employers - without a commercial arrangement in place. Make of that what you will. Is there any way to check for fishing? Probe the advertiser for relevant information and what their relationship is with the hiring process. That’s not proof of bad behaviour because of how the contingency model works. When multiple agencies work on one vacancy, it’s common not to provide company information until later in the process. If an agency is fishing only to build a bank of CVs, it’s unlikely they’ll admit to it. Scam jobs It sickens me that advertising and job scams are on the rise. If it doesn’t feel right, if they are asking for payment, if they do a bait and switch (this job isn’t right but here’s our CV writing service or access to a system beating framework), if they ask for ID that can be used for other purposes: beware. These may be in public advert form. They may also be from direct messages - LinkedIn DMs, WhatsApp messages, or phone calls. Often from ‘recruiters’ that appear to work for big corporates, yet have no connections and use a gmail account. One scam last year cloned a legitimate company website and job seekers lost many thousands of pounds. My scraped example above is, in my book, a likely scam too. It’s worth reading through www.jobsaware.co.uk , which is a great resource on scams and employment exploitation. The disappearing act This last category may or may not be a fake job. Here’s the scenario - it looks like a vacancy, it sounds like one in discussion. Perhaps you even interview there on site. You may even go so far as to do a 5 hour presentation at final interview on your 90 day strategy. Then it disappears - either permanently, or it reappears with no further communication from the employer or agency. I hear this happening a lot, particularly at a senior level, in the UK market. There are a few reasons it can happen: Company had budget to recruit; changes in the business, or external factors, mean the vacancy isn’t viable at least immediately Company didn’t have budget to recruit and only realises there is no budget later in the process Company runs an interview process to get free consultancy in the form of a final interview presentation (scumbags) Company dipping a toe in the market to see what’s out there, with no intent to hire Company benchmarking an internal hire for future planning purposes Agency finds out there may be a need for an employer to hire and runs a speculative process that doesn’t get approval I’m sure there are many more reasons this can happen and there isn’t a huge amount you can do, given the appearance is of a real vacancy. You can ask if budget has been approved, research the business on Glassdoor, or speak to alumni. It’s unclear what proportion of job adverts are fake. It is a notable problem, and one which takes attention away from legitimate adverts that can put you closer to employment. For the adverts that are real, Part Three of the book will help you assess which you are best suited for and how to effectively use job boards.