Carlos D.

Being a Chief of Staff is like playing chess. You need 3 things to win: 1. Execute or everyone gets stuck. If you don't move, the game stops. Your CEO can't advance. Your team can't progress. You need to finish what's in front of you so everyone else can keep moving. — 2. Anticipate what can go wrong. In chess, y...

Hook. The chess metaphor lands immediately because it promises a concrete framework, not a vague lesson. 'Like playing chess' sets up a list the reader expects to receive, which lowers resistance to reading on. Structure. The numbered list with horizontal dividers creates strong visual pacing and makes the post feel easy to consume in one scroll. Each section is tight (3 lines max), and the closing two paragraphs shift the frame from 'Chief of Staff' to 'future founder,' which broadens the addressable audience at exactly the right moment. CTA. There is no explicit CTA, but the final lines function as one implicitly: if you want to be a founder or operator, this role is your training ground. It invites aspiration rather than action, which likely kept readers in the post longer. Why this tier. At 3,300 impressions (7.02x typical), this hit Top tier. The chess metaphor is universally understood, the structure is frictionless, and the ending reframes the post for a wider audience than just Chiefs of Staff. Those three things together drove algorithmic reach.

No one wants to say it out loud, but f*ck it, I'll do it: Notion is overrated. Don't get me wrong - it's a good product. But people aren't using it because it's better than Google Docs. They're using it because of the branding. I've watched this happen over and over: - People force themselves to use Notion. - Th...

Hook. The opening is doing real work: the 'f*ck it, I'll do it' construction signals authenticity and manufactured controversy at the same time. It tells the reader something mildly provocative is coming, which earns the click to expand. Structure. Short, punchy lines dominate the middle section, and the bullet list of Notion behaviors is relatable and scannable. The pivot to the lesson ('Product matters. But distribution and perception are king.') is clean, though it arrives a bit abruptly after the Notion critique without much personal story woven in. CTA. No CTA. The post ends on an insight, which is fine for engagement, but nothing invites the reader to share their own experience or push back, despite the post being built around a debatable take. Why this tier. 1,274 impressions (2.71x typical) puts this firmly in Strong. The contrarian hook got opens, but the argument stays surface-level and leans on a well-worn 'branding beats product' conclusion. Readers engaged with the premise more than the depth, which capped its ceiling.

At Rethoric, we have a reputation for great client service. Not because we got lucky - because we built systems to guarantee it. Here's one we implemented recently: Every client has an account manager assigned to them. That person handles all communication through our Slack channel. The problem is: If that person...

Hook. The opening sentence front-loads a self-referential claim ('we have a reputation for great client service') before the reader has any reason to trust it. Starting with your own credibility rarely earns it. Structure. The structure is logical but reads like a process doc: problem, fix, result. The arrows help with scannability, but the post lacks a moment of tension or humanity. There is no failure, no cost, no person affected. It describes a system without making anyone feel anything. CTA. The final line ('That's what clients actually pay for') is a conclusion, not a prompt. There is no CTA, no question, and no invitation to engage, which likely contributed to zero comments. Why this tier. 503 impressions (1.07x typical) is a Typical result, barely above the floor. The post is competent and honest but written for people who already believe execution matters. It does not pull in anyone new, create any friction, or give the algorithm a reason to extend reach.