The founder is a man named Aleksy, who runs a UK-based B2B analytics company selling into finance and operations teams at mid-market SaaS. He started posting on LinkedIn in earnest in January 2025 with an existing following of about 800. By June 2026, he was at 40,300, a number he describes with a mix of pride and mild embarrassment. His company's revenue, over the same eighteen months, roughly doubled. He does not claim the LinkedIn work was the largest single driver of that growth — the product is genuinely good, the sales team is competent, the timing is favourable — but he does claim it was meaningfully among the top three. On the data I have seen, that claim is defensible.
This piece is about what he did, in specific detail, and about the parts of it he thinks are transferable to another founder considering the same programme.
What he posted
Aleksy's post cadence across the eighteen months was three to five posts per week, with a rough distribution that has held steady since about month three.
Roughly one post per week is what he calls a "customer-shaped observation" — something he has learned from a specific customer conversation in the last fortnight, presented as an argument he thinks his audience should consider. He names the customer only occasionally, with permission; the observation is what he leads with. These posts almost always take the form: I've noticed X in six or seven of the finance teams I've talked to in the last month. It matters because Y. Here's what I think we should do about it.
Roughly one to two posts per week are what he calls "product-adjacent" — pieces about the general problem his product solves, without ever directly pitching the product. These posts frame the space in ways that make his company's approach make sense; they do not demand the reader draw the specific conclusion he would want.
Roughly one post per week is what he calls a "long-form think piece" — a longer post (600-1200 words) that argues a specific position on a broader topic in the space. These are the posts that, when they land, produce the largest single spikes in follower growth. They are also the posts that require the most preparation and the most editorial care.
Roughly one post per week is what he calls a "process note" — something he has done in the business, an operational choice he has made, a hiring decision, a customer response he has drafted. These posts are, in his own description, "the human version" of what the rest of the account does. They are also the ones his existing audience — the people who follow him from post to post — engage with most reliably.
What he didn't do
The list of things he explicitly did not do is longer and more useful.
He did not use engagement pods. He was pitched by three different pods in his first six months of active posting; he declined all of them. His view, then and now, is that engagement from pod members is instantly recognisable in the response — the timing, the comment content, the follow-up patterns are all wrong — and that it degrades rather than improves the account's relationship with the platform's ranking systems.
He did not buy followers. He did not run follower-growth advertisements. He did not use any of the follower-count-inflation tools that are commonly sold to LinkedIn creators. His stated reason: the metric that matters is what your audience does when they see your post, not how many of them there are. Inflating the follower count degrades the numerator without changing the denominator.
He did not use LinkedIn's newsletter feature. This was a deliberate call. He watched other creators use it in 2024 and 2025 and concluded that the medium encouraged pieces that were longer than they needed to be, less carefully edited, and less likely to be seriously read. His long-form think pieces sit inside LinkedIn posts, capped at the platform's post length limits, and are, in his view, tighter for being constrained.
He did not, and this is the surprising one, post particularly consistently in the first three months. His view, from the current vantage, is that the first three months of a LinkedIn programme should be spent figuring out what you actually want to say, in what voice, at what depth. Posting on a fixed schedule from day one before you have figured those things out, he says, produces months of forgettable output that establishes an unhelpful baseline for the audience.
"The LinkedIn programmes I see fail are the ones that start with a posting schedule and try to figure out the voice inside it. The programmes that work start with the voice and add the schedule when the voice is stable. It sounds like a small distinction. It's the difference between four years of compounding and four years of noise."
The replies
The single most repeated thing Aleksy said in our conversation, in various forms, was about replying to comments. He treats it as the most important activity on the account, at a level that most of his peers find slightly puzzling.
His rule, which he has held for the full eighteen months: reply to every comment on any post that has more than five comments, within 12 hours of it being posted. The reply is substantive, not a thanks-for-your-comment — it engages with the specific thing the commenter said, extends the conversation, and often opens a further question the commenter can respond to.
The mechanics of this are not trivial. On his largest posts, this can mean an hour or more of reply work in an evening. He does it anyway. His view is that the reply thread is where the account's compounding audience is actually built — where the incidental follower becomes a persistent one, where the persistent follower becomes an advocate, and where the advocate ends up bringing colleagues into the audience through their own network.
The data, on his own account and on the accounts of other founders I have looked at, broadly supports this view. Posts with founder-engaged reply threads produce, on average, roughly 40% more follower conversions per impression than posts without them. The difference is more than large enough to justify the reply time, if the founder can find it.
What he'd tell a founder just starting
Three things, in the order he suggests approaching them.
First, spend the first quarter figuring out what you have to say. Not posting on a schedule — posting only when you have something specific and considered to say. Read what others in your space are writing. Talk to your customers. Take notes. Draft posts and don't publish them. Establish, before you start posting in earnest, what your voice is going to be.
Second, once you know what your voice is, start posting on a moderate cadence — three to five times a week — and hold that cadence for a year. Do not chase every algorithm update. Do not shift format in response to what's currently performing on other accounts. Hold the voice, hold the cadence, and let the audience find you.
Third, treat the reply thread as the primary activity of the account. Not the posts. The posts are the surface. The audience is built in the replies.
Aleksy is the first to admit that this programme is expensive in founder time. He estimates he spent something like eight hours a week on LinkedIn work over the eighteen months. That time, for a founder of a company his size, is not free. Whether it was worth it depends on what the alternative was; for him, given the specific stage of the company and the specific audience he was trying to reach, it was clearly worth it. For another founder, in another company, at another stage, the calculation may be different.