Influencer Marketing & Growth @ lempire (Taplio + lemlist) | Exploring how B2B influencers help SaaS companies drive growth

Alex Llull

I've worked with 200+ creators. Only about 10% get rebooked.

Here's what separates them from the rest:

→ They send a recap without being asked

Post links, key metrics, screenshots. All in one message.

Most creators post and disappear. The ones who make it easy for me to report back to my team go to the top of my list.

→ They offer a discount for round two

"Hey, if you want to lock in another collab, I'll do 15% off."

This might seem counterintuitive. But for creators building a business, consistent work beats one-off payments. And brands appreciate your commitment.

→ They reply within 24-48 hours

Many creators ghost after a collab ends. That's one of the fastest ways to get blacklisted.

Be communicative. And if you can't, just say so. That alone builds trust.

→ They pitch before I do

"Want to turn this into a series?" or "I have an idea for a follow-up."

Brands value proactivity. It shows you're invested beyond just the current project.

→ They're honest when things underperform

One creator told me: "Hey, this one flopped. Here's why I think it happened, and here's what I'd do differently."

That message made me want to work with them more, not less.

Most creators don't do any of this. Which is exactly why you should.

Partnerships @ Perspective | Building B2B creator, influencer and partner programs that drive revenue

→ Found a creator on our niche
→ Paid for one sponsored video (flat fee)
→ Offered affiliate commission on top (he didn't ask for it)
→ Video did really well, signups came in
→ A few converted to paid customers
→ He started seeing passive income hit his account

Then, without us reaching out for a new one, he made 3 more videos about Perspective.

On his own, with no ask, brief or second payment from our side.

Why? Two things:

- He loved the tool and thought it was valuable for his audience
- He saw the potential to own this niche before others did (smart creator)

Once I noticed he was doing that, I reached out. Now we're plotting how to 10x his impact together.

Here's the thing most brands get wrong:

They pay a flat fee. Creator posts. Done. Transaction over.

But flat fee only pays for their time. It doesn't keep them around.

That's why we always offer affiliate compensation on top, even when creators don't ask for it.

Yes, the affiliate cuts into margins on video one. But it almost guarantees videos 2, 3, 4 without extra spend.

It's a retention strategy (if you have a good product).

How do you structure your creator deals? 🤝

Head of Growth @ Perspective / SaaS & Demand Growth

Niels Klement

Base44 hit $100M ARR.

And just like that, I questioned everything we're doing at Perspective.

These hyper-growth AI stories are everywhere right now. And every time I see one, there's this little voice going "are we doing something wrong?"

The reality is that Perspective has never had a crazy viral moment. Everything we've built to $10M+ ARR has been the result of having clear goals, going after them, and applying hard work and consistency over years.

And I think if you're in a similar position where you read these headlines and think "what the hell am I doing wrong?" here's what I remind myself of:

It's a very, very small percentage of companies that ever hit that type of escape velocity.

For the rest of us, it's perfectly fine to have a non-viral product.

To just keep showing up, keep building, keep improving, and still end up with a beautiful business that lets you live an amazing life working on things you thoroughly enjoy.

Oh well, maybe we'll still hit that escape velocity someday. Who knows, dreams die last.

Every Saturday I step fully out of work.

Slack is closed, numbers don't exist, work is gone. I play a DJ set, go to a friend's birthday, meet up with my girlfriend, walk through the park. Whatever is the biggest possible contrast to my week.

And on Monday I come back with a completely replenished mind (that's imo how I'm able to work 70 hours a week without going insane).

I used to be the guy who was always half-in.

At a party but stressing about an upcoming launch. At my desk but daydreaming about going for a walk. Never fully anywhere. My brain never got the signal that one mode was over and the other had started. Being in that zone was what actually exhausted me.

So I made a hard rule:

When I work, I work and when I step out, I step out completely. The gap between those two extremes is what makes both of them sustainable.

And with that said, enjoy your weekend 🫶

Let me get this straight:

I used Sunday afternoon to build an app that saves us 4 to 6 hours every single week in media-buying ops

I shipped CRO tests on hardcoded checkouts by speaking to Wispr Flow.

I launched new funnels with Perspective AI duplication in 10 minutes

I built a campaign sheet once, and Claude drafts extremely on-point ad creatives, email sequences, SMS sequences, video scripts, VSLs, webinars, and literally one-tenth of the time

The golden days are here

I'm thinking of marketers with a Claude sub like Tony Stark, who opens up Claude Code and Wispr Flow in his garage and just creates a million-dollar campaign in a week

Everyone can do this now, which makes it even more significant for 10x marketers

lfg

I recently gave a detailed breakdown of how we spend $3.1M on ads (profitably) and ship 1,681 creatives a year with a team of three to a room of agency owners who paid to be there.

Basically the full creative system of how we run performance marketing at Perspective.

(Honestly might have shared too much, but here we are)

Here's what's in it:

- The one-word change in an ad script that tripled our scale overnight

- How we shipped 1,681 unique ad creatives this year with a team of three

- The iteration that turned a dying ad into our highest spender ever at $160K

- The exact 3-person team structure and 45-minute weekly meeting that runs the whole operation

- CBO testing vs ABO and why we switched after Andromeda

This is probably the most detailed breakdown I've ever done publicly. If you run ads or plan to, I think you'll get a lot out of it.

Want me to send you the recording?

Simply comment "creative" (we need to be connected) so I can send it over (no optin necessary).

🫶

When I was a kid, my dad would walk into my room and say "just pause the game." I'd lose my mind. "Dad, it's online. It can't be paused." Turns out, that's exactly what running an internet business feels like.

I was sitting at my desk the other day after a slightly stressful day, staring at my massive screen, and I just leaned back.

And I'm like, man, I'm really stressing out about this crazy video game that we're playing here.

Think about it.

Everything we build exists on screens and servers, nowhere to be touched other than to be clicked - it's literally a video game.

A surprising number of entrepreneurs played a game like World of Warcraft (or something similar) back in the day and there's no pause button. The game goes on whether you're online or not. There's no close sign you flip around on Friday evening.

Running a remote software company is the same thing. The game keeps going.

- Customers are signing up at 3am
- Support tickets come in on Sundays
- Someone in a different timezone is building a funnel with your product while you're sleeping

That used to stress me out, now I think it's kind of beautiful.

Games are supposed to be fun.

You're supposed to enjoy the grind, enjoy leveling up, enjoy figuring out the next move. The moment it stops being fun, something's off.

So now when I catch myself spiraling about metrics or a campaign that's underperforming, I try to zoom out and remember what this actually is.

A bunch of people clicking buttons on screens, building things that live in the cloud, trying to make the numbers go up.

Short:

A video game (and a pretty fun one at that)

My wild 2026 prediction:

Marketing will receive the budgets that engineering held for the last couple of years.

Think about it.

When fewer engineers can ship more, the next best dollar goes to distribution.

Am I crazy for thinking this?

I used to believe the way to grow was to find one thing that works and improve it until you die. After scaling Perspective past $10M ARR, I'm convinced that thinking is exactly what kills growth.

Here's what I mean.

We've fallen into this trap multiple times.

You build a funnel that converts, a creative that scales, an offer that prints and then your entire focus shifts to optimizing it.

- Tweak the headline
- Test a new hook
- Squeeze out another 2%

It feels productive and it looks like progress but whenever our growth has truly stalled the reason was never "we didn't optimize hard enough."

It was always the same thing: we hadn't shipped something genuinely new in a while.

- A new audience we hadn't reached
- A new way to position the product
- A new format, channel, or offer that opens up a market we weren't in before

The uncomfortable part is that new things are unproven by definition. Most of them won't work but the ones that do are responsible for basically all the meaningful jumps we've ever had.

So I'm starting to think about this structurally now.

Split the team into two modes:

1/ One team ships fast and only builds new things. Completely untapped territory. New creatives, new funnels, new angles nobody's tested.

2/ The other team optimizes what already exists. Protects efficiency, improves what's working, keeps the engine running.

And honestly, in the age of AI, this is even more true. If you're not constantly shipping things that feel a little crazy, you'll be obsolete faster than you think.

Spending $300 to decide if an ad works is the old playbook. We launch 20-40 new ads a week and let most of them get zero spend on purpose.

This came up on our last mastermind call and I think a lot of people running ads are still getting this wrong.

A founder was running $50/day, two ads in an ad set, waiting five days to hit his 2x target CPA threshold before making a call. Classic approach, nothing wrong with it in theory.

But after Andromeda, that's painfully slow.

Here's what we actually do at $250k/month in spend:

We load 20-40 fresh creatives into a CBO every week. One campaign, one ad set, all the ads in there.

Meta doesn't evenly distribute your budget across all of them (it never did, but now it's way more aggressive about it).

So out of those 40 creatives, maybe 4-5 get meaningful spend. The rest get almost nothing.

And that's the point.

Meta is pre-selecting winners before you ever have enough data to make a rational call yourself. It's mapping every creative against its prediction models, figuring out which ones are most likely to get you the result you're optimizing for, and funneling budget there.

So the ones that get zero spend, Meta already told you those won't be winners.

“But Niels, didn't you just waste time on 35 ads?”

No. You gave Meta 5x the creative surface to find winners. You just compressed what used to take five weeks of sequential testing into one week of parallel testing.

The old way: test 2 ads, wait a week, kill the loser, test 2 more.
The new way: test 40, let Meta pick 4-5, double down on those, launch the next batch.

Same budget with a wildly different velocity.

Tell me I'm wrong?

In 2026, AI moves the marketing bottleneck from execution speed to the quality of what you know that Google doesn't.

Marketers are about to use tools like Claude Code to ship entire campaigns.

Different MCPs, same speed, same access.

So when everyone has the tools, who will be the ones that win and create the best outcome?

> General knowledge gets commoditized.
> Specific knowledge becomes the entire game.

The marketer with the unique insight (= the data, context on the market, taste and judgment, high agency) takes the cake.

This is the time to shine for 10x marketers. The gap between good and bad is going to spread because your ability to create something unique is heavily dependent your unique judgment.

That's why we have all hands on deck at Perspective:

Make the data (more than 10 million conversions a year) available to you guys to use in your marketing. More to come soon.

B2B marketing is missing soul (dry, jargon-filled, aimed at the "logical" part of the brain). We do the polar opposite at Perspective and imo it's a big reason we hit $10M+ ARR:

If you looked at our ads library, you'd think we sell skincare.

- 2-3 minute video ads
- my face talking to the camera
- emotional hooks
- story-driven content

Very un-B2B.

Every "expert" told us this was wrong:

- Ads should be 60-90 seconds max
- Use product mockups and clean graphics
- Keep it professional and polished
- B2B buyers want logic, not emotion

And we ignored all of it because B2B buyers are still human.

They scroll Instagram at night, watch YouTube on the weekend and don't suddenly become robots when they're evaluating software.

You click with emotion, you justify with logic (that's true whether you're buying sneakers or software).

What actually works for us:

1/ Long-form video ads (2-3 minutes)

We educate in feed. Real teaching, not teasers. By the time someone clicks, they already understand what we do and why it matters.

2/ My face. Everywhere.

People say I'm annoying them at this point (fair) but personal beats polished every time (and we have actually started working with a few creators so it's not just me anymore)

3/ D2C energy in a B2B wrapper

- Emotional hooks.
- Specific pain points.
- Real customer stories.

You know, the stuff that actually stops the scroll.

4/ Follow the data (and figure out what works for you)

Just because something worked for another company doesn't mean it works for yours. We test everything and double down on what actually performs.

The funny thing is the feeds give you all you need to know.

So why not simply focus on how humans actually consume content?

There's a reason quiz funnels keep outperforming every other format for lead gen. They qualify while they capture (while keeping costs low). Here's the structure that keeps crushing for agencies:

(btw, if you’re looking for the best quiz funnel software give Perspective a try 🫶)

1/ Start stupid simple

Your first question should be impossible not to answer. A yes/no that requires zero thinking.

For a solar funnel that's "Do you own your home?" For an agency funnel it might be "Are you currently running paid ads?"

One tap, they're in.

(We've seen start rates jump 40% just from simplifying the first question like this).

Plus, make sure the button is visible without scrolling.

2/ 3-6 questions that actually filter

This is where you qualify. Ask about budget, timeline, decision-making authority - whatever matters for your sales team.

If someone selects an answer that disqualifies them (like "I rent" for a solar funnel), disqualify them immediately.

You can also throw in questions you don't really need - like "which provider are you with?" just to build trust and make it feel more personalized.

3/ The loading screen

Add a quick "analyzing your answers" animation before the result page. Sounds silly but it works. 

It signals that something is being calculated for them specifically. Increases perceived value of whatever comes next.

4/ Now ask for contact info

Only after they've clicked through a few questions do you ask for email and phone. By this point they're invested, sunk cost kicks in, they're way more likely to give you real info compared to a static landing page.

5/ Route based on answers

Qualified leads go to your calendar or VSL.

Unqualified leads go somewhere else - maybe a cheaper offer, a newsletter, a free resource. Don't just dead-end them.

6/ Personalize the result page

This is where it gets fun. Use their answers to customize what they see (easily possible with Perspective):

"Hey [Name], if you want help getting [Goal] for your [Industry] in [City], book below."

One agency doubled their booking rate just by adding this.

tl;dr

Easy first question, 3-6 qualifying questions, loading screen, then ask for info, route based on answers, personalize the end. That's the structure.

Hope this helps. 🫶

One of our customers said a big reason he bought Perspective was because our retargeting campaign "bombarded" him. Funny thing is, we spend $250k/month on Meta and our retargeting setup is dead simple:

We essentially only run on cold traffic.

Then we have one bundled retargeting campaign where we add some of our best-performing creatives, social proof, and adjacent offers.

The retargeting campaign just cycles through content.

When a creative hits a frequency of 3-4, we pause it unless it has amazing performance. Overall campaign frequency sits around 2-3, so you set your budgets in accordance with how big your audience is to stay in that range.

Nothing fancy.

For us, retargeting hasn't been that big of a lever.

We'd rather focus on executing cold campaigns amazingly well, because any great creative in a cold campaign will automatically turn into a retargeting touchpoint. Meta will show that creative multiple times if they think repeated impressions drive better performance.

So the algorithm is already doing the retargeting work for you, you just don't see it broken out in a separate campaign.

tl;dr

We keep retargeting dead simple and put all our energy into cold creatives that are so good Meta wants to show them twice. That's where the real leverage has been for us. 🫶

P.S. The exception proves the rule - if you've found a complex retargeting setup that prints, by all means keep going. This is just what's worked at our scale.

I've been thinking a lot about how AI will change marketing. Here are the 5 predictions that actually matter (some of them scare me):

1/ Hiring will shift towards marketing and creative

When everyone can build and implement technical things quickly with AI, the people who understand messaging, audience, and taste become the most valuable on the team.

AI can handle marketing operations, but the strategists who actually know what will resonate with a specific audience is about to crush it.

2/ Opinion becomes the edge

Knowledge has been commoditized since Google and AI makes it even more accessible.

But markets have always been drawn to individuals and companies with a clear point of view on how things should be done.

As knowledge gets cheaper, experience, proof of work, and strong opinions get more expensive.

3/ The top 1% becomes the top 0.1%

The barrier to entry drops, so the long tail grows (= more players, content, noise) but the share of attention concentrates even further at the top.

The internet already did this, AI will accelerate it even more.

4/ Only three things are truly defensible

When the smartest knowledge worker is available through a chat interface for $20/month, what are people still willing to pay for?

- Judgment: unique opinions and specific experience that people trust
- Data: proprietary datasets that help AI create better outcomes
- Infrastructure: the technical stuff that's still genuinely hard to build and maintain (hosting, page speed, reliability)

Everything else gets commoditized.

5/ The most authentic businesses win

We're experimenting with AI content and AI video at Perspective. But the businesses that will continue to get the most attention are the ones with a genuinely unique voice.

When feeds get flooded with AI-generated content (and they will), people will gravitate even harder towards voices they trust and faces they recognize.

---

If I zoom out on all of this, the pattern is pretty clear:

AI makes knowledge and execution free. What's left is taste, judgment, and the willingness to put yourself out there with a real opinion.

That actually makes me more confident in what we're building, not less.

lfg

P.S. Tell me if you disagree and think I'm wrong 🙏

“We tried ads. Didn't work. Spent €200, got nothing.”

Me: “Okay, what's a customer worth to you?”

“About €500.”

“So you spent less than half of one customer's value and expected to validate an entire channel?”

“…”

Look, if you've never run ads before this might feel uncomfortable but if your customer is worth €500, you need to spend at least €500 to see if you can acquire one profitably.

(If not, you iterate, but don’t throw away the channel)

Anything less is just hoping to get lucky.

Ideally you're able to do this over 3 months to actually figure out what's working, fix what isn't and give the algorithm time to do its thing.

And if you’re able to go through the uncomfortable part of early experimentation, then you might reach the beautiful state where you have unlocked one of the most scalable, predictable channels to grow your business.

"Should we start with a lead magnet or go straight to booking calls?"

This question comes up often and if you choose wrong you're almost certainly going to waste your first $5,000 on ads.

Talked through this with a consulting firm on our mastermind.

Profitable business, big-name clients, selling $15-25K engagements but zero ad experience.

Their instinct was to start soft:

- promote a white paper
- build a list
- nurture over time
- eventually sell

I get it - it feels less risky, but you're paying for leads and then hoping your email sequence does the heavy lifting over the next few months.

(The gap between "downloaded your PDF" and "ready to spend $15K" is massive)

With an appointment funnel you speak directly to your ICP, lead with the value of the call itself, and let people self-select. The ones who book are already problem-aware and interested enough to give you 30 minutes.

Less volume, but every lead is actually worth following up on.

And you get signal fast.

Within a few weeks you know your cost per booked call, your close rate, your customer acquisition cost. You can actually answer "do ads work for my business?" instead of staring at a list of PDF downloads wondering what to do with them.

So a book-a-call funnel definitely wins here imo.

P.S. If you want a proven "Book a Call" funnel you can set up in an hour, comment "call" and I'll send you our template 🫡

I wrote a disclaimer for every new hire:

"I will be your toughest critic. I won't always be nice, but I'll be fair."

It's one of three things that changed how we build the team at Perspective. All three sound simple but took me way too long to figure out.

1/ I stopped hiring out of urgency

When you're overworked and the team is stretched thin, you make calls on people when you're still in doubt. I've done this multiple times. Now I only make the call when there's true conviction someone is a strong fit. Even if that means staying short-staffed longer.

2/ Freelance testing before any full-time offer

Work samples are easy to game. A 3-hour assignment can't test reliability, speed, or how someone solves problems that haven't been figured out yet. So everyone works with us for at least a month in freelance first.

3/ More hard conversations

I used to lean towards harmony. If feedback might be uncomfortable, I'd soften it, delay it, or skip it entirely. Now whenever I notice that feeling of "this could be a hard conversation," I take it as the signal to have it.

The disclaimer helps with this. When someone knows on day one that I'll be direct with them, there's no surprise when tough feedback comes. It's just how we operate.

These three changes are why we went from struggling to build the team to having the strongest one we've ever had.

P.S. We're hiring 🫶

Sending traffic directly to your calendar seems like less friction but it usually backfires massively (=high CPLs). Here's what we've learned looking at the Book a Call funnels at Perspective that print appointments:

If someone lands on your Calendly and doesn't book, that lead is gone. You can't follow up because you have nothing to follow up with.

So it’s one of the rare cases where I’d add some friction (a simple quiz + an optin) before the calendar.

Two things happen:

First, you capture their info. If they drop off before booking, you can still reach out to them or put them in a nurture sequence.

Second, once they've clicked through a few questions, they're invested (sunk cost kicks in) and makes them way more likely to actually book.

Third, one thing that's worked stupidly well - personalize the booking page using the quiz answers.

Instead of a generic calendar, the headline says, "Hey [First Name], if you want help getting [Goal] for your [Industry], book below."

(One agency in our community doubled their booking rate with just that tweak)

P.S. If someone opts in but doesn't book try to call them fast (within 5 minutes if you can) bc you're something like 3x more likely to reach them in that window.

At Perspective, we see thousands of quiz funnels across 36 countries.

The ones generating the highest-quality leads all have one thing in common: they're built to filter people OUT, not just pull them in.

These are the questions that do the heavy lifting (broken down by industry):

Home Services / Solar:

"Do you own your home?" - Renters can't buy solar panels or new roofs. If they say no, route them out immediately. Don't pixel that lead, don't waste sales time on it.

B2B / Agencies:

"What is your current monthly revenue?" - If you sell a $2k/month service and they're making $1k/month, they can't afford you. Screen out the lowest bracket.

"What is your current ad spend?" - Someone spending $0 is worth way less than someone spending $2k+. This answer basically tells you how much that lead is worth to your sales team.

"What's your team size?" - Larger teams usually mean stability and budget. One agency found 60% of their leads selected "100+ employees" - now they optimize specifically for enterprise.

Coaching / Finance:

"What's your estimated credit score?" - For anything requiring financing, a low score is a hard no. 700+ leads actually have access to capital.

"Do you have liquid capital available to invest?" Alternative: "Are you willing to invest X to get result Y?" Filters out people who want the result but have no way to pay for it.

Intent Questions (work for any industry):

"What strategies have you tried in the past?" - Leads who select "tried and failed" convert way higher (we've seen 73% show-up rates). They're already feeling the pain. "Just getting started" leads often have no budget and need too much hand-holding.

"How soon are you looking to solve this?" - "Just browsing" goes to a newsletter. "Immediately" triggers an SMS to your sales team.

Two things to remember:

1/ Start easy. Don't ask about revenue or credit score on page one. Get them clicking first, then qualify.

2/ Only fire your lead pixel when they pass the qualifying questions. This trains Meta to find more of the right people - not just anyone who clicks.

3/ If you're getting flooded with unqualified leads, add more friction. Another question, a longer quiz, a manual step before booking. Sounds counterintuitive, but fewer leads that actually convert beats a full pipeline that wastes your (team's) time.

Hope this helps 🫶

The low-ticket funnels that actually scale all figured out the same thing: you don't need to be profitable on your $27 product.

An example from our mastermind calls:

Someone built a low-ticket funnel. $27 product, added a $97 upsell, couple of order bumps. They spent $1,500 on ads, got 15 customers, and made back maybe half.

And they're like, "This isn't working. Should I kill it?"

Almost always the answer is no.

You just acquired 15 people who gave you money!

That's a completely different relationship than someone who downloaded a free PDF. People who have paid you before are significantly more likely to pay you again. And the second purchase doesn't need to be $27.

What I suggested: get those 15 customers on a call. Not to upsell them aggressively, just to help them succeed with what they bought. And within that call, offer something bigger. $1,000, $2,000, whatever makes sense.

One of our customers does exactly this in the weight loss space.

They send a crazy amount of traffic to a $47 front-end product (barely breaking even) but it includes an onboarding call.

And on that onboarding call, they sell high-ticket coaching.

The conversion rate from $47 buyers to high-ticket is way higher than anything they've ever seen from cold leads (way higher).

The $47 product is the filter: It finds people willing to spend money, builds trust through a quick win, and then the real offer comes after.

So if you're sitting on a low-ticket funnel that's losing money on the front end, the question is "What are you selling those 15 buyers next?" instead of "How do I squeeze more conversion out of this low ticket sale?"

That's how it works at basically every scale I've seen.

Most people running local lead gen on Meta have everything in one campaign (and up to a certain budget, that's fine) but there's a specific threshold where that setup starts working against you.

That threshold is around $150/day (~$4,500-5,000/mo).

Below that, keep it simple. One CBO, let Meta funnel budget toward winners. At $1k/mo, Meta will literally give your best ads all the spend anyway. No need to overcomplicate it.

But once you cross that $150/day mark, running everything in one campaign creates a problem you've probably already noticed:

Meta starts optimizing the wrong ads.

You have proven winners generating leads at solid costs, then you drop in a new creative and Meta gets distracted. Pulls budget away from what was actually working to test something shiny and new.

The fix is splitting into two campaigns:

1/ Scaling CBO (~$120/day) - only proven winners live here. Ads that have already hit your target cost per lead. This is your stable, money-making environment.

2/ Testing CBO (~$30/day) - all new creatives go here. Takes on the volatility so your scaling campaign stays clean.

This way your winners keep spending consistently without interference, while you still find the next big creative in a separate environment.

One more thing.

Even inside your scaling CBO, Meta might hoard 80-90% of spend on one creative and starve other perfectly good ads.

If that happens, duplicate the scaling campaign, pause the budget hog in the duplicate, and let it run. Forces Meta to distribute among your other validated ads.

Just keep in mind this increases your total budget since you're running an additional campaign, so treat it as a test in itself.

tl;dr

Below $150/day → one CBO, keep it simple.
Above $150/day → split into scaling ($120/day) and testing ($30/day).

If one ad hogs all the budget → duplicate campaign, pause the hog, test the rest.

Hope that helps someone!

taplio

The Battle

Alex Llull

Niels Klement

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance ScoreAlex Llull's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreNiels Klement's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

taplio

The Battle

Alex Llull

Niels Klement

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance Score.css-goub6s{font-size:var(--chakra-fontSizes-md);font-weight:500;color:var(--chakra-colors-gray-600);display:block;margin-top:var(--chakra-space-1);}Alex Llull's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreNiels Klement's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

Performance ScoreAlex Llull's LinkedIn Performance