Building founder-led brands that attract the right clients and inbound sales.

For brand partnerships / speaking:  hello@beatricevladut.com

Most founders have a great business
but a weak personal brand.

Their message is unclear.
Their audience doesn’t know what they stand for.

And when people don’t know you, they don’t trust you.
And when they don’t trust you, they don’t buy from you.

Today, visibility is a growth multiplier.
People follow founders, not logos.

A founder without a visible voice loses attention, trust, and deals to someone louder — not someone better.

Your story, your POV, your values, your process — these are your competitive advantages.
But if they’re not communicated clearly and consistently, your ideal clients never see them.

This leads to:

• Slower sales cycles
• Weak differentiation
• Unqualified inbound
• Missed opportunities you should be winning

You don’t need more content.
You need clarity, consistency, and a system that turns your expertise into trust — automatically.

I help founders build high-trust personal brands on LinkedIn using a done-for-you system that turns their voice, insights, and experience into weekly content that drives inbound business.

I did it myself from zero in 2 years:

• 0 → 60,000 followers
• 6-figure inbound revenue
• Speaking gigs, top podcasts, global brand partnerships

Hand helped 100+ people do the same.

With a system that compounds.

How working together looks like:

1) Clear, premium positioning

A simple niche, a sharp promise, and a founder POV that makes you the obvious choice.

2) A done-for-you content engine

You show up 45 minutes/week.
We turn your insights into strategic content that builds demand.

3) Authority that compounds weekly

Your insights, wins, and story → credibility, trust, and better clients.

You go from--

“A great business no one sees” → “A trusted founder whose content attracts the right buyers.”

If you want a founder-led brand that builds trust and drives consistent inbound

DM me “FOUNDER GROWTH”

Or apply to work together: https://www.foundergrowth.io/

Beatrice Vladut

I help you craft your social media strategies | Social Media Strategist & Consultant

I help you:

1. Get attention from your ideal clients
2. Clarity and direction - Have a clear plan to follow rather than feeling uncertain or overwhelmed
3. Consistency - Easy-to-follow plan that helps you without the struggle
4. Go after the quick wins

If this sounds good to you, send me a DM

Frank Velasquez

Everyone said AI would kill ghostwriting. 

Here's what actually happened:

Tech companies are hiring more writers now than before ChatGPT launched.

Weird, right?

But it makes sense when you think about what's actually happening. The market isn't flooded with good AI content. That actually works well and can go viral. It's flooded with mediocre AI content. And that flood is making human craft more valuable, not less.

We're seeing this with our clients. They don't compete on speed or volume. They're competing on sounding like themselves. On stories that couldn't come from a prompt. On opinions that feel earned, based on lived experience.

AI made it easy to produce content. But it also made it obvious when content lacks a real person behind it. The gap between "sounds generic" and "sounds like you" is wider now. And there are people who are willing to pay more to stay on one side of that gap.

I don't think this slows down. 

The more AI content exists, the more value will be placed on real stories worth sharing.

Consultant and Ghostwriter | Scale LinkedIn presence with strategy & systems. Helping other ghostwriters do the same.

If I were starting to post on LinkedIn today, I'd focus on one thing: stories.

I've been watching a few people start posting recently. The formatting issues are easy to spot - hashtag stacks, blog-style titles, summaries at the end of something that's already a summary. Maybe even straight up from ChatGPT.

I'm not bringing this up to knock anyone. Starting is the hard part, and most people never do it. Everyone starts somewhere - I've seen my own early stuff, and it wasn't pretty.

The formatting stuff you figure out fast. But there's something underneath all of it that's harder to see: there's no person in the post. Someone shares a piece of news or breaks down a campaign, and I read the whole thing and still don't know anything about them. 

I don't know why they found it interesting. 
I don't know what they've seen in their own work that makes this relevant. 

I could swap out the name, and nothing changes.

That's the part I'd focus on first.

If you want to share something you found interesting, tell me why you found it interesting. What experience connects you to it. A story you've lived that backs it up. A time you saw it work or fail. Even a sentence like "I've spent x years in this, and I've seen a lot of examples like this" gives me a reason to keep reading.

Stories are the only thing that can't be copy-pasted. 

They're what make two posts about the same topic completely different. So that's where I'd put my energy.

The ghostwriting agencies I've watched fail all had one thing in common. Their content was actually performing.

Their clients still left. Usually around month three or four.

Every workflow these agencies built was optimized for internal efficiency, not for making the client feel heard. It was all about getting new clients and plugging them into the system. And clients don't usually say that out loud when they decide to leave. They just don't renew.

Most of them blamed the writing anyway. Better hooks, more templates, more syncs, more efficiency. They were spending 90% of their energy acquiring new clients and 10% on the ones they already had.

No wonder they kept leaving.

3 places where I see this break down:

1. Onboarding that collects information but never asks what the client wants to be known for, for example.

2. Content calls that feel like data collection instead of actual conversations that might spark good, insightful ideas.

3. Reporting that tracks metrics but never checks for recognition, whether the relationship is healthy, or whether the content actually sounds like them.

The agencies keeping clients long-term are not just focused on adding efficiency. They're focused on retention too.

I stopped writing value-add posts for my clients. Value-add content is almost always written for peers, not the people actually paying.

Adding value isn't bad. Big disclaimer lol

But often, the people you are targeting either already know it or are not the ones executing on it.

I had a conversation this week about a client in the event industry. The first instinct was to pack the posts with value - How to do venue selection, coordinating logistics, managing budgets, etc. 

Real, useful stuff. But the people reading those posts run events for a living. They've already dealt with venues that charge absurd amounts of fees and catering that costs more than the room. 

Writing a tutorial for them isn't valuable. It's noise. They are not starting an event business from scratch.

What actually gets a CEO/Exec to reach out is reading something and thinking:

- Wait, is he right about that?
- I've never heard it framed that way
- You articulated so well something I did not know how to put into words

Curiosity. Mild disagreement. Recognition of something they've felt but never said out loud.

So I shifted the question. 

Instead of "what can we teach the audience," it became "what would make someone in their world stop and feel something." 

That's a different brief. And it's produced a different kind of post.

The goal of executive content, imo, isn't always to be the most educational voice in the feed. It's to be the one that earns a second thought.

In the last 12 months, our clients crossed 5M+ organic impressions on LinkedIn. Now we are giving you an insight into how we are doing it 👇

At the start of 2025, Hivemind Marketing had 2 clients and a few consulting gigs. At the same time this year, we are at 8 clients with expanded SOW, 2 new incoming, and several consulting partners.

Our clients are:

1. Walking into events and getting recognized for their content. 

2. They're having their own posts referred back to them mid-conversation. 

3. They're closing clients who came in already convinced.

For 3 days, Harry Phokou will be giving you an insight into how we've managed it all. Especially the content part, we believe there is a big gap to fill when it comes to sharing more stories, more wins, more insights on this platform.

If you or someone on your team wants to learn how we are helping our clients make the most of LinkedIn, join his free live event.

📅 March 6th, 7th & 8th
⏰ 5 PM CET
📍 Live on Zoom
🧑‍🎨 6 guest speakers
🔗 https://lnkd.in/evpgeQX5

Repost and help spread the word 🙏

I replaced a $100/month tool with one I built myself with Claude Code in about 3 days. It'll cost me under $5 to run.

I worked on a content system for a blog. Something that takes a topic and generates publish-ready articles optimized for both search and AI tools like ChatGPT. It handles the full pipeline: planning, generating, scoring the output, and publishing straight to Notion. 

I did it successfully with another tool last year, and it brought me a bunch of traffic and newsletter subscribers, but I didn't feel like paying the $100 monthly subscription. 

So I figured I'd just ask Claude...

Three days, I had something that did more than what I was paying for.

I'm sure there are gaps in it I haven't found yet. But it does make me wonder what other things I'm currently paying for that I can replace? 

Not saying I will. 

But it is nonetheless a fun thought process, as now, if I can explain it clearly, I can build it.

PS. I don't know if this will work. But I didn't know if it was going to work last year either. So if it doesnt I just spent some time. Claude gifted me $50 for Opus 4.6 and $5 for the API. So I'm still ahead on the saving money part.

Three months into ghostwriting, I stopped building content plans around client personas and problem-solving topics. 

The logic made sense at the time. Upload the client's profile, find the problems their audience has, write posts about how to solve them. 

That's what you learn. Lead with the pain, deliver the solution. 

The issue is that most of our clients aren't in the business of teaching people how to do what they do. They're in the business of getting hired to do it themselves. Their audience isn't looking to execute, they're looking for someone they trust enough to hand it to.

The content that actually gets clients hired doesn't explain how to solve a problem. It says something their audience has felt but never put into words. An insight that makes someone stop and think "I've never heard it framed that way." 

That's what prompts a DM. Not a tutorial.

Once we understood that, the whole content process changed. We stopped looking for topics and started looking for the way our clients think.

I realized why some of our clients' posts weren't landing correctly - they were talking about themselves instead of talking TO the reader. 

We were reviewing a post that had all the right information. But it just felt meh, very matter-of-fact. The whole post was "I did this, I learned that." 

Zero connection to what the reader was experiencing.

We rewrote it to address the reader. Instead of a "here's what happened to me," we changed it to "here's what you're probably going through."

Readers rarely care what happened to you. They care about their own problems and how you can solve them.

Now every post gets this test: 

Are we talking TO someone or about someone?

The best content advice I give doesn't work on me.

I tell clients to build a story bank. Keep a running list. Mine your past, your decisions, your patterns. And it works - I've watched it work for people I coach and people I work with every day.

But sitting down to do that for myself, after a full day of delivery, is a different thing. My brain isn't there. I know the stories. But finding them on demand takes energy I usually don't have left.

So I stopped trying to mine stories reactively. 

Everything I know - the context, the examples, the patterns I've noticed - it all goes into a project. When I sit down to write, I just point at what's already there and can build from there.

It's made consistency feel like a different thing.

Most agency owners spend 90% of their time on content and 10% on their clients. Then wonder why clients leave after 3-4 months.

I've watched this play out enough times to know it's not a coincidence. Somewhere in the process, the client stops feeling like the priority.

The 10% looks like this in practice: bare minimum delivery, no check-ins, delegating the exact stuff clients hired you for. 

What people miss is that clients don't buy an agency. 

They buy the person whose name is on it. 

You don't have to be in every call. But you have to be present enough that they feel it. That's not a systems issue. That's a priorities issue.

The part that gets me is that most people think they're growing during this period. Sometimes they're not. They're replacing. Every new client covers someone who quietly left. At some point, the math stops working, and there's nowhere left to grow into.

Keeping a current client happy takes a fraction of what signing a new one costs. A check-in. Sitting in on a content call. Actually solving something when they bring it up. That's it.

Most agencies figure this out too late.

We spent 90 minutes extracting a founder's story. Then an hour realizing we hadn't actually written one.

We were reviewing a post a while ago, and it went through his life year by year. Dates, milestones, company names, funding rounds. 

All accurate. But completely boring...

There were no stakes. No problem that we were trying to solve. There was no journey. It was just facts. This happened, then this happened, and then this happened.  

It was basically a Wikipedia entry.

Here's what the draft said: "In 2003, my dad took out a $70,000 loan to fund my company."

Here's what it should have said: "In 2003, my parents put their house up as security. We went all in as a family."

Same fact. One reports it. The other makes you feel it.

Reporting answered: what happened?

Storytelling answered: what was at stake?

Reporting becomes the default because it's safe and fast. You're not inventing anything, you're just organizing what the client told you. But organized facts aren't stories. They're timelines.

The client's life has real stakes with real consequences and real moments where things could have gone wrong. Your job isn't to compress their career into bullet points; it's to find the part where the reader holds their breath.

That's the difference between a post someone skims and one they send to a friend.

We were reviewing a client's post two weeks ago. The hook promised drama. Client almost lost everything, relationship on the line, career-defining moment. Then the story was just a meeting that went fine. It didn't have tension or stakes. Just a normal Tuesday that worked out.

The hook was an 8 out of 10 on drama. The story was maybe a 4. And that gap kills the post. Readers click expecting intensity and get a straightforward explanation. They feel baited. The story wasn't bad, but the hook set the wrong expectation.

This happens more than people think. You write the hook first, get excited about making it punchy, then realize the actual story doesn't match that energy. But instead of bringing the hook down or finding a different story, you just ship it anyway.

The fix isn't always ramping up drama in the story. Sometimes it's toning down the hook. If the story is calm and methodical, the hook should reflect that. If the story has real tension, the hook can promise it. But they need to match. At least imo.

Readers don't need every post to be dramatic. 

They need the post to deliver what the hook promised.

The first few months I was ghostwriting, I was basically writing as myself with different topics.

I didn't notice it for a while. The posts were performing fine. Clients weren't complaining. But looking back at the drafts, everything had the same rhythm, the same sentence length, the same way of ending a thought. 

That was me, not them. 

I'd taken what they gave me and run it through my own filter so many times that nothing original was left.

The fix was just learning to be uncomfortable leaving sentences that felt slightly off to me but were exactly how the client spoke.

One of the easiest wins I've gotten from AI for content: a project that turns one winning post into 10 content angles. Here's what I mean:

I take a client's top posts from the last 9 months, sort by impressions, and drop them into a project I built. It identifies what type each post is, then generates follow-up questions covering angles we haven't touched yet.

The next time we have an interview, we explore those other angles.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝘆𝗽𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝘁 𝗺𝗮𝗽𝘀 𝘁𝗼:

 1. Actionable 
 2. Emotional 
 3. Reflection  
 4. X vs Y 
 5. Contrarian
 6. Vulnerable
 7. Deep dive
 8. Educational
 9. Observational
10. Edutainment
11. Listicle

For example, if the post was 𝗔𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 (a specific guide on how to do something), we can ask follow-up questions to make it a 𝗥𝗲𝗳𝗹𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 (lessons learned or mistakes made), or 𝗫 𝘃𝘀 𝗬 (we compare the first time they followed the guide vs what it looks like now).

A post that already performed proved the theme works with that audience. What we see now is how many ways we haven't told that story yet.

Most of the time, we're not running out of content. 

We're running out of angles on what already worked.

I spend more time on the hook than the entire post. If I nail it, the rest flows. If I don't, nothing else matters. Sometimes I realize it's already written.

After a post is done, I scan it again. 

I look for a line the client said, buried in the middle or at the end. It's usually the punchline, closing statement, or point of the post.

That's what I want to use as the hook, if possible.

Most people decide whether to keep reading in the first two lines. We used to save the strongest line for the end as a payoff for readers who finished the post. But if it's already specific, creates tension, and sounds like them, it does more work at the top.

We're now trying to lead with the point of the post. 

The hook needs to give people enough information to decide whether to keep reading. If they don't get that in the first two lines, nothing else matters.

We had this whole thing set up. Send the client a list of questions; they record voice notes on their own time, we get the material, and we write. It felt efficient and considerate of their schedule.

What we kept getting back was that because we were structuring the questions around specific posts we wanted to write, we were basically scripting their answers before they gave them. 

The content was basically written before they even answered.

We scrapped async entirely and moved to live interviews. No questions sent in advance. Just a call, us asking things we were genuinely curious about, and them just talking.

The difference was that in a real conversation, people stop performing. They stop trying to give the right answer and start just explaining what they think. They use their actual vocabulary. They go on tangents that end up being the best material. You can't manufacture that with a voice note prompt.

What we pull from those transcripts sounds like someone who just happened to sit down and write what they were thinking.

Now, by the time we open Notion, the hard part is already done.

taplio

The Battle

Beatrice Vladut

Frank Velasquez

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance ScoreFrank Velasquez's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

taplio

The Battle

Beatrice Vladut

Frank Velasquez

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);}Frank Velasquez's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

Performance ScoreFrank Velasquez's LinkedIn Performance