Help PhDs to kick-start careers in industry | Co-Founder and CEO @Alma.me | Building a bridge between academia and industry | Speaker | Scientist

Welcome to my profile!

I'm Elena, passionate about helping PhDs kickstart fulfilling careers outside of academia, and connect them with industry relevant positions. 

During my PhD journey, I realized that many PhDs face challenges transitioning from academia to industry. This difficulty often arises due to a lack of knowledge about potential positions, how to craft a resume for the industry, and prepare effectively for a job in that sector.

I've experienced this struggle firsthand. While pursuing my PhD, I felt lost. I knew that I no longer wanted to work in the lab; instead, I wanted to work with people, as that's where my passion lies. I went on my own discovery journey on "what is next".  I focused on the things I loved doing and thought of possible career options- after I identified what is next- I started working toward it by building a network in that area. 

Who am I, and how did I get here?

I recently graduated with a PhD in Medical Sciences from the Karolinska Institutet in beautiful Stockholm. 
As a Co-Founder and CEO of Alma.me my vision is to bridge the gap between academia and industry by providing information to help PhDs understand the array of opportunities after completing their studies and recognise the value of their skills beyond academia. 

If you are a PhD-student, Postdoc or tenure and you want to make the transition into industry follow me for more career advice.


Elena Hoffer, PhD

"If you care too much about money, you're not truly committed." 

This sentence from Dritjon Gruda in the latest Career Nature Magazine captures a mindset that’s deeply embedded in academia - and a big reason why scientists rarely talk openly about money. 

Many academics believe that asking for fair pay makes them look less committed to science. As if caring about your livelihood somehow cancels out your passion. 

Over the years, I’ve met senior academics who never negotiated their salary in their life. 

I’ve also met researchers who couldn’t afford to live near their lab because it would eat up half their salary. 

And often, this is accepted. 

Because science is framed not as a job - but as a calling. Something you do out of passion, not for stability or comfort. Talking about wanting to make enough money to live a comfortable life should be normalised in academia!

During my PhD, when I said I wanted to move into industry, the first response I got was: 
“Oh… so you’re going for the money?” 

That question made me feel terrible. 
But why? 

What is wrong with wanting a comfortable life and meaningful work? 

The article helped spark this reflection - and I hope that for the next generation of scientists, this mindset starts to shift. 

If we want scientists to worry less and focus on what they are good at - doing science - we need to make them feel financially secure.

I’ll link the article in the comments 👇

♻️  Repost to help a friend

undefined undefined

Help PhDs to kick-start careers outside of academia | CEO @Alma.me | Complementing universities services for PhDs & Postdocs to secure jobs outside academia | Speaker I Podcast Host @PostPhDirections

I didn’t leave academia because I don’t love science.
I love science deeply.

I would say most people don’t leave because they stop being curious or scientifically driven. They leave because the way the system is designed doesn’t serve them anymore.

Being a “successful” scientist often comes with enormous sacrifices: long working hours, weekends in the lab, nights that blur into mornings. Life is frequently put on hold. And after all that, you still find yourself wondering whether you can afford a nice dinner with friends.

The hardest part? 
After years of sacrifice, there is no guarantee of a career in academia. It’s a high-risk investment. Only a small fraction will make it - often not just the best scientists, but those with the right timing, networks, or luck. 
Everyone else eventually has to leave.

Leaving academia is not a failure. But for many, it feels like finally allowing themselves to pursue a life they’ve been postponing for years.

- Kids can wait until after my postdoc.
- Getting married doesn’t fit right now.
- Buying a home feels impossible while moving countries every few years.

While others move forward with their lives, an academic career often asks you to keep waiting. And even when you “succeed,” it can come at a very high personal cost.

I left because the system no longer aligned with my values. 
And I think this is true for many academics.

Wanting to have more stability is a valid reason to leave - even if you love what you do 💙

Your PhD ≠ one career path.

One of the biggest misconceptions I had during my PhD was that my options were academia — or R&D in industry.

After all, I had spent years at the bench.

What I didn’t realise at the time was that my PhD had given me far more than lab techniques - and that many industry roles value those skills far beyond bench work.

Here’s a simple way to think about industry roles for PhDs ⬇️

If you enjoy coding & working with numbers
 → Data Scientist · Data Analyst · Decision Scientist

If you enjoy discovering or building new knowledge
 → Research Scientist · Applied Scientist · R&D

If you enjoy explaining complex ideas clearly
 → Medical Writer · Medical Science Liaison (MSL) · Technical Writer

If you enjoy big-picture thinking & decision-making
 → Product Manager · Strategy Analyst · Consultant

If you enjoy working with customers & real-world problems
 → Technical Sales · Field Application Specialist

What all of these roles have in common?
They value PhD skills: research, analysis, problem-solving, writing, learning fast.

♻️  Share to help a friend 

And if you want to listen to some real transitions stories of PhDs check out my Podcast: PostPhDirections - link in the comments 👇

Many PhDs (and the world) underestimate the skills they’ve developed along the way. 

If you pause and look back to when you started your PhD, think about everything you can do now that you couldn’t do then - from establishing collaborations and managing projects, to writing, problem-solving, ordering reagents, and keeping complex work moving forward. 

A PhD doesn’t just give you technical expertise. 
It builds powerful transferable skills: critical thinking, communication, resilience, and persistence. 

We’ve worked with PhDs who moved from psychology into fintech, from computational neuroscience into medical writing, and from toxicology into project management - all by focusing on these skills rather than their subject area. 

You are more than your PhD topic. 

And your skills can take you further than you think!

♻️  Repost to raise awareness and help another PhD 

Happy Tuesday 🙌

Your PhD is work experience

Is it? 

This is one of the most common questions I get from PhDs who want to transition into industry. 

And I get why it’s confusing. 

We’re trained to think of a PhD as “education.” 

So it feels strange to suddenly call it work experience. 

But here’s the thing: 
Industry doesn’t define work experience as “having a job outside academia.” 

Work experience means: 
• Applying skills 
• Solving real problems 
• Dealing with uncertainty 
• Communicating results 
• Collaborating with others 

For example:
Designing a study, managing timelines, dealing with failed experiments, aligning with collaborators, and presenting outcomes to different audiences - that’s professional experience.

That’s exactly what happens during a PhD. 
You agree?

You don’t just learn about things. 
You do things. 

So yes - your PhD is work experience. 
And it belongs under professional experience in your resume.
 
If you’ve been unsure about this, you’re not doing it wrong. 
You just needed a better definition. 

You’ve got this. 

And if you feel stuck in your transition we can help. Check if our Job Accelerator Program aligns with your needs. Link in the comments 👇 

♻️  Repost to help demystifying what a PhD actually is and does!

There is no single path after a PhD.

Becoming a professor is just one of many possible options. In fact, around 90–95% of PhD graduates move on to roles outside the traditional professorship track — including positions within academia such as administration, staff scientist roles, or facility management.

Outside academia, PhDs transition into industry, government, or NGOs, where they contribute as data scientists, project managers, analysts, scientists, and much more.

The idea that a PhD automatically leads to a career as a professor is outdated. Yet many PhDs are still unaware of the wide range of alternatives, as these paths are rarely discussed within universities.

There is no one “right” path after a PhD — whatever you decide to do is valid

♻️ Repost to help a friend

Happy Saturday 💪

Most interviews ask the same questions:

• Tell me about yourself
• Walk me through your CV
• Why this role / company?
• Salary expectations
• Behavioral + technical questions

Some look simple. But in most cases they aren’t. Many PhDs get lost in academic jargon and detail for 10+ minutes, and this is a recipe for losing your listener.

Interviews rarely test the question itself.
They test what sits underneath it.

Once you understand this, interviews get easier. You’ll realize they’re not interested in every detail of your academic history.

So let's talk about it!

“Tell me about yourself”
→ Can you structure and prioritize information?

“Walk me through your background”
→ Can you translate experience into relevance?

“Why this role / company?”
→ Are you intentional - and do you understand their problems?

“Salary expectations”
→ Do you know your market value?

Behavioral questions test:
→ self-awareness, judgment, communication

Technical questions test:
→ how you think, apply knowledge, handle uncertainty

Here’s what many PhDs miss:
👉 Interviews are not exams.

You’re there to show how you think, communicate, and learn.

If interviews feel stiff or unnatural, it’s often not a skills problem. 

Most often, PhDs feel they have to put on a mask and perform. Once you allow yourself to be yourself, things get easier and more authentic.

And yes - this can be learned. We teach it everyday in our job accelerator program.

You got this 🙌 

♻️ Share to help a friend

Happy Tuesday 🙌

When I was doing my PhD, I thought networking was really awkward.
I didn’t like it, and honestly, I didn’t really know how to do it.

Looking back, most of that resistance came from the fact that I completely misunderstood what networking actually is.

Once I reframed it, everything changed.

I stopped thinking about networking as asking people for favors or jobs and started seeing it for what it really is: relationship building.

That shift alone helped me build both a global online network and a local, in-person one.

So how did I actually get started on LinkedIn?

Very simply. But still very uncomfortable
 
I looked for people who shared similar interests to mine - in my case, other founders and PhDs.

I commented on their posts. I engaged with their ideas.
And by showing up consistently, relationships started to form.

Some of those people I later met for an online coffee chat.
Some I’ve collaborated and partnered with.
Some I’ll probably meet in the future.

And with others, we might simply stay “LinkedIn friends” — and that’s perfectly fine too.

The key is this: find a point of connection and engage around it regularly.
The basis of any real relationship is trust - and trust is built by showing up, again and again.

My biggest tip?
Go into every conversation with curiosity, not expectation.

Does that mean you shouldn’t have a strategy? 
Absolutely not.

But what I’ve learned is that when you follow your genuine interests, you naturally connect with people who care about the same things.

For example, I’ve built a strong network with many PhDs here on LinkedIn.

Some create content on similar topics, others on completely different ones - but what connects us is that we all want to support PhDs: some during their PhD journey, others in their careers beyond academia.

That shared mission makes conversations easy and meaningful.

If you’re not sure where to start, ask yourself:
What topics am I genuinely excited about professionally?

Then start connecting. 
Start commenting.

And if you’re stuck wondering what to comment, here are a few easy options:
- Share your perspective
- Add your own experience
- Contribute an additional insight or resource

Whatever it is - just get started.
That’s how relationships (and networks) are built.

What began as me figuring this out for myself is now what I do every day with PhDs who want to move into industry.

If networking, positioning yourself, or breaking into industry feels unclear -
 you’re not alone.

Curious how we support PhDs at Alma.Me? You can learn more on our website.

Happy Tuesday 🌻

One of the biggest mistakes we see PhDs make in interviews is treating them like an exam.

They focus on saying the right thing.
They memorize answers.
They try to sound impressive.

And in the process, they lose the most important part: the human connection.

An interview is not an exam.
It’s a conversation.

The people interviewing you are human.
And humans hire humans.

What we see again and again in the Alma.Me Job Accelerator Program is this:
PhDs prepare answers by heart.

They sound polished - but also robotic.
There’s no rapport, no flow, no real connection.

And then something interesting happens.
Some candidates come to an interview exhausted.
They’ve had too many interview  so much that they can’t “perform” anymore.

Others walk in thinking:
 “I don’t stand a chance anyway.”

So they stop trying to impress.
They let their guard down.

 They speak naturally.
 They listen.
 They connect.

And that’s often the moment they get hired.
Not because they suddenly became more qualified - but because they finally showed up as themselves and build real connection with the hiring team.

You don’t need to pretend to be an expert.
You already are one.

♻️  Repost to help a friend 

This is exactly what we train PhDs on inside our program: how to stop performing and start connecting in interviews.

👉 If you want to learn this step by step and get coached on it, apply to the Alma.me Job Accelerator Program here: link in the comments

Why reading job descriptions felt impossible as a PhD 

Because as a PhD, I was trained to: 
– Meet every requirement 
– Avoid overclaiming 
– Only apply when fully qualified 

But industry works differently. 
What I learned the hard way: 
Job ads describe an ideal, not a checklist 

- Transferable skills matter more than exact tools 
- You’re evaluated on patterns, not perfection 
- Potential counts - even if no one says it out loud 
- Confidence is read as competence 
- Applying is part of learning, not the final exam 

Through the work I do with Alma.Me I see many PhDs get stuck- just like I did. Thinking you need to match 100% of the description and then get discouraged.

Don't self-reject. I could tell you so many stories of PhDs who thought something was out of reach - they dared and succeeded! 

The perfect candidate does not exist if you meet 70% of the requirements – APPLY  

This shift alone will change the way you approach applications.

♻️  Repost to help a friend 

Happy Wednesday 💙

Academic merits ≠ industry jobs

When PhDs move from academia into industry, they often highlight the same things that opened doors in academia: publications, subject-matter expertise, academic achievements.

That makes sense - it worked in academia.

But in industry, different things are valued.
Hiring managers care less about what you studied and much more about how you work and what were the results and outcomes of your work.

What actually matters:
- How you solve messy, real-world problems
- How you communicate with non-experts
- How you manage projects with unclear outcomes
- How you collaborate, adapt, and keep going when things don’t work

The good news?
You already built these skills during your PhD.

The challenge is this:
 👉 You were trained to talk about knowledge, not outcomes and results. 

If you’re moving into industry, stop asking:
 “Is my research relevant?”

Start asking:
 “Which skills did I use - and how do I show them that I can do the job?”

That shift changes everything.

You got this!!!

♻️  Share to help a friend 

Happy Wednesday 🙌  

---------------
If you want help moving from academic framing to industry-ready positioning, you can check out my website to see how we support PhDs in that process.

I read this article published in The Wall Street Journal and immediately recognized many of the PhDs we work with in it.

Jeremy did everything “right.”
PhD from a strong institution.
In the right city.
In the right industry.

And still: hundreds of applications, no traction, financial pressure, and the growing sense that the path he planned for simply isn’t there anymore.

This is often the moment when PhDs come to us.

Not because they suddenly lost their skills - but because the environment around them changed. 
Funding slows. Hiring freezes spread. Entire ecosystems that once felt stable become unpredictable. And people who were told they were “on a safe path” find themselves questioning everything.

What strikes me about this article is how clearly it shows that this isn’t an individual failure. 
The talent is still there. 
The training is still there. 
What’s missing are the opportunities PhDs were implicitly promised would exist.

Many of the PhDs we work with are in a similar position: they’ve done what they were told would lead to a smooth transition into industry, and yet they’re stuck. 

They read job ads and feel strangely disconnected from them - as if the roles are asking for something they have, but in a language they were never taught to speak.

So they apply more. 
And then more. 
And when that doesn’t work, the self-doubt starts creeping in.

But the problem is rarely a lack of ability. It’s a lack of translation.

Academic training teaches depth, rigor, and independence. 
Industry hiring - especially in a downturn - prioritizes clarity, applicability, and proof of impact. 

When those two worlds don’t align, even very strong PhDs can end up invisible.

Articles like this one are unsettling - but they’re also clarifying. 
They show that relying on a single, linear narrative (“PhD → biotech job → stability”) is risky, not because the PhD is a bad choice, but because markets shift faster than training models do.

For the PhDs who read this and feel anxious or discouraged: that reaction makes sense. You’re responding to real structural changes, not personal shortcomings.

And for many, this is the point where they stop asking “What’s wrong with me?” and start asking “How do I position my skills so they actually make sense outside academia - and across different contexts?”

That shift is often where things begin to move again.

♻️  Share to help a friend 

Want to learn how to align your skills, interests, and values beyond the obvious job choices?

We’re at Alma.Me hosting a free live session where we match PhD skills to industry roles - in real time, with real examples.

Link in the comments 👇

Dear PhDs, rejection is part of the application process....


It’s normal - and yet it stings. It does something to you.
But it says nothing about your personal worth or the value of your skills.

You are not going to be a fit for every position you apply for.
My best recommendation is to expect rejection - because it will come.

But also remember: every no brings you closer to a yes.
And this isn’t theory - it’s what we see over and over again in our job accelerator program where we work with PhDs from various fields.

We had PhDs who went through 17+ interview processes before the yes came.

We had PhDs who made it to the final round - and lost to candidates with more industry experience.

We had PhDs who were promised an offer - and had the position cancelled last minute.

We had PhDs who passed the recruiter screen - but never made it to the hiring manager interview.

And here’s the good news: they all eventually made it.

They turned many no’s into one yes.
Ultimately, you only need one yes - for a position you actually love.

And for most PhDs, the hardest part isn’t competence.
It’s endurance.

If you’re in the middle of this right now and feel like giving up, know this:
your story is not a single one. It’s the story of many PhDs - and it can and will end positive.

👉 If you want structured support to navigate rejections, interviews, and the hiring process as a PhD, apply for our job accelerator program here: 

Happy Monday 🙌

Is doing a PhD worth it?

There are probably as many opinions on this as there are PhDs.

So here’s my take.

Whenever we ask whether a PhD is “worth it”, we first need to ask:
worth it by which criteria?

Are we talking about:
- learning and training?
- financial compensation?
- career optionality?
- status and recognition?

Because depending on what you evaluate, the answer will be very different.

Another important point:
👉 The value of a PhD differs massively by country and industry.

Especially in STEM, PhDs tend to be highly valued in places like the US and Germany - both in perceived status and compensation. 
Over the years, through many conversations, I’ve learned that the same degree can open doors in one country and be almost irrelevant in another.


So let’s break it down.

1. If your goal is an academic career:
Be very clear-eyed about what that means. It’s highly competitive, structurally uncertain, and only a small fraction make it long term.

2. If your goal is growth and learning:
Honestly? I absolutely recommend doing a PhD.
It challenges you in ways few things do. I often describe it as running a small startup: you wear all the hats, constantly problem-solve, deal with failure, and keep going anyway.

If you move countries for your PhD, the growth is even bigger - intellectually and personally.

3. Financial payoff (jobs in industry):
This one depends heavily on field, country, and industry.
We’ve seen PhDs walk into roles paying 150–175k. Others start closer to 100k.
Could you have made more by choosing a different path? Maybe.
But it’s not a simple yes or no.

4. Being a door opener:
Coming from Germany, where education still carries a lot of weight (yes, “Dr.” is literally on your passport), I do think a PhD can still open doors - especially in Pharma and biotech. In some environments, you will hit a glass ceiling without it.

5. Subject-matter expertise:
If you want to deeply immerse yourself in one topic for 4–5 years and truly become an expert - there’s no better way.

6. Mobility:
One of the most underrated perks.
PhDs and postdocs allow you to move internationally, attend global conferences, and work in incredibly international environments.

So is a PhD worth it?
👉 There is no universal answer.

For me personally:
Yes. I would do it again.

I did a PhD in Immunology. I don’t use the subject-matter expertise today - but I do use the skills every single day: grit, creative problem-solving, dealing with failure, trying again.

I still think like a scientist. I approach problems like a scientist.

Is shifting that mindset into industry always easy?

Probably better to ask Angela Priest, my co-founder at Alma.Me - she has 20+ years in business and has been working with me for the past three years 😉

Curious how others see this - was your PhD worth it, and by which criteria?

♻️ Reshare to raise awareness and help a friend

🎙️ New PostPhDirections episode is out!

In this episode, I’m joined by Benjamin Weber Weber,  the Vice President of Translational Research at Novo Nordisk, to unpack what it really takes for PhDs to stand out in today’s competitive pharma job market.

Ben hired PhDs in Pharma in the US, and across different countries in Europe.

This episode is packed with a lot of practical advice on how you can prepare for the transition into Pharma R&D

We talk about:
- How Pharma  hiring has changed - and what skills matter most now
- Why understanding the Pharma R&D value chain is a key differentiator
- Common CV/resume and application mistakes PhDs make (and how to fix them)
- What hiring managers actually look for beyond publications and technical skills

If you’re a PhD or postdoc thinking about (or struggling with) the transition from academia to industry, this episode is packed with practical, honest insights from someone who hires globally.

🎧 Listen to the full episode on Spotify or my new YouTube channel - links in the comments  ⬇️

Happy Friday 🙌

“What should I do after my PhD?” feels often impossible to answer.
There are so many roles out there.

For many PhDs, it’s genuinely overwhelming.

Should I keep doing bench work?
If not — what else can I do?

Over the years, we’ve helped PhDs move into:
- Data Science roles at fintech companies
- Quantitative Modelers at insurance companies
- Project Management roles in healthcare
- Medical writers in Pharma 
…and many more.

The truth is:
You can do a lot after a PhD.
What you can do depends on:
- Your skills
- Your interests
- Your values
- And the kind of life and work situation you want to create

But for most PhDs, the hardest part isn’t having options.
It’s mapping their skills to real industry roles - and understanding what those roles actually look like inside companies.

That’s why we at Alma.Me decided to host a live mapping session where we show you exactly how to approach this in practice.

The session is led by my co-founder Angela Priest. 
She brings over 25 years of industry experience, having hired across all levels and a wide range of roles. Most importantly, she’s seen first-hand how many different roles truly exist inside companies - far beyond what job ads suggest.

📅 Join us for a FREE session on January 15, 6PM CET I 10 AM MST

We’ll map a PhD’s skills and interests to concrete roles in industry.
👉 Sign up here: https://lnkd.in/dVuaRrr4

I finally started something I’ve been thinking about for a long time.

I didn’t start earlier because the perfectionist in me kept holding me back - something I’m actively trying to unlearn from academia (still two years later 😅).

But I finally created my first YouTube video.
It’s not perfect, and that’s okay.

One thing business has taught me: do first, improve later.

So here it is - my first video of many:  Is my PhD work experience?

Each week, I’ll be answering common (and often stressful) questions PhDs and postdocs have about transitioning into industry.

This week’s question:
Does the first job after academia need to be the perfect one?

👉  If this resonates, please hit the subscribe button to the channel. 
I already have a few other videos on the transition from academia to industry - and while it’s not perfect yet, it is authentic.

See you on YouTube: https://lnkd.in/dJbpkcXa

This PhD tried to move to industry since March 2025.
She did what so many PhDs do: applied without any strategy

- 300 applications
- A few interviews
- One final-round interview where she was almost certain she’d get the job

And then the rejection came.

That was the moment she realized something had to change.

Not her skills.
Not her PhD.
But how she was approaching the transition.

She found our Alma.Me Job Accelerator Program through ChatGPT (still one of my favorite stories).

She joined us in September.

In October, she started applying with the resume we built together - one that finally translated her experience into industry language.

What happened next?
Some weeks she had up to 4 interviews.
In November, she accepted a job offer as a Project Manager.

This wasn’t luck.
It was the result of strategy, clarity, and consistent follow-through - exactly what we focus on inside the program.

If you’re applying, interviewing, and still getting stuck at “almost” - you don’t need more applications.

You need clear positioning, honest feedback, and a system that works.

👉 If you’re struggling and want structured support at every step, apply to the Alma.Me Job Accelerator Program. 
Apply here: https://www.alma.me/

Happy Wednesday ✨

Many PhDs primarily consider bench roles when moving into industry.

However, there are alternative career paths for PhDs -  one example is scientific business development.

Yasmine Penn is currently hiring for roles across the US. If this sounds like you, reach out to her 👇

🧬 From the bench to the boardroom - ever considered this path?

For many PhD scientists, moving away from the lab doesn’t mean moving away from science.

Scientific Business Development offers a powerful route into industry for researchers who enjoy big-picture thinking, collaboration, and translating complex science into real-world impact.

We’re currently supporting Scientific Business Development opportunities across the USA, ideal for PhD-level scientists looking to make their first commercial move.

Who this suits:

🔬PhD scientists (Immunology, Pharmacology, Cancer Biology, Genetics or related fields)
🔬Strong hands-on in vivo experience (mouse models)
🔬Curious, commercially minded researchers - no prior BD experience required

Over time, this path builds commercial awareness, client-facing confidence, and cross-functional influence - with a front-row seat to how science becomes products.

📍 Now hiring across multiple US locations
📩 Interested in learning more or applying?
Contact Yasmine Penn
📧 yasmine@greenlsr.com

www.greenlsr.com

#ScientificBusinessDevelopment #PhDJobs #LifeScienceCareers #FromBenchToBusiness #BiotechJobs #CRO #IndustryCareers #GreenLifeScience

It took 6 days. 
 
That's how long it took one of the PhDs I'm working with to land his first interview after he started applying. 
 
What changed? 
-We taught him how to identify and reach out directly to hiring managers 
- We overhauled his resume to focus on impact 
 
He went from: 
 
"Optimized targeted therapies through comprehensive in-vitro testing and data analysis, driving drug viability insights through molecular biology, pharmacokinetics, and chemical analysis." 
 
To: 
 
"Conducted a rapid screening of 50 peptide compounds over a 6-week period for glioblastoma drug discovery, partnering with chemistry, prioritizing and identifying 6 viable compounds for preclinical in vivo testing." 
 
The same person, the same work, but one version shows the impact, the other describes the process. 
 
Hiring teams don't have time to translate your resume. 
 
Do it for them. Make it easy for them to say yes!
 
___________________________ 
 
Are you a PhD struggling to get a job in industry? Check out our job search program here: https://www.alma.me/

Happy Friday 🙌

CEO of Mywebtechcare │ Social media trainer and premium ghostwriter for life sciences founders │ I help them become remarkable and generate more opportunities 💶

If you're a CEO or founder in the life sciences, here's a question worth asking: Is LinkedIn working for you, or are you still trying to make it work?

You're not alone.
Even brilliant biotech founders struggle to make LinkedIn a growth lever.
World-class science, but lacking visibility, positioning, and clear messaging?
That’s where I come in.

I’m Sébastien Simoncelli.
I’ve spent the last 3+ years helping life science leaders (CEOs, scientists, marketers) turn LinkedIn into a source of visibility, positioning, and opportunity.
Over 250 professionals have participated in my programs, coaching, training, and ghostwriting. I help them get results.
Let me show you how 👇

1️⃣ BiologIn is your launchpad for building a credible, magnetic LinkedIn presence.
It’s more than just theory. It’s a complete system.
Here’s what you get:
✅ Strategic training tailored for life science companies
✅ 3 to 6 months of personalised follow-up
✅ Time-saving tools and resources
✅ Access to a growing, supportive community
✅ One-on-one guidance from someone who lives and breathes LinkedIn for biotech

2️⃣ Coaching
Don’t want a complete program?
Need precision help on a specific issue?
That’s where coaching comes in.
I work directly with CEOs, marketers, and scientists to tackle concrete problems like:
➡ Optimising your LinkedIn profile
➡ Building a content machine
➡ Finding your editorial voice
➡ Structuring a smart networking strategy

3️⃣ Ghostwriting
Too busy to post?
Let me do it for you without losing your voice.
I write LinkedIn posts for CEOs in life sciences who want:
🧠 To build personal credibility
🔬 To explain complex science with clarity
🚀 To create opportunities without spending hours writing
Each post sounds like you because I capture how you speak, think, and lead.

👇 𝐅𝐀𝐐
1️⃣ Do I need a big following for this to work?
No. My methods work even if you're starting from scratch. What matters is clarity and consistency.

2️⃣ How much time do I need to invest?
It depends on the service. Training takes a few hours weekly, coaching is tailored, and ghostwriting saves you time.

3️⃣ Will the content sound like me?
Yes. My speciality is capturing your voice so the posts feel 100% authentic.

4️⃣ Is this for sales or visibility?
Both. Visibility is step one. But everything I do is geared toward creating real-world business opportunities.

If you’re ready to turn your LinkedIn presence into a strategic asset:
↳ Let's connect.
↳ Send me a message at ssimoncelli@mywebtechcare.com
↳ Call me on WhatsApp: +337.67.23.26.78

Sébastien Simoncelli

Stop finding excuses not to post
You miss so many opportunities.

Too many life sciences founders say:
“I have no time for LinkedIn”
“LinkedIn doesn’t work for me.”
“I don’t want to be salesy”.
“I don’t have a product to post yet”.

I've heard these excuses dozens of times.
Yet, I regularly see founders proving them wrong.

Ian Wilkinson is one of them.

When he started in November 2023, he had:
→ Nothing to sell.
→ 800 followers.
→ No experience on LinkedIn.

Today, Ian is what we can call an influencer on LinkedIn with:
✅ +20k followers.
✅ Posts averaging 200+ reactions.
✅ Advisory role offers.
✅ Conference invitations.
✅ Paper article offers.

Just by starting to post on LinkedIn.

Do you want to learn more about his journey?
This week's newsletter shares 4 lessons from our podcast discussion.
You can read them here: https://lnkd.in/exJAq7qW

→ What's the excuse you're still telling yourself?

Founder of Mywebtechcare │ Helping biotech founders build credibility and generate opportunities online through clear and compelling content

Inspiration is not the source of my best posts.
A spreadsheet is.

Every week, I spend 2 hours hunting for exceptional LinkedIn content.
I look for posts with strong engagement or a message that resonates.

Each time I save one, I ask myself three questions:
1) Why did this post work?
2) What copywriting technique is at play here?
3) How can I apply this next week?

Here are 3 that stuck with me recently:

1. Richard’s lesson from a failure.
→ He didn't hide the uncomfortable parts.
→ That honesty made the story feel real and built trust.

2. Benjamin’s analysis of Canadian’s situation.
→ Specific numbers. Structured solutions. Urgency without drama.
→ Credibility through precision.

3. Gareth’s frustration with his content quantity.
→ Unfiltered emotion. Real insecurity.
→ He didn't just teach, he made you feel something.

Studying others isn't copying.
It's discovering what speaks to you and then making it your own.

📩 I break down all three posts in detail in this week's newsletter.
Link in the comments.

→ What's one post you've saved recently, and why did it stick?

Your most exciting updates are often the ones you can't share publicly.

Founders in life sciences tell me the same thing:
"We want to post on LinkedIn, but what if we share too much?"

It's real. Some of your best progress is also the riskiest to talk about.
❌ Unpublished data (one premature mention can jeopardise a patent filing).
❌ Experimental methods (competitors are watching closer than you think).
❌ Customer names (NDA violations can cost you the deal).
❌ Even a prototype photo that looks harmless (tip off competitors or raise IP issues).

That constant risk check makes you hesitate.
And hesitation kills momentum.

Here's what works better:

1️⃣ Shift focus from what you did to why it matters.
Don't share the mechanism, share the impact.
Instead of "we solved a stability issue with method X," say "we cleared a key hurdle in keeping compound Y stable at room temperature, opening doors for easier distribution."

2️⃣ Use public info as scaffolding.
If a journal, conference, or press release is already out there, frame your update in that context. Credibility without exposure.

3️⃣ Tell the story, not the spec sheet.
What's the problem, why is it hard, and what's the next milestone? That's enough to engage people without leaking IP.

4️⃣ And to keep momentum, batch your approvals.
Instead of scrambling for last-minute sign-offs, run a set of posts by legal or your co-founder once a month. Saves time, lowers stress.

5️⃣ Build "safe" content you can always use.
Team culture. Founder journey. Industry commentary. None of it risks IP, but all of it builds trust and visibility.

The funny part?
This limitation forces you to sharpen your storytelling.

And that's often what resonates most with investors, partners, and policymakers who care more about impact than methods.

→ Have you found a way to share progress without crossing the line? I'd love to hear what's worked.

6 months. 50 posts. 700,000 impressions.
All from starting conversations about science.

She was one of my most challenging customers.
↳ She hated social media.
↳ She never thought she would find the right words to write.
↳ She thought no one would be interested in what she had to say.

But she recognised that LinkedIn could generate opportunities.

When she reached out, I noticed something about her:
She loves science.
She loves discussing it with others.
She is passionate about her biotech.

So I gave her a simple system:
1) Follow content creators in her niche.
2) Comment on their posts.
3) Start discussions with other commenters.
5) Connect with them and continue the conversation.
5) After two months, find the comments generating the most engagement and turn them into posts.

Why this works:
✅ She starts by doing what she already enjoys: discussing.
✅ She connects with relevant people naturally.
✅ She doesn't have to spend time looking for ideas.
✅ She knows her posts will resonate because they already did as comments.

After 6 months:
→ 50+ posts published.
→ 700,000+ impressions.
→ 200+ new connections.
→ 5 new customers.

The lesson: don't overcomplicate your LinkedIn strategy.
For networking: comment → discuss → connect → follow up.
For content: comment → evaluate → recycle.

→ Have you ever turned a comment into a post? How did it perform?

I almost quit LinkedIn.
Not because it wasn't working.
Because creating content was draining me.

I spent hours on one post.
Every time, I was exhausted.
Idea → Drafting → Editing → Visual support → Posting.
The same pattern. The same fatigue.

I noticed my founder clients face the same problem.
Some eventually stop, even though their posts are valuable.
Others can't post regularly because the effort is too high.

Then I read Maud Alavès' post about the creative process.
It's not a matter of skills or motivation.
It's a process problem.

The key shift?
Separating capture from creation.

Most founders try to do both at once.
That's what causes the exhaustion.

In this week's newsletter, I'll walk you through every step of this process and show you how to implement it.

Since following it:
✅ I write better quality posts.
✅ I don't get exhausted by producing regularly.

I shared it with customers.
They feel relieved since using it.

→ What's the one step in your content process that drains you most?

Founder of Mywebtechcare │ Helping biotech founders build credibility and generate opportunities online through clear, compelling content

Content creation on LinkedIn? What a joke!
Two hours on a post. 1,000 impressions.
Worst waste of time for 2026!

I get it. I've heard this from dozens of founders.

But here's what they forget:
Their feed is 90% noise — funding announcements, recycled tips, corporate jargon.

When it comes time to choose:
❌ Your customers have many options.
❌ They all look the same.

To win, become the only obvious choice:
→ They know you because you show up.
→ They recognise you immediately.
→ They feel you understand their challenges.
→ They become the reference in your market.
→ They trust you can fix their problems.

This doesn't happen by chance.

It takes a real strategy:
✅ Clear positioning.
✅ Clear audience.
✅ Clear message.
✅ Consistency.

I've helped 270+ life sciences founders do this since 2022.

Not by chasing trends.
Not by writing viral fluff.
Not by posting every day and hoping for the best.
But by building what most people skip.

Content creation isn't the joke.
Posting without strategy is.

→ Ready to stop posting and start positioning? DM me.

Sébastien Simoncelli's tweet saying:
Two hours on a post. 1,000 impressions...
The problem isn't LinkedIn.
It's the missing strategy.
#LinkedInStrategy 
#LifeSciences



1.7 million impressions in my first year on LinkedIn.
I focused on the wrong metrics.

I was always wondering what was the best:
• time to post,
• format of content,
• way to generate engagement.

The results were promising:
‣ 157 posts,
‣ 1.7 million impressions,
‣ 22k engagements.

I was so proud of myself.

Then someone I'd never met sent me a DM during a rough week.
Not about content. About me.
That's when the numbers stopped mattering.

What became most important:
✅ Friendships with people I met because of LinkedIn.
✅ Connections that were there when I needed them.
✅ Conversations that became relationships and customers.
✅ Resilient Collective, where we support each other.

These gave me more joy than any metric ever could.

In 2026, I'm not chasing impressions.
I'm building relationships that last longer than an algorithm update.

Impressions will drop. The algorithm will change.
But one action can still make the difference:
✅ A post that helps someone who's struggling.
✅ A DM to start a real conversation.
✅ Showing up for someone when it's not convenient.

You did more than a million impressions.

→ What was the most meaningful connection you made on LinkedIn in 2025?

The content of life sciences founders on LinkedIn looks the same.
It's boring.
No one gets remembered.

Here are 7 underrated ways to stand out.

1️⃣ Write a post for one person in your network.
As if you were writing a letter to a good friend.
PS: we should do that again, Frank and Simon. 

2️⃣ Start a post with "This is not for VCs".
Stop pitching. Start talking.

3️⃣ Show a messy situation.
Life in the lab isn't perfect.
LinkedIn doesn't need to be either.

4️⃣ Kill one buzzword you keep seeing.
Platform. AI-powered. Innovator.
Explain why it's lazy.

5️⃣ Write the post everyone would ask you to soften.
Don't soften it.

6️⃣ Share something that pisses you off.
It probably matters if it annoys you.

7️⃣ Send an audio message in DM.
Your voice says more than text ever will.

Standing out isn't about posting more.
It's about saying what others won't.

→ Which one scares you most? That's probably the one to try.

I'm not viral on LinkedIn.
These aren't viral numbers.
But they're business numbers.

January 2026:
- 62k+ impressions
- 19k+ people reached
- 1664 engagements

My routine:
- 31 posts
- 2 hours for writing 7 posts
- 1 hour per day for commenting.
- 1 hour per day for connecting and messaging.

That's about 12 hours a week.

But last month, I generated:
✅ 29 leads
✅ 30+ calls with potential customers
✅ 11 DMs asking about my services
✅ 2 new customers
✅ 7 coaching engagements

Honestly, I was astonished too.

Why did I reach such results?

Because I don’t post for the algorithm.
I speak to a very specific audience: life sciences founders.

→ I speak about their challenges.
→ I’m clear about who I help, how I help, and when to reach out.
→ I give proof of my results with my customers.
→ I’m consistent in posting and my message.

LinkedIn is becoming a popularity contest.
But when I talk with people chasing impressions, they don't generate opportunities.

To succeed, you need to build trust.
I build trust — or I build nothing.

It’s my philosophy, and it pays off.

→ What's your goal on LinkedIn: impressions or income?

Life science founders:
The reason fundraising feels so hard?
You waited too long to start posting.

You tell yourself you're "too busy."
Really, you're just focused on what feels urgent.

Urgent looks like:
- Back-to-back investor meetings.
- Regulatory submissions stuck in legal review.
- Putting out fires with a small team
- Hitting the next milestone before the money runs out

Posting on LinkedIn?
❌ No deadline.
❌ No penalty if you skip a week… or six months.

It stays in the "important but not urgent" bucket.
So it never happens.

Here's the irony:
Showing up here regularly makes the urgent stuff easier to handle.
✅ Investors warm up before you pitch them.
✅ Top candidates know your company before you're hiring.
✅ Potential partners already trust your science.

But the benefits aren't instant.
So the habit doesn't stick.

That's why so many founders only start posting when:
- They're raising a round.
- They're launching.
- They're desperate to hire.

By then, they're starting from zero with a cold audience.

The founders who win on LinkedIn don't treat it like a side task.
They treat it like a long game that compounds over time.

→ What's the one thing that keeps YOU from posting consistently?

I used to think "no" meant "never."

Then one "no" turned into my most profitable client.

A year ago, I reached out to a CEO on LinkedIn.

He was visible. Active. Posting often.

But I could see several missed opportunities in his content.

We had a short chat.

He told me he didn't need help.

He wanted to figure it out on his own.

I thanked him and left the door open.

For a year, nothing.

Then he started showing up in my comments.

At first, his replies were sceptical.
"That's easy to say when you don't run a company."
"Works for consultants, not for CEOs."

I didn't argue. I explained my thinking. I stayed curious about him.

Over time, his tone changed.

He began sharing his own experiences.

We started talking regularly in DMs.

One day, he messaged me: "Can we work together?"

He became a client.

And a very good one.

What changed?

Not my pitch. Not my offer.

Just time, trust, and consistency.

Only 3% of your market is ready to buy today.

The rest need to see you showing up (educating, sharing, being helpful) before they're ready.

That's the long game.

And it works.

→ What's the longest you've waited for a "no" to become a "yes"?

“You don't have enough talent to be a writer."
That's what they told me.

I've been writing since I was 11.
Short stories. Articles. Anything I could share with friends.
Even when time was short, I kept writing.
It's the one thing I can do for hours without noticing.

But people discourage me from following my dream.
So I ignored them.

Today, I write between 50 and 60,000 words a week.
→ Content for my social media.
→ Content for my clients.
→ Script for my podcast.
→ Weekly newsletter.
→ Short stories, I hope to publish one day.

Of course, I also want to improve the quality of my content every week.
✅ I read a lot of great content online or offline.
✅ I practice a lot (≈4 hours/day).

What are the results?
More CEOs in life sciences are reaching out for help.
They know LinkedIn matters. They just don't have the time.
So I started ghostwriting for them.
And I love it so much.

I get to use my passion to help people who are saving lives.
That's not just a job, but a privilege.

→ What's something you'd do for free that someone eventually paid you for?

P.S. This post is part of the Stanley Weekly Challenge, practising what I preach.

A former PhD told me something that changed how I think about scientists on LinkedIn.

Elena built a large audience by speaking to researchers leaving academia.

In our latest podcast conversation, one theme kept coming up:

Most scientists don't struggle on LinkedIn because they lack skills.
They struggle because they lack clarity.

Here's what we discussed:

𝟭. 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗳𝗶𝗹𝗲 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆
→ Your profile should say where you're going, not only where you come from.
→ "PhD student" tells very little about what you can actually do.
→ Industry cares about skills, outcomes, and impact — not titles.
→ If your direction isn't clear, recruiters won't guess it for you.

𝟮. 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗹
→ Posting doesn't require perfection. It requires starting.
→ Commenting is often the best first step if posting feels uncomfortable.
→ Elena started quietly. Commenting first. Building trust. Then posting. Then growing.

𝟯. 𝗥𝗲𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽-𝗳𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁 𝗻𝗲𝘁𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴
→ Networking works when you give before you ask.
→ Cold messages fail when there's no prior relationship.

No tricks.
No personal branding theatre.
Just consistency and clear intent.

If you're a scientist thinking about industry roles, and LinkedIn feels noisy or awkward, this episode will help you see it differently.

🎧 The full episode is available now.
Link in the comments.

→ What's the part of LinkedIn that still feels unclear to you?

I give a lot of value for free.
And it brings me more customers than I expected.

Yesterday, Kerstin asked me what was actually left for me to sell when I give so much value away for free. She is not the first one to ask me that. It's a good question.

I do that because it builds trust faster than any pitch.
What feels like 'giving away' to me is 'proof of expertise' to them.

There are 3 benefits to my free content on LinkedIn:

1) I show people how I think.
It’s not a question of showing my knowledge, but more about how I frame a problem, what I notice and what I ignore. It’s difficult to fake and copy with AI. It builds familiarity and trust.

2) I reduced the perceived risk for my potential customers.
When they learn something from my posts and see the benefits, paying doesn’t look like a gamble anymore. This is only the logical step.

3) My content filters my audience.
I want to work with people who resonate with my content. The rest can scroll, it's not a problem. It's a form of protection for me, and I filter with it.

In 4 years, my content generated over 270 customers in the life sciences industry.

To take this further,  I started a newsletter in 2026. I’ll share more value to help life science founders write with impact on LinkedIn. If you want to improve your writing, you can subscribe here: https://lnkd.in/eha9NkbA

→ What do you know that your competitors are too afraid to share for free?

Science alone will never make your company take off.

That sentence makes some founders uncomfortable.
You can stop reading here.
Many will.

In life sciences, there's a quiet belief that:
• a strong product will be discovered.
• solid data will speak on its own.
• the market will get it, sooner or later?

That's not what happens.

When your value isn't clear:
• investors wait for someone else to move first.
• partners prioritise companies they understand faster.
• senior hires choose teams with a clearer vision.
• competitors with weaker science but sharper messaging win deals.

This isn't about scientific rigour.
It's about communication.

Science creates potential value.
Clarity turns it into something others can trust.

Without clarity, your work stays trapped in a deck, a paper, or a lab meeting.

I often hear:
"Our technology is too complex to explain properly."

Most of the time, that means:
• you're not sure how to explain it yet.
• you're afraid simplification will weaken your credibility.
• you don't want peers to poke holes in it.

While you protect scientific status, others build market momentum.

If your startup depends only on scientific quality, it's already in danger.

→ What's one thing about your company that deserves to be understood better?

Staring at a blank screen again?
Bookmark this. Come back when you're stuck.

Here are 30+ post ideas for life sciences founders organised by what you want to build.

📌 𝗧𝗼 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆:
🗓️ Introduce yourself beyond the PhD and the title.
🗓️ Explain why you started your company (the real reason, not the pitch deck version).
🗓️ Describe one day of your life as a founder.
🗓️ Share a celebration or milestone.
🗓️ Introduce a team member: what makes them irreplaceable?
🗓️ Explain a failure and what it taught you.
🗓️ Share a cause you support and why it matters.
🗓️ Write about something that frustrates you in the industry.
🗓️ Ask your audience a genuine question.

📌 𝗧𝗼 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆:
🗓️ Give your take on recent news in your field.
🗓️ Share your thoughts on a scientific paper: what most people miss.
🗓️ Announce an event you'll attend (and why it matters to you).
🗓️ Write a debrief after a conference, one insight that stuck.
🗓️ Share your vision for where the industry is heading.
🗓️ Destroy a myth your competitors keep repeating.
🗓️ Give three tips about a problem your customers face weekly.
🗓️ Answer one question your customers ask you all the time.
🗓️ Explain why your assay failed 47 times before it worked.
🗓️ Kill a buzzword everyone overuses. Explain why it's lazy.

📌 𝗧𝗼 𝗯𝘂𝗶𝗹𝗱 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝘀𝘁:
🗓️ Share a case study: real results, real context.
🗓️ Post a customer testimonial (with their permission).
🗓️ Explain how your product solves a specific problem.
🗓️ Share a recommendation from an employee or partner.
🗓️ Describe how you actually work with customers, the process.
🗓️ Share the results a customer achieved using your product.
🗓️ Explain the applications of your technology with concrete examples.
🗓️ Share an article or video about your company.
🗓️ Write about a reward or recognition and what it took to earn it.

No more excuses.
Pick one. Post it this week.

→ Which idea scares you most? That's probably the one to try.

Most life sciences founders treat their Featured section like a trophy shelf.
It's costing them conversations.

I've spent years helping founders fix this.

Here are the 3 most common mistakes and how to fix them.

❌ Mistake #1: The trophy shelf.
A random mix of what you're proud of:
• Press release about a funding round.
• An article that mentions your company.
• A conference where you spoke.

Why is it a problem?
It doesn't answer: "Why should someone care right now?"
It looks impressive, but it guides no one.

How to fix it:
Reframe this section as a trust-building space.
Guide the right person to:
→ Take the next step.
→ Understand your focus.
→ Trust your execution.

❌ Mistake #2: Addressing the wrong audience.
This section is often:
• Written for journalists or internal stakeholders.
• Polished and broad.

Why is it a problem?
People scanning your profile learn nothing about you.

How to fix it:
Show some personality:
→ A 60-second video explaining why you started your company.
→ A post written in your voice, not your PR team's.
→ Something real over something polished.

❌ Mistake #3: No narrative flow.
Many Featured sections feel like:
• A junk drawer.
• No progression.
• No story.

Why is it a problem?
Cognitive overload. No hierarchy. No momentum.

How to fix it:
Design the section with intent:
→ An anchor piece: How do you think as a founder?
→ A proof point: Show traction or execution.
→ An optional piece: For people who want details.

If you fix your Featured section, your audience will have a clear picture of:
✅ What you're working on.
✅ How you think.
✅ Why it's relevant for them.

Featured is not about visibility.
It's about reducing uncertainty for people deciding whether to talk to you.

→ Look at your Featured section right now. Which of these three mistakes is staring back at you?

This is a great idea, and I'm very curious to see the impact of such a strategy.
→ What about your company? Did you try that? What was the result?

Brand partnership • Creating research content that gets you more visibility, trust and leads 🎯 | Fractional SciComm & Marketing Specialist 📢 | Education & Life Sciences Expert 🐝

𝟑 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐲 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐜𝐡 𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐬 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐫𝐮𝐧 𝐢𝐧𝐟𝐥𝐮𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐫 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩𝐬 👇
 
1️⃣ 𝐁𝐮𝐫𝐬𝐭 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐡 𝐛𝐮𝐛𝐛𝐥𝐞
Your science shows up in feeds that don’t already follow your institution. In other words: you are not preaching to the choir.

2️⃣ 𝐆𝐫𝐨𝐰 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐚𝐮𝐝𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞
You will likely increase your own digital following, which means more people who will hear about your science again in the future.

3️⃣ 𝐒𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧
For medium and large organizations: these partnerships can actually improve the relationship between your comms team and researchers.
 
So… the right question is: why DON'T they run influencer partnerships? 🤔
 
And I think the answer here has a lot to do with novelty. Influencer partnerships have been part of marketing for decades — just not in research institutions. That’s what makes them feel…misplaced.
 
📢 𝐁𝐮𝐭 𝐈 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐰𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐲𝐨𝐮:
The Joint Research Centre - JRC (aka EU Science, Research and Innovation) is doing it.

Yes, “that” JRC.
➡️ 3rd research center with the most publications in the top 1% citation tier
➡️ 6 sites across Europe
➡️ ~3000 employees
 
How long do you think it will take for the rest of the research ecosystem to follow their lead? 😉
 
Ps: this is a photo we took during #JRC’s third influencer visit. Yes: I WAS ON IT!
 
#BrandPartnership

You don't need to go viral to generate opportunities.
This example proves it.

I've been saying this for months.

What you actually need:
✅ Clear positioning.
✅ A specific audience.
✅ Audience-centric messaging.
✅ Consistency in posting and engaging.

Stop overthinking your LinkedIn strategy.

Ask yourself one question: Who am I really trying to reach?

Then show up for them.

Great job, Sofia. 🤗🩶

Creating research content that gets you more visibility, trust and leads 🎯 | Fractional SciComm & Marketing Specialist 📢 | Education & Life Sciences Expert 🐝

𝐋𝐚𝐬𝐭 𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐤 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐬𝐮𝐜𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐟𝐮𝐥 𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐤 𝐈 *𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐑* 𝐡𝐚𝐝 𝐨𝐧 #𝐋𝐢𝐧𝐤𝐞𝐝𝐈𝐧:
✅ 3 potential clients asked for budgets
✅ 3 speaking & interview opportunities landed on my DMs (for my clients and for me)

𝗪𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐝𝐢𝐝 𝐈 𝐝𝐨 𝐝𝐢𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐥𝐲? 🤔
Nothing.

𝐈 𝐝𝐢𝐝 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐈 𝐮𝐬𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐝𝐨:
👉 Showing up consistently
👉 Sharing posts that bring value to my audience
👉 Being very clear about who my target audience is
👉 Actively engaging in the comments
 
No "viral" posts involved.

Just your friendly reminder that LinkedIn rewards consistency and clarity over perfection or virality. 

Ready to start taking LinkedIn seriously? 😉

taplio

The Battle

Elena Hoffer, PhD

Sébastien Simoncelli

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance ScoreElena Hoffer, PhD's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreSébastien Simoncelli's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

taplio

The Battle

Elena Hoffer, PhD

Sébastien Simoncelli

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);}Elena Hoffer, PhD's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreSébastien Simoncelli's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

Performance ScoreElena Hoffer, PhD's LinkedIn Performance