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

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.

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

Is a post less valuable if it was written by AI?

I've been watching 2 camps on LinkedIn: 

The first is AI-generated content. LinkedIn broetry style, 5th-grade level, hitting hundreds of likes, teaching something useful. 

The second is the warriors. People calling it out, listing all the AI-isms, counting the em dashes, the "it's not X, it's Y". That content is also getting numbers.

Here's the part that gets me. Most of the people sharing the warrior posts are probably liking AI posts without realizing it. The content probably helped them. They may have saved it, or even shared it. Then two posts later, they're nodding along to someone explaining how to spot the soulless AI content destroying LinkedIn.

So I genuinely want to know: If the content teaches you something real, does it matter how it got made?

Curious where people actually stand on this one.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

Big impressions are easy to get excited about. 

They're also easy to hide behind. 

A post that gets 50,000 views and zero DMs is not a good post for a service seller. It's just a popular one. Top-of-funnel content attracts top-of-funnel audiences, people who found the post interesting but have no reason to reach out. 

What we track when we get a viral post are things that could lead to results. Resume submission, meeting requests, DMs, conversations, etc.

The agencies I've seen struggle with this aren't producing bad content. They're optimizing for the wrong metric and calling it growth.

Someone builds a following on LinkedIn → People start asking for help. → They think, "Let me do this for clients." → They start ghostwriting. 

If this is you, here are 4 things worth knowing before you take on your first client:

1. Your voice is a liability here. Everything that made your content work was built around how you think and speak. The instinct to write that way doesn't disappear when you're writing for someone else. You have to actively fight it.

2. Your templates won't transfer. What worked on your account was built for your audience, your service, and your positioning. A different client means a different buyer with different reasons to reach out. The format might look the same. The results won't.

3. Scaling before you have a repeatable process just means making the same mistakes faster. Most people hire a writer before they've documented what good actually looks like for each client.

4. Viral posts and conversion posts are not the same thing. Your audience grew because of one. Your clients need the other.

I've worked through most of these in consulting calls, these are always easier to sort out and learn before you make mistakes and damage your reputation. 

My advice: get in touch with people already killing it on different aspects of your service. Content, outbound, DMs, AI, etc. Then offer it to others for an entry price before scaling. I don't believe you should do it for free, but also not at full price before you know you can do this.

We've written this hook for five different clients in five different industries. It works every time. The formula: 

Past struggle + present contrast. 

Take a founder's real low point. Put it next to where they are now. Two sentences. The reader fills in the entire journey between them.

My first job was cleaning locker rooms with a finance degree. Now I run content operations for a ghostwriting agency across three time zones. That took one sentence to set up. And maaaybe you want to know what happened in between.

Nothing about this is manipulative. The failure is real. The recovery is real. We just put them in the right order.

However, there are instances where these were performed, but we felt they could have done better. The issue was giving too much away in the hook. So the reader is left like, "Well, why do I have to click 'see more '?" 

Hard for me to say when I'm doing it, it's usually something I see after the post has gone live.

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.

Just built the first free AI training for lawyers, 1509 registered.The rest is...coming soon...

Holly Cope

If I was graduating from law school in 2026, this is what I would do.

People will tell you that adding a few extra skills to your CV will help you stand out.

Newsflash: it won’t.

It wasn’t enough when I graduated in 2015.
It definitely isn’t enough now.

Here’s what I would focus on instead:

1. I’d get close to business.

For example: I’d work at a start-up to understand how a company actually runs, sales, operations, marketing, decision-making. 

This will be a vital skill for juniors in the future. 

2. I’d go international.

I’d reach out directly to international firms and ask about internships or work experience abroad. 

I did this in 2013 in Hong Kong. 

Even a short stint abroad expands your perspective and your confidence.

3. At the same time, I’d be learning AI properly.

Not just consuming content about it but understanding how to use it to solve real problems. 

- How to save time. 
- How to improve thinking.
- How to make myself more commercially valuable.

4. I’d also be building a personal brand on LinkedIn. 

(That’s where lawyers are.)

I’d involve myself in communities the way Charlie Moore CAA does.

I’d consider starting a newsletter or podcast the way George Hannah has. 

5. And I’d be meeting people.

Coffee chats. 
Industry events. 
Small networking meet-ups.

But I wouldn’t just “pick their brains.” 
That’s overdone and taking their time. 

I’d look for ways to ADD value. 

- Sharing a useful resource. 
- Making an introduction. 

Showing them a practical AI tool that could save them time.

So to sum it up:

👉I’d build experience that genuinely differentiates me.
👉I’d develop skills that make me commercially sharp.
👉Id get AI literate.
👉I’d build a personal brand centred around adding value to my ideal employer
👉I’d invest in real human relationships.

That’s what makes you stand out & harder to ignore.

Ex-Lawyer, Ranked #1 Global Legal Tech Creator | I help lawyers and legal tech companies strategically future-proof in the AI era through Training and Creative Marketing (See “about” section)

Microsoft AI chief: in 18 mnths all white-collar work including legal will be automated.

Most law firms are still:

Experimenting 
Testing internal copilots
Marginal productivity gains
Working out governance frameworks

We are living in the largest expectation GAP in modern professional history.

- CEOs warn of mass automation. 
- Lawyers are still learning to auto-generate contracts. 
- The media talks apocalypse. 

The hype is running faster than reality and opportunity is hiding in the gap.

For decades, lawyers had to focus on commercial awareness.

But that is shifting to AI awareness.

Not just “can you use the tools.”

I mean deep literacy in AI as a professional skill:

1. Knowing which tasks to hand to AI and which ones only humans can do

2. Designing workflows that combine judgment + AI speed

3. Understanding hallucinations, bias, and limitations and stopping mistakes before they happen

4. Building insights, arguments, and strategy from outputs that others can’t even interpret

5. Teaching your team to think the same way

The leverage isn’t in running with AI faster.

It’s in knowing how to use it better than everyone else.

That’s where the next generation of lawyers, consultants, and business leaders will create value.

👉 Lawyers: I'd be crafting the skill of orchestrating AI. It's the new premium currency.

👉 Legal tech: I’d be building ecosystems around tools that promote this.

what do you say?

Ex-Lawyer, Ranked #1 Global Legal Tech Creator | I Built The First Global AI Skills Summit for Lawyers | Host of More Than A Lawyer Podcast

8 years ago, I was commuting to this station for work each morning. Now...

I find it completely surreal that I'm living a life of travel and purpose (in my eyes)

For me the shift is this: 
From living on autopilot to taking inspired action 

(Doing things that light me up.)

Tuesday night was one of those things. 

I had the privilege of being invited to an intimate dinner hosted by Sam Eastwood partner at Mayer Brown, where I was surrounded by some really incredible legal leaders.

The table discussion was around where AI is taking the legal industry. 

We talked in depth about how legal can be a key strategic part of an organisation (inspired by a panel discussion myself and Stefan Halter were part of) as opposed to a support or an afterthought in this tech/AI era.

What was also interesting was hearing which AI tools firms and in-house lawyers prefer and whether they will even survive in 2 years time. 

..And the rest is confidential!

Coming away from that dinner gave me so much motivation and inspiration. 

A supportive, yet safe space to share thoughts on where the industry is heading... 

..that's something that can't be replicated by tech. 

These are the types of conversations that I'll be sharing on my podcast in the coming weeks as I launch a new chapter in my podcast More Than A Lawyer Podcast ...
(stay tuned)

Harvey just signed Harvey Specter.

(Here’s my bold prediction for 2026.)

Harvey partnering with Gabriel Macht (aka Harvey Specter from Suits) isn’t a gimmick.

Legal tech has always been sold on efficiency.

But we can’t compete on that anymore.

- In-house teams are building their own tools.
- Lawyers are experimenting.
- People are vibe-coding workflows in a weekend.

But this is the first time I’ve seen a legal AI company sell FEELING.

Nostalgia. Ambition. Identity.
Harvey Specter isn’t just a character.

For many lawyers, he represents: 
Confidence, status, aspiration.

The version of themselves they imagined becoming.

For me, I was watching Suits whilst studying law. Harvey Specter represented exactly that.

But that's not all..

By aligning with a culturally iconic fictional lawyer, Harvey humanises the technology.

And THAT builds trust faster than any product demo ever could.

We are seeing a massive shift.

Is legal tech entering a brand era?

I see this:
Features and efficiency won’t differentiate anymore. There's too much of that in the market. 

This type of strategic creative growth combines narrative, culture, and emotion with adoption, I believe will define the next phase of legal tech.

Excited to reveal how I’m bringing this approach to life myself...

..in my special announcement on 2nd March.

LegalEx London exceeded expectations! 

Legal panels can be painfully boring.

After hundreds of podcast interviews, moderating many in person panels and co- hosting events and training for lawyers, I’ve learned this: 

engagement doesn’t happen by accident.

Here’s how I make sure panels & interviews land with the audience (as a moderator):

1. Research your panel speakers, see what their views and experiences are.

2. Arrange a panel pre chat - see where they agree & disagree on points, ask open questions.

3. Make a note of who thinks what.

4. Based on their answers give them one defining talking point so they can prepare a great response on the day.

5. During the panel, start with the talking point for each speaker and delve deeper based on what they say.

6. Let the audience have their say early on, not in a last minute Q&A. Allow them to ask questions after each panelist has shared their view.

7. Mix formats. Quick-fire questions, real-life stories, debate moments, don’t let it be a monologue.

8. Follow the curiosity and think about how to bring out value to the audience.

The difference between a forgettable panel and a memorable one? Audience-first thinking.

We had some incredible feedback on our panel: how law can be a strategic driver in the transformation of businesses.

Thanks to everyone who supported us!
Lisa Ardley-Price, Stefan Halter, Neil Willson, Omiyinka Doris

I am 33, living my own dream 

all because of a decision I made 3 years ago

I invested in LinkedIn training, learned how to copywrite properly & build a presence online.

This was the single most important decision of my life, not only my business..

It allowed me to gain opportunities I didn't know were even possible. 
Get into rooms I never thought I'd be allowed.

Invited to speak on the biggest legal stages, work with dream clients and take a month off work, no worries!

Now, in this AI era, I truly believe that LinkedIn is actually more important than EVER.

Your edge becomes from:

How you think. How you position. How you differentiate. How you build trust at scale.

And how to communicate that value.
It’s career insurance.

👉 I didn’t think I’d run another LinkedIn cohort for lawyers.

But so many of you have asked. 
And I keep delivering corporate training on this.

But this isn’t like anything I’ve done before.

This is about:

– How to leverage AI properly to grow on LinkedIn
– How to build real copywriting skills
– And we create a clear LinkedIn strategy together that works after the course ends

👉 I’m also adding bonus sessions on:

– How to secure speaking opportunities
– LinkedIn specifically for GC & private practice lawyers

(bringing in special guests)

It’s practical.
Built for ambitious lawyers.

3 years ago, I made a decision that felt small.
But it compounded into huge pay back.

I’m keeping the group intimate so I can give proper 1:1 attention and work through your unique strategy with you.

If this aligns with you, here are the details:

https://lnkd.in/eVqkeTnT 

I’ll close the link once I hit capacity

In this new era of work, what do you think is the most important skill? Would love to hear your thoughts...

Which skill do you think is the most important for lawyers to master in 2026 and beyond?

The author can see how you vote. Learn more

taplio

The Battle

Frank Velasquez

Holly Cope

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance ScoreFrank Velasquez's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreHolly Cope's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

taplio

The Battle

Frank Velasquez

Holly Cope

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

Performance ScoreHolly Cope's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

Performance ScoreFrank Velasquez's LinkedIn Performance