spent a solid few hours on a client piece - copy, creative, timing, all the usual boxes ticked. Genuinely thought it was going to perform. Eleven likes. Meanwhile, a throwaway post from the same week did six times the engagement. Classic.
everyone knows the algorithm is a black box, but it got me thinking - how do you all sanity check content before it hits publish? Is there a signal you look for beyond just experience and gut feel? or do we all just accept it's a crapshoot until it's out there?
A colleague pointed out that low-effort stuff often works better because it feels closer to a real thought. polished posts can lose the thing that made them worth engaging with. i try to mentally run through a few checks now:
- Would the target reader immediately know this is for them?
- is there a clear tension, opinion, or useful takeaway?
- would someone save this, argue with it, or send it to someone?
- does it sound like a real person said it, or like another campaign asset?
even with that, flops aren't rare. Curious if anyone here has a more reliable approach - or just better luck than me
