Founder, P33 | Executive Thought Leadership Agency

Helped 50+ B2B tech companies build their Founder/CEO Brand and implement Executive Thought Leadership Programs for LinkedIn. Customers, results & process: project33.io

About me:

I'm Finn, 29, grew up in Bremen, Germany, studied Physics & Philosophy in Heidelberg for 3 semesters, dropped out of college in 2017 because I was doing it for other people, flew to New York with no plans, documented the journey on Linkedin, Instagram and Youtube, and started my first company (Project 33) on the back of having grown a small audience. We're a small remote agency that helps B2B founders & execs create thought leadership content for Linkedin.

In my free time, which I try to have as much as possible of, I read (fav author: Nassim N. Taleb), write, run, lift, code (currently building an app), cook, make Youtube videos, turn books into Instagram accounts, grapple (BJJ), and travel (lived in NYC, Cape Town, Bali, Minsk, CMDX, Lima & Antalya so far). In December 2020 I married the most beautiful woman in the world. In January 2023, I became dad to the most beautiful baby girl. We currently live in Berlin, Germany.

Finn Thormeier

People forget that *high engagement* usually means *easy to engage with*. What's easy to engage with? Short posts, selfies, black/white takes. 

That's the real reason why there's so much of that stuff on Linkedin.

So when your local Linkedin influenster who gets hundreds of likes on every post and whose main product is a $99 course tells you that this is the kind of content your NEED to create, remember:

In B2B, inbound/customers/conversations with VPs+ often come from high trust. 

What builds high trust? Deep insights, balanced/nuanced takes, complete breakdowns - aka stuff that can't be skimmed in 3 seconds.

Top LinkedIn ghostwriting agency for CEOs, founders & execs -- Founder at Project 33 and Host of the Executive Brand Podcast

I discovered Louis Grenier a couple weeks ago - how did it take me so long?? This man grew his LinkedIn to 39,000+ followers and built a successful solo-consulting biz while breaking ALL the rules of LinkedIn the "gurus" want you to believe in:

- Bright orange profile pic
- Uses the F word ALL the time
- Spent $8,500 to produce a YouTube (!) mini-series to market his services
- Wildly mixes his post formats
- Regularly includes links in the post copy
- Publicly ROASTS his sponsors
- Pays zero attention to the algorithm

Dave Gerhardt called him the french Harry Dry

If the all LinkedIn Gurus were right, Louis should be nowhere near where he is today, getting nowhere near the results he's getting.

Want to learn how he does it?

This Thursday at 11am EST, I'm doing a live Zoom call with Louis to ask him about his approach and how, you too, can Stand The F*ck Out. We'll include audience Q&A, so you can bring your own questions.

Join us here: https://lnkd.in/dQ7J9vXh

I strongly believe almost all companies who currently do great marketing, I'd eg. list Clay, PostHog, 37signals, have some version of this mindset when it comes to brand. Here articulated by Chris Evans, co-founder of incident.io. 

You gotta have taste, take some risks, have fun, think about the customer, and just trust that it will all somehow, in the end, benefit your company. You can't measure it and you shouldn't even try. Almost by definition, if you could measure and attribute brand marketing, it would be called demand gen.

In prepping for a podcast episode, I was reading a CEO's Linkedin content today. What stood out to me: I actually LEARNED things. It's crazy that this feels like a rare experience these days on Linkedin.

The posts weren't formatted with tons of bullet points and 5-part lists and one-line paragraphs.

The hook was just a regular sentence that didn't feel "optimized"

The overall posts and topics didn't feel engineered - no trend jacking - just grounded lessons from 10 years being in the industry.

The average post of this CEO got 20-40 likes.

There's plenty of people in his space that are getting 10x that.

But he was talking about marketing fundamentals, lessons learned, deeply thought-out takes or rebuttals on current trends, and I actually found myself taking notes, rethinking certain decisions of mind, doing additional research to fully understand his point of view.

Maybe because of this, when I looked at the 20-40 people who did engage, many were CMOs, VPs, CEOs, and a good amount of lengthy comments, people who actually, read, internalized and responded to the post with their own thoughts.

This is much rarer than it should be.

So much of content is performance. Probably my own included. Trying to fit some template. Trying to stick to some "best practices". Optimized and engineered for engagement, which is often a race to the bottom.

My sense is that this CEO has his own quality bar. Decides what to publish based on what *he* deems insightful, not what the algorithm is nudging him towards. Maybe I'm wrong here.

We should normalize publishing content we feel PROUD of, in the style that feels like ourselves - that's the bar.

My podcast episode with Jessica Gilmartin is live!!! Jessica has an insanely impressive track record: CMO at Calendly, Head of Revenue Marketing at Asana, Head of Product Marketing at Google. Today, she advises founders and first-time CMOs through $100M ARR on marketing, GTM strategy, hiring and org design.

And last week, she joined me on The Executive Brand podcast.

What we cover:

- Why CMO + CRO combo roles usually fail
- Why companies now hire CMOs from smaller, scrappier startups
- Where AI is truly useful vs pure hype
- Why random acts of marketing kill momentum
- How Calendly moved from viral PLG to focused enterprise ABM
- The real reason CMOs only last 18 months
- Why taste, courage, and focus still matter more than tools
- And much more

Listen here:

-- YouTube: https://lnkd.in/grQb6kgv
-- Spotify: https://lnkd.in/gpBmkJWg
-- Apple: https://lnkd.in/gXPSpKEU
-- Substack: https://lnkd.in/gBeDP56X

Some of my takeaways:

1. We’ll replace most of our day-to-day work with AI in 5-10 years. But right now board members are mandating AI adoption without specific use cases. The reality is AI is making teams 10-20% more efficient and that it works as an enabler, but not as a replacement. The best use cases she’s seeing are data enrichment for lead prioritization, competitive research for product marketing, and using LLMs as synthetic customer panels

2. There are three paths to CMO: via product marketing, via demand gen, and via brand. In B2B, 50% of CMOs come from product marketing, 50% from demand gen, almost none from brand. That might be an opportunity

3. CEOs keep hiring the wrong CMO. They want a unicorn who's great at both strategic messaging (product marketing) and growth (demand gen). It’s like finding an engineer who's great at backend AND designing beautiful interfaces. Hire for your actual problem/bottleneck right now, not the one you’ll have at $100M

4. Attribution is broken and that’s okay. You’re getting 70-80% accuracy at best. Jessica’s approach is to use the 80-20 rule. Get directionally correct data so teams understand where they can make impact and then work from there. The bigger issue is that companies wait too long to implement basic data and reporting infrastructure

5. Random acts of marketing kill focus. At Calendly, Jessica pivoted the entire team to one thing: repositioning for enterprise customers. Marketers hate focus and they want to sprinkle seeds everywhere. But the winning strategy is making big bets, being explicit about trade-offs, and ensuring no one goes off track

Reminder: your most interesting thoughts are those you want to keep to yourself.

LinkedIn Playbook with Jess Cook and Joshua Perk of Vector 👻

Head of Growth @ Perspective / SaaS & Demand Growth

Niels Klement

My personal theme for 2026 is beautiful simplicity. It came from one observation: whenever I add stuff to my life, I usually just get unhappier.

Super interesting because back in the day, I thought the goal was to have more things going on (cooler things, fancier things, more fun activities).

But I realized I'm personally most happy when I have …

- a very calm environment
- a lot of time to simply think and work.
- fun workouts (lifting heavy, playing a game of basketball)

That's it.

Might seem very boring to many but as long as I have these things, I'm in a very good state.

Quick reminder that sometimes less is better.

Enjoy your weekend ☀️

I'm not sure if I'm weird for saying this, or if anybody else can even relate, but I think a lot about the power of rock bottom moments.

The most dangerous state to be in is if you have nothing to lose.

Once we have things to lose, things we care about, things we're attached to, we  want to protect them. And that leads to us being way more careful with the way we behave, the things we do, and the risks we take.

Rock bottom strips all of that away, you can move freely again. That is why sometimes I just try to even very intentionally get myself into the state of having nothing to lose.

This might sound very cheesy, but an easy way to do this is just to meditate on death. I try to do it every single day, and it's been working wonders because it just makes you realize that, at the end of the day, most of the things you're clinging to aren’t of importance.

And it allows you to act as freely as if you really had nothing to lose

Nobody else will, so I'm just going to go ahead and say it. You're much better off producing content yourself before doing anything with AI. The reason for that is very simple:

1/ Operationally, it will likely take you longer to create something of quality with AI than just spinning up a camera and talking to it.

2/ If you haven't built a big brand for yourself yet, AI content will actually lower the trust people have in you vs. seeing your face in the feed all the time.

3/ Not knowing how to create winning content/ads means you won't be able to get an AI to do it either.

You can expect feeds to be flooded with more and more (low-quality) AI content, and it is only going to get worse over the next couple of months.

So for you to really stick out, it's super important that you find your voice. Learn how to actually create high-quality content before trying to prompt an AI to do the same.

That said, there are parts of the creative process that can already be enhanced with AI (i.e., transcription), but that's for another day.

I've never purchased anything from a webinar in my life but our webinar funnel has driven $1,288,400 in new customer value in the last 6-8 months. Here are the 6 steps to copy our strategy:

First, a mindset shift.

I know some of you are thinking, "webinar funnels are so 2010."

I get it, but luckily I learned not to let my own buying behavior give me prejudice about how other people buy.

Webinar funnels are more popular than ever right now.

Especially for cash-strapped businesses like SaaS: webinar funnels let you pull cash forward. Instead of charging $100/month and waiting forever to recoup ad spend (which is why most SaaS companies raise VC), you bundle products together and charge a higher amount upfront.

Now - how we actually built this:

Step 1: Get V1 out fast.

Take a result your customers want. Create a webinar on how to achieve it with your process. Strong headline, social proof, done. Don't overthink it. Ship.

Step 2: Craft an offer worth buying without a sales call.

For that to work, your offer needs to be valuable enough to close at those rates.

Usually that means bundling - discounted yearly plans, or software combined with something that helps them get the job done (i.e., we add info products into the bundle to increase perceived value).

Step 3: Test your angles.

Your webinar has one core idea but there are a thousand adjacent ideas that support it.

Those 1000 ideas are angles worth testing.

Run different messaging, see what gets people into the webinar AND purchasing at a good cost. When you find a winner, double down on that angle.

Then adjust the webinar itself to lean into what's resonating.

Step 4: Relentless iteration.

A funnel is nothing but a sequence of conversion steps.

- Run ads.
- Get numbers.
- Find the biggest drop-off.
- Fix it.

We had strong sales conversion but attendance was down. So we hosted weekly meetings focused only on attendance until we fixed it.

(If everything's broken after a month with zero positive signals - rethink it from the ground up)

Step 5: Scale while protecting efficiency.

The more you spend, the less qualified your audience becomes. So you need to constantly find ways to sell to more people (upping sales conversion) and get more people interested in joining (upping attendance through better messaging).

Scaling is really just protecting the efficiency you built in step 4.

Step 6: Find your ceiling.

Every funnel breaks at some point. There's a maximum ad spend where you start getting diminishing returns - you simply can't reach enough relevant people at an acceptable cost anymore.

Find that ceiling and spend consistently at that level, then find new ways to reach more people:

- new messaging
- a new webinar built on what you learned
- different paid channels, organic channels

Rinse and repeat.

That's how we've built 40% of our Meta spend around a single funnel and how we keep finding new acquisition channels for different parts of the market.

Your best creative strategist is usually the founder. They have the most context on the company, the product, the customer, and the market. And in the beginning stages, that works great.

You write the scripts yourself, they hit, the content resonates - good times.

The problem is it doesn't scale.

I've been stuck on this for a long time. How do you actually transfer the stuff in your head (all that context, all those instincts) to someone else?

I never really cracked it.

(We looked for a good fit for months 🙃)

But I think I figured it out now.

James joined Perspective as a creative strategist about a month ago. He's a beast; that's why we hired him. But additionally, we've been doing something I've never tried before: two one-hour script shadowing sessions per week.

Here's how it works.

- He reads a script out loud to me on a call
- I interrupt him to give him immediate feedback
- He rewrites it live
- We don't move on until the sentence hits

Sounds intense (it is) but the quality of what we've been putting out has improved at a rate I've never seen before.

Way faster than the old method of "write something, get a bullet point list of feedback, go implement it, repeat next week."

That feedback loop takes a week to close, this one closes in seconds.

And the learning sticks differently when it happens in real time. When you're sitting in the discomfort of a sentence not working, rewriting it three times until it does, that's when it actually sinks in.

Probably applies to teaching anything, but especially something as specific as creative strategy, where the difference between good and great is hard to articulate.

That's the whole insight.

Our VSLs have sold millions in software. The structure behind them isn't complicated - it's four parts that flow into each other:

1. Hook (Result + Proof + Promise)

Start with their desired result, followed by proof, then a promise of what they'll learn.

Example: "This funnel has generated X in revenue. It's been used by 176 agencies. In the next 3 minutes, you'll learn exactly how it works."

2. Pain

Now you describe their current reality.

- What are they feeling?
- What does their day-to-day actually look like?
- What frustrates them?

People don't move without tension so it's okay to make it sting (the frame is rather "I feel you" instead of "you suck, everything's on fire").

3. Education

Show them what it could look like instead (actually be valuable here - don't tease, teach).

- Show a framework.
- Break down your process.
- Explain why your approach is different.

This is especially important for B2B - you want people who book a call to already understand what you do.

4. Offer

Now you make the ask.

By this point they've seen proof, felt the pain, and understand the solution. The offer becomes a natural next step, not a hard sell.

Shared this structure in our mastermind call last week and realized I'd never written it out before. Now you have it too. 🫶

When someone's not converting on your opt-in page, it's usually one of three things. Ran through this diagnostic with an agency owner stuck with a 6.1% conversion rate in a Mastermind Call:

1/ They don't see the value.

"Get your free quote" means nothing. "See exactly how much you'll save on your next property sale in 60 seconds" does. Be specific about what they're getting.

2/ They don't trust you yet.

They're thinking: "Is this legit or will I just get spammed?" Fix it with a quick testimonial, a "trusted by X clients" line, or even just a face and name. People trust people.

3/ They don't understand why they should opt in

They clicked through from an ad or quiz but forgot why they're here. Repeat the value prop right on the opt-in page. Don't make them remember - remind them.


---

Your opt-in page has one job: make the exchange feel obvious and safe. "I give you my email, I get [specific, valuable thing]. And I trust you'll actually deliver it."


If one of our pages isn't converting, I check it against that sentence first.

We launched a 12-minute VSL that was entirely written by AI. A year ago I would've never trusted it to do that - here's what changed:

I'm pretty particular about copy. And for the longest time, I hated what AI gave me. Generic, off-brand, took more time to fix than writing from scratch.

Then we built a custom Claude project trained on all our best-performing ads.

Now I drop in an idea and get back a full script that already follows what we know works.

The setup is simple:

1/ Create a Claude project for ad scripts

2/ Add as much relevant context to the project knowledge as possible - your best-performing ad copy, competitor ads from the Facebook Ad Library, info about your offer, audience, pain points

3/ Let it learn what "good" looks like for your brand (might need some tweaking in the early stages)

Now whenever I have a new angle, I drop it into the project and get back a full ad draft in seconds.

We still tweak the wording, but the heavy lifting is done and we only need to record.

We created over 1,200 unique ads last year with a team of 3-4 people (and drove multiple millions in new ARR). Here's the entire process - from ideas to production to measurement:

1. Team Setup

Four people, four roles:

- One creative strategist (first me, now James)
- One creative director / editor  (Jack)
- One performance marketer (Elliot)
- One creator (yours truly)

This team focuses on nothing else but creating new ads and running traffic to our funnels. If you can cover these three positions, you're in an amazing spot to scale.

2. Ideas

Boring advice, but the best way to source ideas is having deep context on your customer, product, and market. And that just comes from spending time with them.

We run weekly 60-90 minute mastermind sessions just helping customers be successful with our product. That alone is an endless source of new ad ideas. 

You hear the exact language they use, the problems they're stuck on, what actually resonates.

3. Scripting

After Andromeda, everyone knows you want creative diversity in your ad account. We aim for that while keeping a modular approach.

Modular just means we write one concept - one video idea - then swap out parts to test against each other (usually the hook/lead).

- So same body, different hooks.
- Each hook tests a different hypothesis.
- Keeps production efficient while still getting the diversity Meta wants.

We test (at least) 4 unique concepts / week.

4. Production

This is simpler than most people think.

There's a weekly content block on my calendar - Thursday or Friday morning. I spin up a camera, open the teleprompter, and just run through all the scripts. It takes me 1-2 hours to record 20-30 ads.

On top of that, we send scripts to different creators to improve diversity in the account. Different faces, different delivery styles. But the core production process is literally just me talking to a camera once a week, and Jack having enough coffee at home for post-production sprints. 

5. Measurement

Every single element in our creatives has its own unique ID (hook, body, creator, messaging angle).

All of these get concatenated into one naming convention that feeds directly into our analytics tools. That way we know exactly what's driving performance at any given moment.

So "this ad works" becomes "this hook with this creator with this angle works."

---

That's the process. We're still improving it, but this system let 4 people produce 1,200+ ads in a year. We expect to multiply this in 2026 ❤️‍🔥.

December was rough. After three consecutive months of the best growth we've ever seen in history, January also took time to pick up again. I share wins all the time - here's what I'm learning from the losses:

Seasonality-based performance issues are frustrating in a specific way.

You can push hard, you can try to do something about it, and I think you can do a lot to make them not hurt too bad but at the end of the day, you're fighting an uphill battle.

Here's the thing:

As the marketer/growth person/founder, you always assume you can change the trajectory of your company (and that's essentially true).

Still, there's also a lot that's outside your control - seasonality, state of the market, external factors.

I'm a huge fan of not letting these pull you down, still finding strategies and tactics to get out of them or make them hurt less.

At the same time, it's an amazing reminder that with all the wins you see online, there will always be periods where it's about figuring it out again.

Or sometimes just accepting it the way it is.

So here's what I actually do:

I use December and the seasonality to take a step back.
Disidentify with the results.
Recharge.

Then be all hands on deck for January and Q1.

The dip becomes preparation for the upswing.

Hope this helps if you're experiencing something similar rn.

We've tested over a thousand different ad angles at this point. Most people massively overthink this - especially when starting out. Here's the type of ad we keep coming back to:

Think about Eugene Schwartz's awareness stages…

- problem aware
- solution aware
- product aware
- most aware

Most ads only hit one of these, but there's one type that covers almost all of them:

Result-driven ads.

- If you know you need more customers, an ad saying "We generated X customers for this client - here's how" resonates immediately.

- If you're already shopping for a solution, seeing real results makes you trust that product over alternatives.

- If you're already product aware, results make you think, "These are probably the best people to work with."

So if you're getting lost in angle diversity and endless messaging tests - just talk about results you've driven.

It's what we come back to every time.

Just had the same realization again after I spent three days deep in "strategy mode" (I felt super productive), but when I looked at what I actually shipped…

Nothing.

And I'm like... okay, here we go again.

If you're not running ads, recording ads, posting content, sending emails, doing webinars, sending outbound - what are you even doing?

That's all marketing is:

Inputs (in whatever form they come in).

What goes into them matters obviously but nothing matters if you're not publishing.

Anyway, back to recording ads.

We spend a couple hundred thousand a month on Meta ads. With all the Andromeda changes, I've been doing a lot of thinking on how to structure our ad account. Here's what we landed on:

First, the uncomfortable truth.

There's no setup that's all pro and no con anymore. Every structure has tradeoffs.

But here are the two main options:

Option 1: One CBO (most Andromeda friendly)

Based on how the algorithm works, you want to centralize as much learning & signal into ad sets & campaigns. Key idea: keep the environment of the ads as stable as possible. For setup & process see screenshot 1.

Pro:

- Strong signal consolidation
- No resetting of environment for winners
- Thinking in slots forces creative diversity

Con:

- Risk of unproven redistribution (think new ad taking away spend from biggest winners)
- Little to no data on new creative
- Limits how much you can test

Option 2: Two CBOs / Split Testing & Scaling

You operate very similarly to above here, with the main difference being split testing & scaling environments. See screenshot 2.

Pro:

- Better scaling stability since winners are separated
- Faster testing iteration because more data available
- More control over allocation

Con:

- Resetting environments for winners
- Higher budget requirement overall
- Slower breakout scaling since winners need to be moved

---

You can ofc also run variations of the setups above, but we're currently running on option 2.

We accept short-term cost spikes for long-term stable & tested environments. It makes sense for us since it takes a while for us to truly see how well a creative performs.

Not saying it's the only way. But it's the least risky setup we've found while still leveraging Andromeda.

Could go on for ages here, but please let me know if that's already helpful. 🫶

One of the agency founders in our weekly mastermind spent €2K on ads and generated zero calls. Then he flipped one thing in his messaging and started booking at €30 per call.

He was doing what most people do early on.

- Leading with results.
- Screenshots of wins.
- Talking about outcomes.

Problem was he didn't have that many results yet (and prospects could feel it).

So he tried something different.

Instead of selling the end result, he showed exactly how he does things. Broke down his process, step by step (without any flashy claims or guarantees).

He couldn't prove he'd done it a hundred times before but he could show he knew exactly what he was doing.

Now he books qualified calls for €30.

Maybe worth a try if you're just starting out / struggling to sign client with ads.

P.S. Every week I hop on a call with agency founders to work through stuff like this live. Comment "Call" if you want an invitation to the next one.

Most people never launch their first funnel because they think they need a massive budget to test.

Here's what I tell them:

Put $5/day on it.
Run it for 7 days.
See what comes back.

That's it.

The goal of your first funnel is to learn what messaging resonates. Chances are v1 won't scale to the moon.

So don't invest in fancy video production yet.
Start with a simple static image ad.

Three elements:

→ Call out your ICP specifically
→ Result-driven headline
→ Some form of proof

Then just... launch it.

You'll learn more from $35 of real data than from weeks of overthinking in Canva.

Once you see what's clicking, what's converting, what's falling flat - then you optimize, then you scale.

P.S: I recently did a podcast walking through exactly how I'd build a first funnel from scratch - simple ads, setup, the whole thing. The link is in comments if you want to check it out.

Before you spend a single dollar on video production, master this. Three elements that make B2B ads work on Meta (and you can test them with a simple static image):

Your first ads don't need fancy video, multiple formats, or a whole production setup.

In fact, keep it super simple.

Start with a static image. Seriously. Video takes time (scripting, recording, editing). It's heavier on operations. And if your messaging doesn't land, all that effort is wasted anyway.

A simple static ad lets you test what actually resonates before you invest in production.

Here are the three elements every B2B ad needs:

1. ICP Callout

This is the most underrated part of Meta targeting.

Meta's AI analyzes your creative and estimates who will resonate with it. That's a huge part of the targeting (not just your audience settings).

So if you're targeting tech companies with 100+ employees, say that in the ad. 

Be specific.

"For B2B SaaS companies looking to hire the best Gen Z talent" hits different than generic copy trying to appeal to everyone.

Meta is really good at giving you exactly what you ask for.

2. Result-Driven Headline

Think about awareness stages (problem aware, solution aware, product aware, most aware) - most ads only hit one of these but result-driven ads cover almost all of them.

"We generated X customers for this client - here's how" works whether someone is just realizing they have a problem or already shopping for solutions.

Results = trust at every stage.

3. Proof

Social proof is the most bulletproof way to increase conversions. We've seen it over and over.

If you have big logos, use them; if you don't, use volume ("helped 10+ agencies") or go deep on one specific testimonial with real numbers.

There's always a way to show proof. Find yours.

That's it.

Three elements on a simple static image.

Once you see what messaging clicks, what converts, what falls flat - then you can invest in video, iterate into new formats, test different creators.

But please don't start there.

Start simple and test the message first.

P.S. Then funnel the clicks to a Perspective funnel and you're golden.

you won't believe it friends - buttons in Perspective can now scroll to blocks/sections ⚓ was about time, enjoy!

We're a B2B company spending $250k/month on ads. A lot of people are surprised when I tell them our biggest channel is Meta (Facebook/Insta), not LinkedIn. Here's why that works:

Most B2B companies default to LinkedIn because "that's where the professionals are."

The problem is:

- LinkedIn ads are way more expensive
- Engagement on the platform is lower
- You're paying a premium for the same eyeballs

Meta has the biggest audience (chances are, your LinkedIn audience scrolls Instagram too). Yes, there will be some unqualified leads, but the key to making B2B work on Meta is simpler than people think:

Call out your ICP directly in the creative.

Meta's AI analyzes your creative and estimates who will resonate with it. That's a huge part of the targeting (not just your audience settings).

So if you're targeting tech companies with 100+ employees, say that in the ad.

Meta is really good at giving you exactly what you ask for.

"For B2B SaaS companies doing $5M+ ARR" hits different than generic copy trying to appeal to everyone. Plus, the more specific the callout, the better Meta can find those people for you.

Tell me I'm wrong.

taplio

The Battle

Finn Thormeier

Niels Klement

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance ScoreFinn Thormeier's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreNiels Klement's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

taplio

The Battle

Finn Thormeier

Niels Klement

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

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

Performance ScoreNiels Klement's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

Performance ScoreFinn Thormeier's LinkedIn Performance