Bjarn Brunenberg Punches Above His Weight

I fell into a small LinkedIn rabbit hole this week and found something that honestly surprised me: Bjarn Brunenberg is sitting at 2,695 followers and a 169.00 Hero Score, basically matching creators with 2x-4x the audience. That combo usually means one thing - people aren't just scrolling past. They're stopping.

So I wanted to understand what makes his stuff work. Not in a "social media guru" way, but in a practical, steal-this-for-your-next-post way. I compared Bjarn with two other strong creators hovering right next to him on engagement efficiency: Jonathan Gilbert (10,333 followers, 168.00 Hero Score) and Morten Bie (6,307 followers, 168.00 Hero Score). And a few patterns jumped out fast.

Here's what stood out:

Bjarn wins with clarity and operating-model thinking, not hype or hot takes.
He writes like a coach for builders - direct, specific, and kind of impossible to ignore.
His "small audience, big impact" profile is real: Hero Score 169 with 2.4 posts per week is a very intentional cadence.

Bjarn Brunenberg's Performance Metrics

What's interesting is that Bjarn's numbers scream "high signal, tight niche." With 2,695 followers and 2,107 connections, he's not playing the volume game. But the 169.00 Hero Score says the people who do follow him are the right people, and they're reacting. And posting 2.4 times per week is the sweet spot where you stay present without turning into background noise.

Key Performance Indicators

Metric	Value	Industry Context	Performance Level
Followers	2,695	Industry average	📈 Growing
Hero Score	169.00	Exceptional (Top 5%)	🏆 Top Tier
Engagement Rate	N/A	Above Average	📊 Solid
Posts Per Week	2.4	Moderate	📝 Regular
Connections	2,107	Growing Network	🔗 Growing

Now, to make this feel real, let's put all three creators side-by-side. Because "169" means more when you see the context.

Quick gut-check: Bjarn is performing like a big creator, without the big-creator audience.

Creator	Followers	Hero Score	Location	Posting Frequency
Bjarn Brunenberg	2,695	169.00	Portugal	2.4 posts/week
Jonathan Gilbert	10,333	168.00	France	N/A
Morten Bie	6,307	168.00	Denmark	N/A

Two things hit me:

The Hero Scores are basically tied.
Bjarn is doing it with the smallest crowd.

That usually comes from content that creates "yeah, exactly" reactions, not just "nice post" likes.

What Makes Bjarn Brunenberg's Content Work

I'm going to break this into the parts you can copy. Not the surface stuff ("use emojis") but the mechanics underneath.

1. He sells a better operating model (not tips)

So here's what he does: he takes a messy, real team problem (AI adoption, experimentation quality, growth workflow chaos) and reframes it as a systems issue. He rarely lands on "here are 5 hacks." He lands on "your workflow is broken" and then shows you the fix.

That difference matters. Because tips help for a day. Operating models change how you think next week.

Key Insight: Write posts that turn a common complaint into a process diagnosis.

This works because builders are tired. They don't want inspiration. They want something they can run on Monday with their team.

Strategy Breakdown:

Element	Bjarn Brunenberg's Approach	Why It Works
Problem framing	"You don't have an AI problem. You have an operating model problem."	It instantly upgrades the conversation
Language	Simple, blunt, coach-like	People trust clarity in a noisy feed
Takeaway	A small behavior shift with a clear next step	Low effort to apply, high perceived value

And here's where the comparison gets fun. Jonathan and Morten can absolutely do depth too, but their positioning is naturally different.

Creator	What they appear to "sell" with posts	The hidden promise to the reader
Bjarn	Experimentation + AI as a team system	"I'll help you run a smarter growth machine"
Jonathan	AI production and creative output	"I'll show you what's possible and how it's made"
Morten	Marketing leadership + community + events	"I'll keep you sharp and connected to what's working"

Bjarn's advantage is that his promise is operational. It's sticky.

2. He uses contrast like a weapon (but doesn't get toxic)

Want to know what surprised me? He does the "this is not X, this is Y" move a lot, and it never feels annoying. It feels clarifying.

He'll say things like: it's not AI stealing jobs, it's managers optimizing for fake efficiency. Or: the tech is ready, the humans are willing, but the process is broken. That style creates a tiny bit of tension, then resolves it with a cleaner model.

Comparison with Industry Standards:

Aspect	Industry Average	Bjarn Brunenberg's Approach	Impact
Hot takes	Loud opinions, vague claims	Contrarian, but grounded in workflow reality	People argue less and save more
Advice style	"Do more content"	"Stop X, start Y"	Creates behavior change, not motivation
Authority	Credential flex	Practical specificity (frameworks, roles, metrics)	Trust goes up without ego

This is also why a smaller audience can still hit hard. If every post creates a "mental model upgrade," people remember who gave it to them.

3. He writes like a coach in your head

Bjarn's voice is professional-technical, but deliberately conversational. Lots of second-person "you." Lots of imperatives. And lots of empathy sprinkled in so the directness doesn't sting.

He'll basically do:

"Stop doing training. Start doing role redesign."
"Don't ask for output. Ask for steps."
"Pick one workflow. Map it. Circle where quality dies. Fix that step."

It's the combo of tough + helpful.

And it matters because LinkedIn has a weird problem: plenty of smart people are afraid to sound sure. Bjarn sounds sure. But not smug.

4. He ships at a steady pace, not a manic pace

2.4 posts per week is sneaky good. It's enough to stay in circulation, but not so frequent that every post becomes a repeat of the last one.

Also, the best posting windows listed (10:00-12:30 and 11:30-14:00) fit the vibe of his audience: Growth, Product, Experimentation leaders grabbing coffee, scanning the feed, then heading into meetings.

If you're posting once a month, nobody builds a habit with you.

If you're posting twice a day, people tune you out.

Bjarn is right in the middle.

Their Content Formula

Bjarn's "formula" isn't a rigid template, but it's consistent enough that you can feel it.

Content Structure Breakdown

Component	Bjarn Brunenberg's Approach	Effectiveness	Why It Works
Hook	Contrarian claim or uncomfortable truth in 1-2 lines	High	It creates curiosity without clickbait
Body	Fast reframing, then a framework (levels, steps, bullets)	Very high	Skimmable and actionable, even for busy leaders
CTA	Often a question, sometimes a simple prompt (comment, follow)	Solid	Keeps the post human and conversation-driven

The Hook Pattern

He tends to open like he's mid-conversation. No warm-up.

Template:

"Most teams fail at [thing] for the most boring reason: [root cause]."

A few hook variants that match his style:

"Traditional experimentation isn't dying. But the manual version is."
"AI adoption fails for the most boring reason: no one changed the workflow."
"If your win rate is 80%, you probably have a measurement problem."

Why this hook works: it makes a specific claim, then promises a diagnosis. People love diagnoses because they feel personal.

The Body Structure

Bjarn's body structure is basically "tight logic, fast pacing." He stacks short lines, then drops a denser block with bullets, then goes back to punchy beats.

Body Structure Analysis:

Stage	What They Do	Example Pattern
Opening	Contrarian claim in short lines	"You don't have X. You have Y."
Development	Explain the real mechanism	"Because the workflow is broken..."
Transition	Pivot words to guide scanning	"But here's the thing" / "So" / "Now"
Closing	Principle + question	"What's the bottleneck in your team?"

And if you're wondering how he keeps technical topics readable, it's the line breaks. He writes for the scroll.

The CTA Approach

He doesn't always hard-sell. When he does, it's usually low friction.

Psychology-wise, his CTAs work because they match the post:

If it's educational, he ends with a question ("Which of these are you trying first?")
If it's service-oriented, he offers something concrete ("free 30-min call")
If it's community-oriented, he asks for comments and shares ideas back

That last part is underrated. People can smell a one-way CTA. Bjarn's style feels like a trade: "Give me your context and I'll give you something specific."

Where Bjarn Beats Jonathan and Morten (and where he doesn't)

This part is important because every creator has a "native advantage." If you copy the wrong thing, it won't fit.

Audience size vs engagement efficiency

All three have almost identical Hero Scores. But Bjarn's score is sitting on a smaller base, which suggests stronger resonance per follower.

Creator	Likely strength	What to copy	What to avoid copying blindly
Bjarn	Systems thinking + coaching voice	Reframes, frameworks, crisp imperatives	Over-technical jargon without translation
Jonathan	Visual/production credibility in AI	Show, then tell (examples, outputs, builds)	Posting only outputs without lessons
Morten	Networked authority (events, partnerships)	Community flywheel and consistent presence	Trying to "event" your way into trust without substance

If I had to guess (based on headlines and positioning):

Jonathan likely pulls people with "look what we made" energy.
Morten likely pulls people with "I live inside this marketing world" energy.
Bjarn pulls people with "I'll make you run your team better" energy.

And honestly, that last one is a cheat code for long-term trust.

Content density and reader effort

Bjarn's posts are dense in a good way. He asks you to think, but he does the heavy lifting of structure.

A lot of creators either:

Make things too fluffy (easy to like, hard to act on)
Or too academic (hard to read, easy to ignore)

Bjarn sits in the middle: simple words, sharp ideas.

The most stealable Bjarn moves (that aren't obvious)

These are the things I caught myself highlighting.

1) The "boring reason" opener

He'll frame a failure as something unsexy:

not tooling
not training
not effort

But workflow.

That lands because it feels true. We've all seen teams buy software and call it transformation.

2) The builder-friendly translation

He'll drop a technical term (SRM, CUPED, power, win rate) and then immediately translate it into plain language and team behavior.

That move does two things:

Keeps experts interested
Keeps non-experts from bouncing

It's inclusive without dumbing it down.

3) The "same person, same tool, different system" move

This is basically his signature: he shifts the conversation from talent to design.

That's a relief for readers, by the way. It's not "you're not good enough." It's "your system is set up to fail."

3 Actionable Strategies You Can Use Today

Write a diagnosis-first post - Start with "Most teams fail at X because Y" and then give one fix people can try this week.
Use the contrast reframe - Try "This is not X. This is Y." when you want to correct a common misunderstanding without sounding preachy.
End with a real question - Ask for a specific input ("Which workflow breaks most often?") so comments become useful data, not generic applause.

Key Takeaways

Bjarn's advantage is efficiency - 169.00 Hero Score with 2,695 followers means his content hits harder per person.
He wins with systems, not vibes - frameworks, role clarity, workflow design, and practical imperatives.
Jonathan and Morten are strong, but different - Jonathan leans toward AI production credibility; Morten leans toward networked marketing leadership; Bjarn leans toward team operating models.
Cadence matters - 2.4 posts/week is frequent enough to stay visible and rare enough to stay fresh.

So here's the bottom line: if you want to grow like Bjarn, don't copy his topics first. Copy his moves - the diagnosis, the reframe, the structured breakdown, and the human question at the end. Give it a try and see what happens.