Liza Adams's Human+AI Playbook for GTM Writers

Liza Adams's Human+AI playbook feels oddly repeatable

I fell into Liza Adams's feed expecting the usual AI talk and walked out with a checklist.

What's interesting is the numbers back up the feeling: 24,201 followers, 5.8 posts per week, and a Hero Score of 42.00. That last metric matters because it hints she's not just posting a lot - she's getting a lot back relative to her audience size.

I wanted to understand what makes her posts work (and why two totally different creators, Bill McDermott and Tom Pestridge, land on the same Hero Score). After comparing their profiles and patterns, a few things clicked.

Here's what stood out:

• She writes for the moment right before action - the exact point where a leader needs a frame, a test, or a next step.
• Her structure is disciplined - tight hooks, clean logic, and CTAs that feel like coaching, not marketing.
• She treats AI like a distribution layer for credibility - and keeps bringing it back to humans and handoffs.

---

Liza Adams's Performance Metrics

Here's what's interesting: Liza's audience is smaller than Bill's or Tom's, but her activity level is intense, and the Hero Score suggests her posts create a strong response per follower. That combination usually signals a creator who has nailed positioning and consistency, not just reach.

Key Performance Indicators

Side-by-side snapshot (all three creators)

A shared Hero Score with wildly different follower counts tells me something: each is meeting their audience where it is. Bill can post more broadly and still win. Tom can post high volume, high utility. Liza can post sharp, timely frames and become a go-to voice in an AI-GTM pocket.

---

What Makes Liza Adams's Content Work

A lot of creators try to sound smart. Liza's trick is different: she makes you feel oriented. Like you can see the system clearly, and now you can move.

1. She leads with a sharp reframe (not a hot take)

So here's what she does well: she opens with a claim that sounds obvious only after you read it. The hook isn't shock. It's clarity.

You see it in the pattern: a one-liner thesis, then a fast contrast (it used to be X, now it's Y), then a practical implication. That sequence is catnip for busy people because it respects their time.

Key Insight: Start your post with a one-sentence truth your reader can test this week.

This works because it avoids the two common LinkedIn traps: long intros and vague inspiration. You're in the point quickly, and the point has stakes.

Strategy Breakdown:

2. She writes like an operator: the bottleneck is the handoff

Want to know what surprised me? Even when she talks about AI, she doesn't obsess over the model. She obsesses over workflow.

She keeps pulling the reader back to the unsexy stuff: handoffs, assets, repetition, publishing hygiene. That is exactly what most teams avoid because it feels basic. But basic is usually where the wins are.

And because she's specific, the content lands with both leaders and practitioners. Leaders hear, "We have a process problem." Practitioners hear, "I can fix this with a checklist." Same post, two audiences.

Comparison with Industry Standards:

3. She uses disciplined visual rhythm (short paragraphs, clean lists)

This is the quiet superpower. The spacing does the persuasion.

Short blocks keep attention. Longer blocks show she can think. Lists decompress the reader right when the post could get dense. And she uses bullets as a pacing tool, not as decoration.

If you want to copy one thing, copy the rhythm: hook, reframe, diagnosis, list, closing question, light CTA.

4. She makes the CTA feel like a small experiment

Most CTAs on LinkedIn feel like a transaction: "Buy this." "DM me." "Comment 'X'." Liza's CTAs usually feel like coaching: "Try this." "Run the test." "Rewrite one asset."

That's a big deal because it lowers the reader's defenses. It's not "agree with me." It's "check if this is true in your world." And when someone runs the experiment, they attribute the value to her thinking.

---

Their Content Formula

Liza's formula isn't magic. It's repeatable. And you can see it even when topic data isn't available because the structure is consistent.

Content Structure Breakdown

The Hook Pattern

She often starts with a claim that sounds like a warning, but it's really an invitation to get clear.

Template:

'X is already forming an opinion about you.'

Two variations that fit her vibe:

'AI is deciding what you're known for.'

'Your best ideas might be trapped in private.'

Why this works (and when to use it): use it when the reader has a blind spot that isn't emotional, it's operational. You're not trying to scare them. You're trying to orient them.

The Body Structure

Her body reads like a calm checklist wrapped in a story.

Body Structure Analysis:

And here's the small detail I love: she often puts the hardest truth in plain language. No jargon shield. That makes it feel human.

The CTA Approach

Her CTAs tend to do three things at once:

1. They give you something you can do in 10-20 minutes.

2. They make you curious about what you'll find.

3. They invite conversation without begging for it.

Psychologically, it works because the reader stays in control. It's not "submit to my funnel." It's "run your own test." That earns trust fast.

---

Comparing Liza to Bill and Tom (what success looks like in three forms)

I like this trio because it shows three valid paths to being a successful LinkedIn creator, even with the same Hero Score.

Table: Audience size vs content posture

Table: What a reader gets in the first 10 seconds

One thing to notice: Liza and Tom both win with utility, but Liza's utility is more "system update" and Tom's is more "daily reps." Bill wins with narrative authority.

And the shared Hero Score suggests they all do a version of the same thing: deliver on the promise their headline implies.

---

The specific Liza lessons I would steal (and what I'd skip)

If I were building a LinkedIn presence in the AI, marketing, or GTM space, I'd borrow Liza's structure almost directly.

But I'd also be honest about what makes it hard.

• Hard part #1: writing like an operator means you can't hide behind abstraction.
• Hard part #2: posting 5-6 times a week exposes weak thinking.
• Hard part #3: the reframe has to be true, not just clever.

Now, here's where it gets interesting: her approach is scalable because it's built around repeatable prompts you can apply to new situations. You're not relying on inspiration. You're relying on a method.

Posting time note

The best posting window provided is 14:30-15:00. That fits the "mid-afternoon check-in" slot where a lot of people take a break, scroll, and are receptive to something structured. If you test this, keep the post format consistent for two weeks so you can actually learn something.

---

3 Actionable Strategies You Can Use Today

1. Write a one-sentence reframe - Start with a claim your reader can verify this week, not a quote that sounds nice.

2. Turn advice into a test - If you can't express your point as a 10-minute experiment, it probably isn't clear yet.

3. Use a list to decompress - After one dense paragraph, add a short lead-in and 3-5 bullets so the reader can breathe and keep going.

---

Key Takeaways

1. Liza wins on clarity and cadence - 5.8 posts/week only works when your thinking is tight.
2. A shared Hero Score can mean different strengths - Bill wins on authority, Tom on daily utility, Liza on system-level reframes.
3. Her best move is making AI practical - she focuses on workflows, handoffs, and assets, not hype.
4. The CTA is coaching, not selling - small experiments build trust faster than big asks.

Give one of her patterns a try for a week and see what changes in your comments and DMs.

---

Meet the Creators

---

This analysis was generated by ViralBrain's AI content intelligence platform.