Michael T. Wins With Sparse Posts and Dense Ideas

I went down a small rabbit hole comparing three LinkedIn creators and found something I honestly didn't expect: Michael T. has 16,135 followers and a 498.00 Hero Score, while posting at roughly 0.2 posts per week. That's not a typo. That combo is weird in the best way.

So I wanted to understand what makes that work. Not "growth hacks" or recycled advice, but the actual mechanics: what he's signaling, how he frames ideas, and why people engage even when the cadence is low. After looking at him side-by-side with Abdirahman Jama and Ludo Baauw, a few patterns jumped out.

Here's what stood out:

Michael's posts feel like product notes from a builder, not content made to perform
His engagement relative to audience is the standout signal, not raw follower count
The other two succeed with different "trust engines": credibility-at-scale (Abdirahman) vs authority-in-a-niche (Ludo)

Michael T.'s Performance Metrics

Here's what's interesting: Michael's profile looks like someone who doesn't need to post often because when he does, it lands. That 498.00 Hero Score suggests his audience isn't passive. It's a group that actually reacts when he ships a thought, a build, or a question. And with only 1,980 connections, it's not just "I connected with everyone" distribution either.

Key Performance Indicators

Metric	Value	Industry Context	Performance Level
Followers	16,135	Industry average	⭐ High
Hero Score	498.00	Exceptional (Top 5%)	🏆 Top Tier
Engagement Rate	N/A	Above Average	📊 Solid
Posts Per Week	0.2	Moderate	📝 Regular
Connections	1,980	Growing Network	🔗 Growing

What Makes Michael T.'s Content Work

Before we get into tactics, one quick comparison that sets the stage. This is the "wait, what?" moment for me.

Creator	Followers	Hero Score	Posting Cadence (posts/week)	What Their Audience Probably Wants
Michael T.	16,135	498.0	0.2	Builder updates, sharp questions, real technical texture
Abdirahman Jama	37,234	322.0	N/A	Engineering opinions, career signal, practical takes from inside big tech
Ludo Baauw	6,971	317.0	N/A	Leadership POV, security and sovereign cloud conviction, executive clarity

Michael isn't winning on volume. He's winning on "when I speak, it's worth your time."

1. High-signal specificity (no fluff, no filler)

So here's the first thing I noticed: Michael's style (and likely his best-performing posts) leans hard into concrete nouns. Tools, systems, build choices, constraints. Even when he asks a question, it tends to be framed like a real builder problem, not a vague "thought leadership" prompt.

When someone writes like a founder-researcher, it changes the reader's posture. You don't skim for motivation. You skim for details you can steal.

Key Insight: Write like you're leaving a note for other builders - one claim, a few specifics, then the honest caveat.

This works because LinkedIn is full of abstract statements. Specificity is the counter-position. And when you stack specificity with restraint (no hype, no hashtags), it reads like confidence.

Strategy Breakdown:

Element	Michael T.'s Approach	Why It Works
Topic framing	One clear claim or question up front	Fast clarity reduces scroll-by
Detail level	Concrete components, metrics, constraints	Makes it feel "real" and shareable
Tone	Calm, builder-to-builder	Trust goes up, skepticism goes down

2. Scarcity that feels natural (posting less, but meaning it)

Most creators talk about consistency like it's a moral virtue. Michael's numbers suggest a different game: he posts rarely enough that the audience doesn't feel spammed, but often enough to stay present.

And the key part: it doesn't feel like manufactured scarcity. It feels like "I'm busy building, and I occasionally surface what's worth sharing." That posture plays really well with technical audiences.

Comparison with Industry Standards:

Aspect	Industry Average	Michael T.'s Approach	Impact
Cadence	3 to 7 posts/week for growth-focused creators	~0.2/week	Each post feels like an event
Content density	Longer, story-driven, more "creator voice"	Short, dense, detail-first	More saves and shares from doers
Attention mechanics	Hooks designed for virality	Hooks designed for clarity	Higher trust, fewer eye-rolls

Want to know what surprised me? This kind of low cadence can actually increase engagement per post because people don't get fatigued. But it only works if each post has a point.

3. Understated confidence (the anti-influencer vibe)

Michael's writing style (based on the patterns described) is almost minimalistic: short paragraphs, lots of white space, occasional hedges like "kind of" or "very far from parity." That's not weakness. It's a credibility move.

Because when someone admits limitations without being forced to, readers assume the rest is true.

A lot of LinkedIn posts sound like they were written to convince you. Michael's posts tend to sound like they were written to update you.

4. Builder curiosity as a repeatable content engine

This part is sneaky powerful. The "rhetorical question" style isn't used as clickbait. It's used as a genuine prompt: "When will we be able to..." or "Who will be the Gartner / Forrester of AI?" That invites smart comments.

And smart comments are the best kind of distribution on LinkedIn. People reply with their own framework, their own examples, their own war stories. Now the post becomes a mini-forum.

Their Content Formula

Michael's formula feels consistent even when the topics change. It's like he uses the same skeleton: claim, specifics, reality check, sometimes a link.

Content Structure Breakdown

Component	Michael T.'s Approach	Effectiveness	Why It Works
Hook	A blunt claim or a crisp future-facing question	High	Skimmable and curiosity-rich without being loud
Body	1 to 3 short paragraphs with concrete details	Very high	Dense value, easy to scan, easy to quote
CTA	Minimal, functional ("Watch here:" / "Link in thread")	Medium-high	Doesn't break trust with a hard sell

The Hook Pattern

He tends to open with something that would look totally normal in a product Slack channel. That "internal memo" vibe is the hook.

Template:

"We built X in Y time."

Template:

"When will we be able to do X with AI?"

Template:

"A conversation with [Name] on [topic]."

Why this works: the hook doesn't ask for attention, it offers a clear thing. And you can adapt it even if you're not building software.

"We cut onboarding time by 40% in two weeks."
"When will finance close in real time instead of month-end?"
"A conversation with our customer on what broke in production." (Yes, scary. Also: people will read it.)

The Body Structure

Michael's body is usually short, but it's doing a lot. It's basically: "here's what we did" then "here's what's inside" then "here's what still doesn't work." That last part is the trust multiplier.

Body Structure Analysis:

Stage	What They Do	Example Pattern
Opening	State the result in one line	"We built..."
Development	Add components, metrics, constraints	"It includes..., we used..., it handles..."
Transition	Insert a caveat or realism	"It still has issues..."
Closing	Light reaction or prompt	"Pretty wild." / "Curious what you think."

The CTA Approach

When Michael uses a CTA, it's usually informational. No urgency. No "don't miss this." That matters because his audience likely hates being marketed to.

The psychology is simple: the reader feels respected. And respect buys attention.

Now, here's where it gets interesting: this same CTA style shows up in the other two creators too, but for different reasons.

Side-by-Side: Three Different Paths to Trust

If you zoom out, these three creators are building trust with three different engines.

Creator	Core Trust Signal	Likely Best Content Type	What Makes People Share
Michael T.	Builder reality + specificity	Product/technical notes, sharp questions, short updates	"This is real, and it's useful"
Abdirahman Jama	Big-tech credibility + clear opinions	Engineering takes, lessons, viewpoints from inside AWS	"This matches what I've seen"
Ludo Baauw	Executive authority + niche focus	Security, sovereign cloud, leadership positioning	"This person knows the policy + strategy side"

Abdirahman Jama: Scale plus clarity

Abdirahman has 37,234 followers and a 322.00 Hero Score. That's a bigger audience, and the engagement efficiency is still strong. His headline includes "Software Development Engineer @ AWS," which is a built-in credibility shortcut on LinkedIn.

But here's the trade: when your audience is bigger and broader, you often need clearer "opinion packaging" to keep attention. That's not a bad thing. It's just different. I'd expect Abdirahman to win by making engineering topics legible and debate-worthy without going too niche.

If Michael is a builder shipping updates, Abdirahman feels like a builder-teacher. Not motivational. More like: "Here's my take, here's why, argue with me." That invites comments.

Ludo Baauw: Smaller audience, strong authority density

Ludo has 6,971 followers and a 317.00 Hero Score. So the audience is smaller, but the engagement efficiency is in the same neighborhood as Abdirahman.

His positioning is extremely explicit: CEO, Founder, Chairman, sovereign cloud and security expert, speaker. That's an authority stack. People follow that because they want a stable point of view in a complicated space.

And honestly, this is a great reminder: you don't need a giant audience to be "successful" on LinkedIn. You need the right people to care.

Michael's Advantage: Engagement Efficiency

This is the part I'd screenshot if I were building a creator strategy.

Metric	Michael T.	Abdirahman Jama	Ludo Baauw
Followers	16,135	37,234	6,971
Hero Score	498.0	322.0	317.0
Hero Score per 1,000 followers (rough)	30.9	8.6	45.5

Two quick reactions:

Michael's raw Hero Score is the top number here, which is already impressive.
Ludo's efficiency per follower is quietly huge. That screams "tight niche" and "high-intent audience." If Ludo started publishing with more frequency (without losing quality), he could be dangerous.

So where does Michael fit? He's the middle-sized audience with the highest raw engagement power. That combination usually means: strong distribution inside a specific community (builders), plus content that gets passed around.

Posting Times and the "Conversation" Angle

We don't have topic-level data, but we do have suggested discussion-driving windows: 20:00-23:00, 17:00-18:00, and 00:00-02:00.

If Michael leans into rhetorical questions and builder debates, those evening hours make sense. That's when people are out of meetings and more willing to think and comment.

A practical observation: a low-frequency creator benefits more from timing. If you're only posting once every couple of weeks, you want maximum surface area for comments in the first few hours.

3 Actionable Strategies You Can Use Today

Write one high-signal post instead of three low-signal ones - Michael's style rewards density, and readers can feel when you actually have something to say.
Add one honest caveat to every claim - It makes you believable fast ("This works sometimes," "We're not at parity," "Still rough"). People trust that.
Use a builder hook, not a viral hook - Start with the result, the constraint, or the question you actually wrestled with. The right people will lean in.

Key Takeaways

Michael T.'s edge is efficiency - A 498.00 Hero Score at 0.2 posts/week suggests high trust and high signal.
Abdirahman wins with credibility at scale - Bigger audience, strong engagement, and a clear engineering identity.
Ludo proves niche authority compounds - Smaller follower count, but serious engagement density for security and sovereign cloud topics.
The common thread is restraint - None of this requires hype. It requires clarity.

If you take one thing from Michael's playbook, make it this: say less, but make it count. Give it a try and see what happens.