Yoram Wijngaarde's Data-First LinkedIn Playbook

The Calm, Data-Heavy Posts That Keep Winning

I stumbled onto Yoram Wijngaarde's LinkedIn while looking for startup market signals (the kind that don't feel like vibes dressed up as charts). And what hit me fast was this: 24,381 followers, 8.0 posts per week, and a Hero Score of 43.00.

That score matters because it suggests he isn't just broadcasting. He's getting real engagement relative to audience size. And in a feed full of hot takes, his posts feel like someone quietly sliding a spreadsheet across the table and saying, "Look, the story is a bit different."

So I decided to compare him with two other creators who have the same Hero Score (43.00) but wildly different audience sizes and positioning: Dr. Mejdal Alqahtani (big audience, AI and talent development) and Halfdan Moth Timm (smaller audience, marketing and AI enablement).

Here's what stood out:

• Yoram wins with synthesis, not spectacle - tight framing, strong data anchors, and clear implications.
• All three creators share a "signal over noise" vibe, but they package it differently (policy and ecosystem analysis vs professional advocacy vs practitioner playbooks).
• Posting cadence + clarity beats pure follower count - the same Hero Score shows you can earn outsized engagement in very different ways.

---

Yoram Wijngaarde's Performance Metrics

Here's what's interesting: Yoram's audience isn't the biggest in this comparison, but his consistency (8 posts a week) and high engagement efficiency (Hero Score 43.00) suggest he has a repeatable machine. Not a gimmick. A machine. And it likely benefits from his "always bring receipts" posture: numbers first, then narrative.

Key Performance Indicators

Now, here's where it gets interesting. When you put Yoram next to Dr. Mejdal and Halfdan, you can see three different ways to "win" with the same engagement efficiency.

---

What Makes Yoram Wijngaarde's Content Work

When I read Yoram's posts back-to-back, I kept noticing a pattern: they're engineered for busy, smart readers who want the "so what" without losing rigor. He doesn't ask you to believe him. He asks you to look with him.

1. Data First, Opinion Second (But Still a Point of View)

So here's what he does: he leads with an observation that sounds like a debate starter, then immediately pins it to numbers. Not in a stiff academic way. More like, "Everyone says X. The data says Y. Here's the nuance." That corrective framing is addictive because it respects the reader.

Want to know what surprised me? Even when he disagrees with a narrative, he rarely sounds angry. He sounds measured. Which makes the correction land harder.

Key Insight: Start with the claim people repeat, then show the data that makes the story more nuanced.

This works because LinkedIn rewards certainty, but readers reward credibility. The blend is the secret: clear stance + visible evidence.

Strategy Breakdown:

2. High Cadence Without Feeling Noisy

Eight posts a week could easily turn into spam. But Yoram's posts don't feel like filler because they tend to be modular: one idea, one dataset, one implication. If you miss a day, you can jump back in. No complex "series" required.

And he benefits from a quiet compounding effect: frequent posting increases surface area, and each post reinforces his positioning as "the data guy" for innovation ecosystems.

Comparison with Industry Standards:

3. "Airy" Formatting That Feels Like a Smart Friend Texting You

This is underrated. Yoram's structure is scroll-friendly: short paragraphs, blank lines, standalone sentences for emphasis. It reads like he knows you're on your phone and doesn't want to punish you.

He also uses small rhetorical questions as doorways: "Guess how many..." or "So what should Europe do instead?" It nudges you forward without feeling like clickbait.

4. Credibility by Association (Examples, Institutions, Specific Names)

Instead of abstract claims, he uses concrete anchors: company examples, ecosystem comparisons, policy debates. Even when you don't know the source, you can feel the difference between "here's my thought" and "here's a pattern supported by real-world cases." It's not name-dropping. It's grounding.

---

Their Content Formula

If you forced me to write Yoram's formula on a napkin, it'd look like this:

Hook (contrarian or surprising) -> context (what changed) -> data block -> 2 takeaways -> light CTA.

And yes, it's repeatable. That's the point.

Content Structure Breakdown

The Hook Pattern

He often opens by challenging the default story, but politely. A few reusable shapes:

Template:

"People say [common narrative]. The data says it's more nuanced."

Examples you can model (in his style):

• "Everyone thinks funding is collapsing. But look at the split between stages."
• "This isn't nostalgia. It's a blueprint shift."
• "Guess how many startups actually make it from seed to unicorn?"

Why it works and when to use it: use this when your audience is repeating a simple story. Your job isn't to dunk on them. It's to upgrade the story.

The Body Structure

The body feels engineered for scanning. I noticed the consistent "blocks" approach: each idea gets its own space.

Body Structure Analysis:

The CTA Approach

Yoram's CTAs are usually invitations to verify, not to buy. That choice is psychological.

If you end with "Sign up now," you trigger resistance.

If you end with "Check the data and see how your region compares," you trigger curiosity (and you keep your analyst vibe intact).

A practical template:

"If you want the full breakdown, I put the dashboard link in the comments."

And for comparison, here's how the three creators tend to close:

---

The Comparison That Made Me Respect Yoram Even More

It's tempting to assume the biggest creator in the set has the "best" strategy. But when Dr. Mejdal has 189,542 followers and still lands the same Hero Score (43.00) as Yoram, it tells you something: engagement efficiency isn't just about reach.

It can be about fit.

Dr. Mejdal is speaking to a broad tent: AI, analytics, and professional development. That's a massive audience, and his content likely works as leadership signaling and community building.

Halfdan, on the other hand, feels like the "operator's operator". Smaller following, same engagement efficiency, and a niche that loves tactical clarity.

And Yoram? He sits in a sweet spot where the audience is smaller than Dr. Mejdal's but intensely aligned: founders, investors, ecosystem builders, policy folks. People who want signal.

Here's a quick "audience vs output" snapshot that puts that into perspective:

So what does that mean if you're building your own LinkedIn engine?

It means you can win three ways:

• Be the analyst (Yoram)
• Be the advocate-leader (Dr. Mejdal)
• Be the practitioner-teacher (Halfdan)

Pick one. Trying to do all three usually turns into mush.

---

3 Actionable Strategies You Can Use Today

1. Write one "myth vs data" post this week - Start with the popular narrative, then add 3 numbers that complicate it.

2. Adopt the "block" format - One sentence hook, 2-3 lines context, a short list of stats, then 2 takeaways.

3. End with a verification CTA - Ask people to compare, check, or interpret (not to buy), because trust compounds faster than clicks.

---

Key Takeaways

1. Yoram's edge is synthesis - he turns messy markets into clean takeaways without losing the evidence.
2. Cadence works when the format is modular - 8 posts/week is sustainable when each post is one clear unit.
3. Same Hero Score, different playbooks - Dr. Mejdal scales via leadership and development, Halfdan wins via tactical operator clarity.
4. The best LinkedIn "brand" is a repeatable promise - Yoram's promise is: "I'll show you what the data actually says."

If you try one thing from this, try the hook: challenge the default story, then back it with real numbers. And tell me if your comments get smarter overnight.

---

Meet the Creators

---

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