LinkedIn Content Strategy & Writing Style
Wharton Professor - AI & Behavioral Science
0 people tracking this creator on ViralBrain
Stefano Puntoni positions himself as a Wharton authority on AI, behavioral science, and marketing, translating academic research into practical guidance for executives, educators, and builders. His content centers on how AI changes human decisions and measurement, from AI-driven product recommendations and attribution to adoption research, creative discovery, and the psychology of achievement. He stands out by pairing institutional credibility with unusually concrete artifacts, such as his Claude slide-style guide and decision-funnel framework, while questioning seductive metrics like CTR. His distinctive intersection is rigorous experimentation with accessible executive education, using webinars, lectures, reports, and real-world marketing tests to make emerging AI questions commercially useful.
55.7K
29.3K
96
19
21
So many posts and comments here are AI-written. I get it. Writing is hard and time is in short supply. In fact, a while back I also briefly experimented with AI in my posts. It was so much easier. I…
This does not look like the Dot Com bubble. Yes, the price of equities has been exploding but if you compare Cisco in 2000 versus NVIDIA today, there is one massive difference: The increase in earni…
*NEW* We've conducted a rigorous test of decision making by shopping agents. The results are sobering for marketers: "agentic shopping decisions are sensitive to prior context and the overall search a…
**NEW** We just released the Wharton Blueprint for AI Agent Adoption. Free download on Knowledge at Wharton (link in comment). The blueprint brings together experts on the topic of AI agents to summa…
"Good investing doesn't come from buying good things. It comes from buying things well,” Howard Marks (W’67), co-chairman of Oaktree Capital Management, L.P., told an audience of Wharton students at h…
NEW PAPER: Synthetic contact with AI reduces cross-partisan animosity Decades of research in intergroup relations shows that the best way to reduce prejudice and polarization is contact between group…
2.5 posts/week
Posts / Week
21
Total Posts Analyzed
MEDIUM
Posting Frequency
95.8%
Avg Engagement Rate
STABLE
Performance Trend
450
Avg Length (Words)
HIGH
Depth Level
ADVANCED
Expertise Level
88/10
Uniqueness Score
YES
Question Usage
0%
Response Rate
Writing style breakdown
<start of post>
We’ve been noticing a puzzling pattern on LinkedIn while working with wealth managers on their ad campaigns.
The same ad, with the same call to action, could produce dramatically different click-through rates depending on the campaign objective.
In one test, Website Visits produced a 6.66% CTR.
The identical ad using LinkedIn’s Lead Generation objective produced 0.52%.
More than 12x the traffic.
It would have been easy to stop there and conclude that wealth managers should forget LinkedIn lead forms (Lead Gen objective) and drive prospects directly to their own websites (Website Visits objective).
Instead, we tried to break our own result.
One thing bothered us: almost all of those website clicks were coming from mobile.
And the mechanics are different. With Website Visits, tapping almost anywhere on the ad—image, headline or text—can send you to the website. With Lead Gen, you need to click the specific CTA to open the form.
That made us wonder: could some of that extraordinary mobile engagement actually be a “fat-finger” effect? Could people trying to scroll sometimes be tapping the ad instead?
So we ran another experiment: same creative, but restricted to desktop.
The result didn’t just shrink. It reversed.
Website Visits: 0.11%
Lead Generation: 0.37%
And Website Visits CTR was roughly 60x higher on mobile than desktop.
That doesn’t prove accidental clicks explain the difference. Device, audience, context and LinkedIn’s optimization algorithm could all play a role too.
And even an accidental click isn’t necessarily worthless. Once someone lands on your site, you still have an opportunity to engage and convert them. So we’re not concluding that Lead Gen is better than Website Visits—or vice versa.
The lesson is to know your numbers—and understand what those numbers actually mean.
The industry doesn’t just need better marketing. It needs more science.
A dashboard would have told us that 6.66% was a spectacular result.
An experiment made us ask whether 6.66% was even the number we thought it was.
That’s increasingly where Stefano Puntoni, our team and I have been spending our time: not simply asking what worked?—but why?
#WealthManagement
#FinancialAdvisors
#BehavioralScience
#MarketingScience
<end of post>
Sign in to unlock the full writing analysis
Free tools to help you write, score, and benchmark in the same style.
Other creators worth studying alongside Stefano Puntoni.
Felix Haas
Design at Lovable, Sequoia Scout, Angel Investor
105 Viral Score
Alexandre Kantjas
I teach AI and automation
14 Viral Score
Prateek Joshi
AI Infra Investing at Moxxie Ventures | Nvidia alum | Recovering Founder
13 Viral Score
812 Viral Score
Sahil Bloom
NYT Bestselling Author | Entrepreneur | Investor
38 Viral Score
Vishnu Gupta
I Build AI Agents That create leads While You Sleep 😉
338 Viral Score
ViralBrain plans, writes, and schedules your LinkedIn content, using official LinkedIn APIs so your account stays safe.
Write like Stefano Puntoni.
