Last week, I walked you through the Flop Framework. It’s four steps I run through when a post underperforms.

Quick refresher:

  • Step 1: Did the post get distributed?

  • Step 2: How does engagement compare to impressions?

  • Step 3: What's the shape of the engagement?

  • Step 4: Who engaged?

I told you I’d run through one of my own flops, so I’m going to put my ego on the shelf and get into it.

The post

Last week I posted this:

I had an idea, so I followed it and put together a quick post.

As you can see, very straightforward with a direct call to action at the end.

Four days later, here's what the analytics showed:

  • 175 impressions (well under what a post of mine usually does)

  • 7 reactions

  • 0 comments

  • 0 reposts

I’m not going to beat around the bush on this one. It sucked.

Let’s run it through the Flop Framework to see where the wheels fell off.

Step 1: Did the post get distributed?

Not even close, 175 impressions is well below my normal range, and that's the first thing the framework asks me to notice.

This is where I have to stop and be honest with myself.

Before I start picking apart the writing, I have to acknowledge that the post never really got served in the newsfeed.

Whatever's wrong with the copy, most of my audience never saw it.

Step 2: How does engagement compare to impressions?

This is a little interesting because the post earned 7 reactions on 175 impressions, which is actually a halfway-decent engagement rate.

That tells me the post didn’t have a hook problem. The opening did enough work for the small audience that saw it.

Without Step 2, I would've blamed my writing and started rewriting hooks for nothing.

Step 3: What's the shape of the engagement?

Now this is where my ego will take a beating.

Seven reactions, zero comments, zero reposts, zero saves.

I only want that many zeroes at the end of my bank account balance.

That's all passive engagement. People agreed enough to tap a reaction and move on, but nobody felt pulled to add anything, share it with someone else, or come back to it later.

When I read the post again with that in mind, I can see why.

I wrote it as a statement, which, looking back, is likely the issue.

I never gave them a way to get involved. I should've shared a specific example or ended with a question that pulled them in.

There wasn’t any friction.

The post was true, but it didn’t ask the reader to do anything.

Short doesn’t always mean sharp.

Step 4: Who engaged?

With only 7 reactions, there's not enough data here to draw a real audience-fit conclusion.

Step 4 is most useful when you have a meaningful pool of engaged people.

So this step doesn't surface much for this particular post. It’s worth noting, because the framework isn't always going to give you a finding at every step.

Sometimes a step just confirms there's nothing more to learn there, and that's a valid result too.

What the framework actually told me

Beyond my earlier hypothesis of “It sucked,” here’s what I found supported that:

Although the writing quality was strong and the engagement rate held up against distribution, the post's shape was the source of the flop.

It made a statement instead of starting a conversation. That’s something I can fix moving forward.

If I'd skipped the framework and just looked at the headline numbers, I probably would've blamed the hook. The framework kept me honest about what actually went wrong and what didn't.

If a recent post of yours flopped, run it through this framework. You might be surprised at what you find.

❝

PS If you ever have questions about LinkedIn, send them my way. Here’s the quick form. Ask as many questions as you’d like.

Recommended for you

View all
caret-right