From Brief to LinkedIn Post

Posted 5 days ago by Dino Cajic

From Brief to LinkedIn Post

Your brief is the source of truth.

Include

Audience, problem to solve, POV in one sentence, promise of value, key proof points, non‑negotiables, CTA, due date, owner.

Brief template

Title/Working Angle:
Audience:
Problem we’re solving:
Our POV (one sentence):
Promise (what they gain in 60–90 sec):
Proof (data, examples, quotes to use):
Voice notes (tone, banned words, phrases to keep):
CTA:
Publish date/time:
Owner + reviewer:

Research: fill the “source bag”

Collect 3–5 credible receipts. Pull one customer quote or real‑world example. Note a counterpoint you can address. Save links in the brief so they travel with the work.

Outline Framework

Hook that states the promise. Three pillars that deliver the promise. One line of proof under each pillar. Punchline that lands the takeaway and CTA.

Hook/Opening line:
Pillar 1:
Proof/Example:
Pillar 2:
Proof/Example:
Pillar 3:
Proof/Example:
Punchline/CTA:

Start with a strong claim, a before/after contrast, a mini‑story, or a “most people do X, high performers do Y” twist.

Draft

Draft to the outline, then do a single quality pass.

  • Quality bar: Clarity over clever. One promise per post. Concrete verbs. Short sentences. No filler. Avoid empty hype words.
  • Style guardrails: Keep jargon minimal. Respect the reader’s time. Make the CTA specific and useful.

Human review

It still feels weird to write “human” anything.

  • Reviewer checklist: Does the first line earn the next line. Facts correctly attributed. Claims proportionate to proof. Tone fits the brand. No accidental plagiarism. Links and tags work. CTA is clear.
  • Approval rule Reviewer suggests edits once. Author owns final pass. If it needs a third round, fix the brief or outline next time.

Schedule Checklist

Treat scheduling like shipping. Final copy in the scheduling tool. Alt text written. Mentions verified. UTM params set. First comment ready if needed. Asset filenames match post title. Publish time chosen for your audience, not your calendar.

Light Automation

Trigger a research to‑do when a brief is created. Auto‑format the outline from the brief fields. Post a review reminder 24 hours before publish. Move items to “Ready to Schedule” when reviewer checks a box. Write a draft alt‑text suggestion you can edit. Log published links to a content calendar automatically.

Metrics

  • Track: On‑time rate from brief to publish. Average edit rounds per post. Cycle time from outline to approved draft. % of posts reusing snippets or pillars. Save‑rate or comment‑rate per post to gauge resonance.
  • Use them: If on‑time rate drops, the bottleneck is probably review. If edit rounds creep up, tighten the brief or outline. If resonance dips, revisit your hooks and promises.

SOP

Create the brief. Add 3–5 proofs. Draft a one‑page outline. Write the post in under the outline. Run the reviewer checklist once. Schedule with the scheduling checklist. Log metrics after publish.

Example: turning the pipeline into a LinkedIn post

Okay, finally onto the example.

Brief

Audience: B2B marketers owning organic. POV: Spend less time writing, more time shipping. Promise: A pipeline that cuts edits and increases output. Proof: Operating checklists, templates, metrics. CTA: Steal the framework and try one pilot week.

Final post (copy‑ready)

  • Hook: Most teams write content. Few run content. The difference is a pipeline.
  • Value: Brief -> Research -> Outline -> Draft -> Review -> Schedule. Templates keep quality steady. Automation handles nudges and handoffs. Metrics show where it drags.
  • Proof: One brief, one outline, one review checklist. On‑time rate up. Edit rounds down. More posts, less chaos.
  • CTA: Want the templates? Comment “PIPELINE” and I’ll share the pack.

Rollout plan (one week pilot)

  • Day 1: Ship one brief and its outline.
  • Day 2: Draft and review one post.
  • Day 3: Schedule and log metrics.
  • Day 4: Retrospective on where it dragged.
  • Day 5: Adjust templates and try two posts next week.

Common pitfalls (and quick fixes)

  • Too many stakeholders: define one reviewer.
  • Bloated drafts: tighten the promise and remove anything that doesn’t serve it.
  • Generic hooks: rewrite the first line last.
  • Automation creep: only automate what already works manually.
  • Thread sprawl: keep comments inside the doc, not across five tools.

You now have a compact system: a brief that decides, research that equips, an outline that aligns, a quick draft, a single human review, and a clean schedule. The next post will be faster.

Leave a Reply