A Data-Informed Look at Organic Reach and Link Penalties

LinkedIn’s “algorithm penalty” has been a source of debate for years. The idea is simple: platforms built on advertising revenue want users to stay on-site. If a post includes a link that takes people off-site—say, to Substack—the platform has strong incentives to suppress that content’s reach. But does this actually happen? And if so, does link destination matter?

This analysis began with a simple question triggered by another Substack writer’s observation: the old trick of “link in comments” is basically invisible, so if you want clicks, put your link in the main post and accept the penalty. That sparked a deeper question worth testing: do posts linking to my LinkedIn Newsletter perform better than posts linking to my Substack? And how do both compare to posts with no links at all?

Before diving into results, it’s worth revisiting the fundamental mechanics. LinkedIn is powered primarily by advertising revenue. This model depends on one thing above all else: attention. More attention means more impressions they can sell to advertisers. Posts containing external links—by definition—direct attention away from LinkedIn’s domain, reducing their potential ad inventory. Even on-site links, like those pointing to LinkedIn Newsletter posts, may interrupt the infinite scroll pattern advertisers rely on. The logic behind an algorithmic penalty is straightforward.

To test this, a two-week experiment was designed using three types of posts each day:

1. A control post with no link.
2. A promotional post linking to the LinkedIn version of an article.
3. A promotional post linking to the Substack version of the same article.

All posts covered similar topics and followed a standardized formatting and publishing protocol to reduce bias. The experiment focused specifically on impressions—how often each post appeared in users’ feeds.

The results were surprising.

The control group dramatically outperformed both link groups, generating 140% more impressions than posts linking to LinkedIn’s own Newsletter articles. This alone supports the theory that any link—regardless of destination—reduces reach. Meanwhile, posts linking to LinkedIn Newsletter content only marginally outperformed posts linking to Substack (493 vs. 436 impressions). The difference wasn’t large enough to draw strong conclusions in favour of the on-site destination.

This data suggests that LinkedIn’s algorithm penalizes most link-based posts, even when the link keeps the user on LinkedIn’s own ecosystem. The platform appears to prioritize continuous feed scrolling over any click-out behaviour, even if the destination is technically “on-site.”

A few behavioural trends emerged from the dataset as well. Wednesday was the strongest day for impressions, followed by Tuesday, with a 24% gap between first and second place. Morning posts (before noon) generated roughly 17% more impressions than afternoon posts. And posts that managed to gather more than two reactions enjoyed significantly stronger reach, likely because LinkedIn promotes content that sparks visible engagement among mutual connections.

The broader takeaway mirrors long-standing social media patterns :

• Posts without links have an inherent advantage for reach.
• Time of day and day of week matter, but the patterns will depend on your own audience’s habits.
• Engagement begets more impressions; LinkedIn amplifies content when people in your network interact with it.

If you rely on LinkedIn for distribution, the practical implication is clear: links should be used sparingly and strategically. The tradeoff between reach and click-through is unavoidable, but data-informed publishing can help you find the balance that works for your goals.

Read the full post or listen to the podcast edition here : https://6catalysts.substack.com/p/does-linkedin-hate-substack

When founders talk about team-building, the conversation often drifts toward speed… speed to hire, speed to scale, speed to meet the aggressive expectations placed on young companies. But speed is not a strategy. And nowhere is this more evident than in the culture born out of Silicon Valley’s “hire fast, fire fast” doctrine. It’s a mindset optimized for short-term gains, investor appeasement, and breakneck scale… not for building a stable, resilient business that can weather uncertainty.

This article challenges the reflexive adoption of that philosophy and argues for something better : a way of hiring designed for humans, rooted in long-term thinking, focused on creating durable organizations—not precarious ones.

The popularization of “hire fast, fire fast” coincides with the model and incentives of venture capital. Venture money is designed to move quickly and to return capital quickly. When investors expect 5x returns in five years, leaders inevitably feel pressured to staff rapidly, chase momentum, and treat people as expendable components of a larger financial machine. It’s an environment where speed outranks judgment, and founders are encouraged to use headcount like ammunition.

But business-building outside Silicon Valley does not have to be, and often should not be, driven by those same incentives. Most builders are not chasing decacorn status. They are building camels : organizations resilient enough to survive droughts, adaptable enough to face uncertainty, and steady enough to avoid the fragility that comes with hyperspeed growth.

Camel companies recruit differently. They prioritize people who fit the mission, the culture, and the evolving nature of the work. They invest in communication, critical thinking, and adaptability… skills that matter far more over the long run than any single technical competency. They also treat hiring as a systematic, team-driven process rather than a rushed scramble to fill chairs.

Hiring slow demands clarity about the role, transparency with candidates, and a willingness to evaluate soft skills as seriously as hard ones. It also requires leaders to be deeply involved, working in close coordination with HR or advisors, and treating the hiring decision as a strategic one instead of a box-ticking exercise. A rigorous process centred around clear expectations, skill-relevant testing (fairly compensated), and multi-stakeholder evaluation dramatically increases the odds of a good fit.

On the other end of the equation, firing should be a last resort. Not because accountability doesn’t matter, but because people are assets in every way except on the balance sheet. Institutional knowledge, accumulated experience, and the relational fabric employees build over time all contribute to an organization’s real value. Even if accounting standards don’t capture it.

For founders who want to build long-lasting businesses, employee investment is not charity (it’s strategy). And giving workers real skin in the game through mechanisms like employee ownership trusts further aligns incentives and strengthens commitment.

If half of businesses fail within two years, resilience matters more than ever. And resilience comes from people: the right people, chosen with intention, supported with care, and trusted to grow alongside the company.

This is what it means to hire for humans, not headcount. To build for the long game, not the fast exit. To choose the camel over the unicorn.

Read the full post or listen to the podcast edition here : https://6catalysts.substack.com/p/hiring-for-humans-building-the-team

In this month’s AMA, Hana in Kyoto writes in about her wellness startup blending traditional Japanese forest bathing (Shinrin-yoku) with virtual reality for overworked office workers. Her question? How to convince investors that a seemingly niche concept has real commercial potential.

It’s a fair challenge. Novel ideas often generate early buzz among users but confusion among funders. Investors like clarity—and they want to see how passion translates into profit.

To start, Hana’s idea stands out precisely because it’s unusual. There’s strength in differentiation; the world doesn’t need another copycat business. What it does need is a bridge between innovation and credibility. When investors encounter something new, they look for one of three things: belief in the money, belief in the mission, or belief in the founder. Understanding which type of investor you’re talking to will help you tailor your story to their motivations.

Hana’s first move should be to clarify her long-term vision. Is she building a mass-market wellness brand powered by technology? A boutique therapeutic experience delivered through select partners? Or a replicable franchise model that blends physical and virtual serenity? Each version determines not only her growth plan but the kind of capital she should pursue.

It’s also worth remembering that not every startup needs outside investors immediately. Chasing equity when pre-revenue can mean giving up too much ownership, too early. Exploring non-dilutive options—grants, low-interest loans, competitions, or strategic sponsorships—can preserve both control and flexibility.

Investors love traction. A polished demo, pilot event, or proof of customer demand can tip the scales in your favour. That might mean organizing a guided forest bathing retreat and collecting testimonials, or showcasing the technology at a wellness expo. Tangible validation builds confidence that your vision can scale.

For Hana, and any builder reading this, the goal isn’t just to convince investors—it’s to align your story with the kind of belief that matches your mission. Whether that belief lives in numbers, strategy, or you, make sure it’s real.

Momentum’s contagious. Share this with someone who’s building too.

Read the full post or listen to the podcast edition here : https://6catalysts.substack.com/p/ama-selling-serenity-convincing-investors

Are these models of marketing as mutually exclusive as we once believed?

Your model’s crap.

No, YOUR model’s crap.

If you both don’t simmer down, I’m going to turn this car around and then BOTH of your models will be crap!

The moral of the story? Sometimes people talk a lot of crap. Like I am right now. But that little car argument is a perfect metaphor for how people debate models of marketing—the flywheel versus the funnel.

Let’s rewind.

Arguing about what’s better, A or B, is as old as the letters themselves. Often we’re so dug in on defending our side that we forget multiple truths can exist at once. Mutual exclusivity isn’t the law of marketing physics—it’s just a habit we picked up along the way.

Once upon a time, I overheard two young marketing students in a cafeteria arguing about which model was better. One swore by the flywheel for its repeatability. The other insisted on the funnel for its focus. Both were right.

Because here’s the thing: these models aren’t rivals. They’re teammates. The funnel gives direction. The flywheel gives momentum. Together, they make growth sustainable.

The Funnel : Focus and Flow

A funnel is a visual map of the customer journey—from awareness to consideration to conversion. Its purpose is to focus energy on guiding people toward a specific, high-value outcome (usually revenue).

The weakness? When the funnel ends, so does the momentum. Once the campaign finishes or the cohort converts, the inertia leaks out.

The Flywheel: Retention and Repeatability

The flywheel model works differently. It runs perpetually—as long as effort keeps it spinning. Its genius lies in reusing momentum from previous activity. Once customers are inside your orbit, the cost of re-engaging them drops dramatically.

It follows four simple stages : Attract, Convert, Retain, and Create.

• Attract : Bring people into your orbit.
• Convert : Persuade them to take action.
• Retain : Keep their attention and trust over time.
• Create : Turn loyal customers into advocates.

The flywheel ensures every marketing activity reinforces the last. Its weakness, however, is altitude—it can miss the on-the-ground details that make sales work.

The Hybrid : Making It a “Funwheel”

The solution? Combine the two. Use the funnel for precision and the flywheel for persistence. Each stage of the flywheel contains micro-funnels guiding your audience from attention to action.

As you refine your systems and messaging, inertia builds—and the whole mechanism becomes easier to sustain.

In Practice : The Coffee Shop Example

Imagine you own a small café in a tourist town. You attract visitors through local ads, cross-promotions, and charming social media posts. Inside, clean spaces, friendly staff, and clever signage convert curiosity into sales.

Then you retain attention with a loyalty club, discounts, and personal touches. Over time, your biggest fans bring friends, expanding your customer base through advocacy.

That’s the flywheel and funnel working together—sales today, momentum tomorrow.

The Big Lesson

Doing what others don’t is a powerful differentiator. While big corporations rely on their size, your edge lies in agility, authenticity, and connection. You don’t need to conquer the market—you just need to capture enough of it to thrive.

And the best part? Once your systems align, every turn of the wheel multiplies the force behind your business.

Read the full post or listen to the podcast edition here : https://6catalysts.substack.com/p/marketing-the-flywheel-and-the-funnel