Every founder thinks their stories are interesting. But when they take those stories public, whether on LinkedIn or a blog, the response is often lukewarm. That’s particularly frustrating for founders in crowded industries, who need to stand out from similar competitors. They might wonder, am I just uninteresting? Do I not know how to find a good story?
In most cases, it isn’t an uninteresting story. Rather, there are uninteresting ways of telling stories. With the right framing, your founder story can be a winner.
I’ve seen what separates breakout stories from ones that languish. Over the years, LinkedIn has seen more than its fair share of B2B founders, and I’ve kept track of dozens of them. The stories that falter tend to have the same issues. Learning what they are, and how to fix them, will put you on a better path.
Here are the five reasons founder stories don’t get the attention they deserve.
1: You haven’t established proper stakes
Stories are only engrossing if they have stakes. Something bad happens if the protagonist fails; something good will happen if they succeed. (Obviously, this is a gross simplification, but it works for founder stories. No founder story should be the next Deadpool.)
Consider the difference between these two stories:
- “I showed V2.0 of our software to a customer recently. He liked it!”
- “I showed V2.0 of our software to one of the biggest users of V1.0. He was initially surprised by some of our interface changes, but after five minutes looking at the upgrades, said he loved it and couldn’t wait to show his team.”
The first story is really just a snapshot in time. There’s nothing at risk. However, in the second story, the user isn’t initially sold on V2.0. There are stakes, however small: that a loyal user will find V2.0 disappointing. The protagonist (the author) is able to avoid this, thanks to the quality of the software.
An important note: having stakes doesn’t require a final victory. Many of the most effective LinkedIn posts reflect on failures.
2: Your stakes don’t feel realistic
Founder stories are generally told without proof. And for that reason, founders will sometimes try to stand out by exaggerating the stakes of the story — making themselves the only sane person in a world of villains, elevating a minor grievance into a life-or-death scenario, or making a two-year-old show excitement about legal recruitment. This is not going to make you stand out, at least not in a good way.
Think about it like this. If you met a friend for coffee and they told you the story you’re planning to tell on LinkedIn, would you believe it actually happened?
Compare the difference between these two stories:
A. “A Customer Success rep had a sudden death in the family and had to go home. The rep’s client got really mad and threatened to stop working with us. We were ultimately able to change her mind, but it was a close call. We have a backup system now.”
B. “A Customer Success rep abruptly left an important check-in call with a major client. The rep learned of a sudden death in the family, but the client didn’t know that, and was frustrated. We apologized and let them know we’d do better, and we did. We now have a backup system to ensure a second rep can help if the first one needs to step away.”
A and B tell the same story, but version B is more grounded. A certainly has higher stakes, with an angry client threatening to quit, but it paints the client as getting mad for reasons beyond the rep’s control. B explains the situation in a way that justifies the client’s reaction, while showing that the company is capable of learning.
An important note: Sometimes your story really does have massive stakes, or otherwise feels unrealistic. Don’t downplay your story, but acknowledge that it’s an unusual or memorable situation, and only publish the really dramatic stuff once in a blue moon.
3: Your story is too vague
Whether for legal or reputational reasons, you may not be able to name-drop actual people, companies, or dollar amounts in your LinkedIn posts. That’s fine, but there are different ways of making a story safe to post. It’s easy to remove all the interesting parts of the story by mistake.
You can find ways to retain the scale and importance of your story without naming names. Compare the three following stories:
A. “Last Thursday, we lost a $5 million contract renewal with ReadyRead Inc. Their new VP of Marketing, John Reed, said he didn’t see the value in renewing. We’re now thinking about how to present our value better in renewal conversations.”
B. “We recently lost a big client after a difficult conversation. We are working on new client retention strategies as a result.”
C. “Earlier this month, we lost a multimillion-dollar renewal because the client had a new VP that didn’t understand the value of the product. We’re now thinking about how to present our value better in renewal conversations.”
A is too specific. It would put the ex-client’s VP on the spot in a way that may seem accusatory.
B is too vague. It says nothing of value, and can even be interpreted in ways that reflect poorly on the writer. What exactly was this “difficult conversation”? Whose fault was it?
C conveys the scale and stakes (earlier this month, multimillion-dollar renewal, new VP) without explicit name-calling. It’s clear this was a major setback for the writer, and something they care seriously about learning from.
4: Your takeaways feel tacked on
Good LinkedIn posts respect the reader’s time, and that means providing something useful in every post. Some leaders understand that much, but then add a bulleted list of takeaways onto their story, undercutting their own post.
If you need to explain why a post is valuable, the post isn’t working. Rather than including a sentence saying “here are three lessons from my experience,” make those lessons emerge from the story itself. It speaks highly of your abilities as a storyteller, and positions you as an equal to your peers, rather than a lecturer talking down to them.
Compare the following stories:
A. “One of my best workers requested a few days off to recharge during an important period. I said yes, and he’s done great work since. Two lessons here: Trust your employees, and let them take time off to keep performance high.”
B. “One of my best workers requested time off during a busy period due to burnout. I trusted him to know his own limits, and said “yes” without hesitation. When he came back the next week, he did the best work of his career.”
A and B both convey the same information, but B doesn’t spell it out. It allows the story’s events (trusting the employee, witnessing subsequent strong work) to convey the same lesson.
5: You’re focusing on the origin story
You need to perfect the origin story for investor calls, keynotes, and press releases — but not for LinkedIn. That’s because origin stories lack urgency, and can easily come across as advertising.
If you’re posting on LinkedIn, you need to resonate with your target audience. That audience probably isn’t scrolling through LinkedIn hoping to see origin stories. They’re looking for posts that understand their world and their challenges, and that give them something to take into their jobs.
To be clear, you can tell stories from a long time ago, as long as there is a takeaway that matters to the reader. Perhaps an experience you had 20 years ago provides insight into best practices that are still relevant today.
How to move forward when a post doesn’t land
If you’re doubting your stories and wondering where to go, consider this. Successful thought leadership doesn’t take place overnight. Everyone starts out with a modest reception that snowballs over time. Early on, you should aim to make a big impression on the folks that do read, rather than expecting a lot of folks to read.
That said, if you’re not getting a warm reception, consider whether you can answer these five questions with a confident yes:
- Stakes: Is there a success or failure here?
- Believability: Does this sound like something that would really happen?
- Specifics: Does this convey a sense of scale and urgency?
- Takeaway: Does a takeaway naturally emerge from the story?
- Relevance: Is this something relevant to the modern reader?
Managed LinkedIn, end to end. Twenty minutes to work out whether it fits.
Book a call →Questions people ask
Why are founder stories boring on LinkedIn?
Usually because of how they’re told, not what they’re about. Five patterns account for most of it: the story has no real stakes, the stakes are exaggerated past the point of belief, the identifying details got stripped out along with everything interesting, the lesson was bolted onto the end instead of emerging from the events, or the founder led with an origin story a cold reader has no reason to care about yet.
What are stakes in a founder story?
Stakes mean something bad happens if the protagonist fails and something good happens if they succeed. Without them a story is just a snapshot in time. ‘I showed V2.0 to a customer and he liked it’ has no stakes. ‘I showed V2.0 to our biggest V1.0 user, who was thrown by the interface changes, then came around after five minutes’ does. Stakes don’t require a victory either — plenty of effective posts are about failures.
How specific can a founder story be if I can’t name the client?
Keep the scale and the stakes, drop the identifiers. Naming a real VP and their company puts someone on the spot. But ‘we recently lost a big client after a difficult conversation’ is so vague it says nothing and invites unflattering readings. ‘Earlier this month we lost a multimillion-dollar renewal because the client had a new VP who didn’t see the value’ conveys the scale without naming anyone.
Should I post my origin story on LinkedIn?
Perfect it for investor calls, keynotes, and press releases — not for the feed. Origin stories lack urgency and read as advertising. LinkedIn readers want posts that understand their world and give them something to use at work. You can still tell stories from twenty years ago, as long as the takeaway matters to a reader today.
