profile

Cut the Fluff

πŸͺ„I just analyzed all 763 hooks I've written on LinkedIn over the past 3 years

Published about 2 months agoΒ β€’Β 2 min read

Hey Reader,

Sorry to email you twice in one day, but I've gone down an AI analysis hole and this is too cool not to share.

My hypothesis: I shift my strategy based on what I see/feel working NOW, now what used to work.
​
​My process: This morning, I was like why don't I export all my LinkedIn posts, pop them into Claude, and run a massive analysis.

(Had a no-call day. Figured what the hell.)

Then I had Claude write me a full report of my activity. IT'S SO COOL.

(I'll drop the full report in the PS)​
​
But for this mini analysis, I shrunk the dataset and asked it to analyze 25 hooks from each year to see how my strategy evolved. I'm selling a hooks product that's only available for ~24 more hours, so it's top of mind.
​
​RESULTS: ​
​
​2023 vs 2024 vs 2025:

β†’ Contrarian & Polarizing: 24% β†’ 36% β†’ 36% ​
​
​What it does: Establishes thought leadership. Shows you think independently.
​
​My thoughts: I've doubled down on challenging conventional wisdom as the market has gotten noisier.
​
​→ Pattern Interrupt: 8% β†’ 8% β†’ 20%​
​
​What it does: Breaks the "I've seen this before" filter. Forces people to stop scrolling.
​
​My thoughts: I've ramped this up dramatically in 2025 as bots + slop + templates have made it harder to stand out.
​
​→ Social Proof: 28% β†’ 20% β†’ 16% ​
​
​What it does: Builds credibility and FOMO. Shows others getting results.
​
​My thoughts: I'm relying less on credibility, more on perspective. This makes sense, since it's a benefit of compounding credibility (once you make a name for yourself, you don't have to "prove" you're credible as often).
​
​→ Story & Transformation: 28% β†’ 20% β†’ 16% ​
​
​What it does: Creates instant connection. People see themselves in your experience.
​
​My thoughts: This one surprised me. I'm not using it like I used to. This wasn't intentional, and is an interesting data point cuz storytelling is so powerful. Lots to noodle on here.
​
​→ Problem Validation: 8% β†’ 8% β†’ 8%​
​
​What it does: Creates "you get me" moments. Makes people feel seen.
​
​My thoughts: Consistent but underutilized. Note to self: Use this more.
​
​→ Curiosity Gap: 4% β†’ 8% β†’ 4% ​
​
​What it does: Drives engagement. Teases valuable information.
​
​My thoughts: I think these feel the most "obviously hook-y" to me, which is why I rarely use them. So this makes sense (for me). But I may play around a bit more...
​
​BIG THOUGHTS:​
​
I knew I shifted my strategy, but I didn't have the data laid out so clearly. This feels very validating.

Here's where I'm at now:

​I went into more detail in this LinkedIn carousel, so go check it out.​

Our Hooked on Writing Hooks product teaches all six of these frameworks with 450+ current examples from me + 27 other creators.
​
Plus, you get AI bots trained on these frameworks to help you take any idea and turn it into each hook type.
​
I use these in my daily workflow now.

As an example, I just gave it this prompt:

Are you creating content that triggers fleeting dopamine hits? Or are you creating experiences that leave lasting impressions? The former might get you attention today but the latter builds something that compounds over time. Everyone's obsessed with going viral but there's surprising power in going deep instead. Beyond the dopamine hit of novelty lies something far more valuable β€” trust that brings people back again and again.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

And here are some of the hooks it wrote for me:

They're not perfect, but they're a great starting point. I can now pick my favorite one and edit it.
​
Tomorrow is the last day to grab the course, so hop on it now.

Cheers,

Erica

PS. Here's the full analysis Claude wrote for me about my LinkedIn content strategy. FASCINATING right?!

What do you think??

​

113 Cherry St #92768, Seattle, WA 98104-2205
​Unsubscribe Β· Preferences​

Cut the Fluff

by Erica Schneider

Learn to edit words like a pro. I've edited 3M+ words and each week, I share a lesson to teach you what to cut, how to add value, and how to finally feel confident when editing. Every subscriber gets access to my Editing Library, a database of 62 edits broken down by the problem, my take on how to improve it, and my edited version.

Read more from Cut the Fluff

Hey Reader, Look, today's newsletter isn't about whether we should or shouldn't be using AI in our writing. I have thoughts on that. [You can read them here.] I'm on the side where AI isn't going anywhere, and I absolutely love using it as a creative thought partner. I think it's great for creativity and your thought sparring process, but I also understand the arguments against it. That debate? We could have it all day. That's not what this is about. Today's newsletter assumes AI is here to...

6 days agoΒ β€’Β 10 min read

Hey Reader, I've reached my "alright, F this, I gotta say something" moment. I've had enough of holier-than-thou writers claiming a monopoly on thinking. Yes, writing is a form of thinking. But you know what else is? Voice note rambling about something I’ve been thinking about in my head for long enough that I’m ready to write about it, but don’t feel like spending 3 hours grinding through the writing process.I felt like this BEFORE AI. I mean, you know editors existed before AI, right?!Trust...

28 days agoΒ β€’Β 2 min read

Hey Reader, If you've been spiraling about "doing content right" on LinkedIn, you're playing the wrong game entirely. (It's a game, by the way.) Some people are optimizing for reach, impressions, and audience growth. Others are optimizing for inbound, starting conversations with the right people, and reputation growth. These people should not be creating the same types of content because they have wildly different goals. Different game. Different rules. Different outcomes. (Aside: Follower...

29 days agoΒ β€’Β 6 min read