Today’s talk is about branding.

Yeah but not that branding you see everywhere

• Share your story

• Optimize your profile

We read it everywhere.

No, I want to talk about something that everyone sees, but nobody understands.

Ready? Go

Ok, you’re not growing.

You get low engagement below your tweets and get 1 follow a day at your best.

You think it’s “steady growth” so you just need consistency.

That’s where you’re wrong.

The problem is simpler than you think:

You have a bad content strategy. Or bad content if you prefer.

That’s what we’re going to fix here.

Forget about the “personality/value” tweet

It’s for the gurus living in the prehistory.

Everyone does it and as you can see: Nobody grows.

So let’s set up this once and for all.

There are 3 types of tweets:

• The ones that give you engagement

• The ones that bring you credibility

• The ones that build your identity

Because remember: People follow you for one reason.

Here are the main 3:

• They follow you for dopamine → Dopamine - Entertaining value

• They follow you because they desire what you have → Transformation - Growth

• They follow you because they like you → Personality - Relatability - Relatability

From this, it’s simpler to know what work.

But before we move on I want to introduce underrated data:

Profile visits

Don’t you see it?

Obviously not.

All your focus on is likes & comments. And sometimes impressions because you heard in an old thread that it was important.

But in that way, you’re just going to write for engagement.

Be its slave and end up full of platitudes.

That’s not what you want right?

We want to fix the whole brand.

So we’re going to aim for profile visits.

Because it means people liked your content in one of the 3 free previous ways.

And so you can save and repurpose them.

Cool? I have even cooler.

Aim for a profile visit count.

Unlike other metrics, you can control it.

Not fully but trust me it’s possible

Checklist

I have a cheat code to know if my tweets will blow up or flop.

Or a checklist if you prefer.

Every time before you send a tweet:

• Is it funny? - dopamine

• Is the hook good? - dopamine

• Would I read this? - dopamine

• Is the structure good? - dopamine

• Could it be more concise? - dopamine

• Would I reply to this? - engaging/relatable

• Imagine scrolling past it, would you stop? - dopamine

If you got profile visits it means you did well with one of them, or maybe all.

Good? You can also class them with different marks depending on the impact of each point.

Let’s take Logz’s tweet as an example:

Pattern-breaking? 3/3: Of course yes

Entertaining? 1,5/2

Good hook? 3/3

Readability? 3/3

Structured? 3/3

Is it clear? 3/3

Engaging? 2,5/3: Look at the joke he slipped and the last line.

*Pattern breaking: The pattern is the Timeline. So it means do you stop reading it when scrolling?

Now let’s take a bad one:

“Stop wasting your time and life

use it productively

I started my journey 5 months ago, it changed me completely

I am way better than before, just because I started Twitter

I wish I knew these things when I started

So i could …”

Checklist:

Pattern-breaking? 0/3: It lacks structure and some dots + uppercases are missing

Entertaining? 0/3: I guess it wasn’t the goal.

Good hook? 0/3: The hook could be a good one but when you see the pfp quality and structure if spoils it entirely

Readability? 1/3: As I said the structure is bad and so we can read it correctly (plus it doesn’t have a clear goal, you don’t know but this tweet is the hook of a tweet, I didn’t know until I click too)

Structured? 0/2: No.

Engaging? 0/3: Not too. Bad The points I developed before explaining it.

Is it clear? 0/3: Not at all. Also, the hook hasn’t the same context as the body, we change from one to another topic from one line to the other.

Do you see? 1/20 Mark

I know we’re not at school, but the truth is: This tweet isn’t going to attract anyone.

And that’s also a way to know if a brand is doing well or not even tho they have fake engagement.

Because it’s the content is bad, the brand is bad.

You can also compare your tweets with other creators and see where you did wrong.

Here is another example:

Me:

Pattern-breaking? 1,5/3: The hook was good. But I could make it shorter and more impactful. And also improve the structure to make it digestible.

Entertaining? 0,5/2: The way I format was a bit funny.

Good hook? 2/3: Same thing as Pattern breaking

Readability? 1/3: Nah the structure wasn’t good.

Structured? 0,5/3: Nah.

Engaging? 1/3: Not that much because I could make improvements, more eye-catching

Is it clear? 1,5/3: Soso.

9/20 mark.

Conclusion: The idea in general was good, but the tweet in itself needed to be refined.

Logz:

Pattern-breaking? 2,5/3: Authority proof, showing his results and that he’s the problem solver. And good structure (-0,5 because some people aren’t attracted by this data, but we can’t target everyone)

Entertaining? 0/2: It wasn’t the goal because it’s about being credible, not funny.

Good hook? 3/3: Yes. Authority building.

Readability? 3/3: Concise and clear. It’s pretty short and easy to understand

Structured? 3/3: Good hook. “How?” is pattern-breaking. He keeps the same structure + uses the rule of 3.

Engaging? 3/3: With all the other points, it makes it attractive so yes.

Is it clear? 3/3: Clear. His list aims for one thing: Helping people.

Final mark: 17,5.

Above 16 it’s great. That’s everything you need to know.

So we’re already at the end…

Thank you for the reading man, I loved spreading the secrets like powder.

And I hope to see you again.

P.S~ The strategies come from Logz. The guy is just a monster and all I had to do was refinning them