A founder moved a series into LinkedIn's newsletter feature. Open rate beat feed reach 6x.
The question: does LinkedIn's native newsletter reach a subscriber more reliably than feed posting?
The case: a B2B founder published the same weekly column two ways for a quarter — as feed posts, then converted to a native LinkedIn newsletter with the same audience invited. They compared 'reach per follower/subscriber'. Sample: 12 issues vs 12 prior feed posts.
Three findings:
— Feed posts reached ~8% of followers on average; newsletter issues hit ~50% of subscribers (notification + email push).
— Subscriber growth compounded — each issue's CTA added subscribers who then got the next issue, unlike feed reach which resets weekly.
— Engagement per reached person was lower in the newsletter (broader, less self-selected audience), but absolute engagement was higher.
Limitations: subscriber and follower bases overlap imperfectly, so 'reach per person' isn't apples-to-apples. Single author.
What it means for B2B: the newsletter trades the feed's viral ceiling for a reliable delivery floor — owned-ish distribution inside a rented platform.
Bottom line: newsletters delivered to far more of the intended audience, at the cost of viral upside.
The B2B Lab Report
@B2BLabReport
A founder moved a series into LinkedIn's newsletter feature. Open rate beat feed reach 6x.
Этот пост опубликован в Telegram-канале The B2B Lab Report. Подписаться можно по ссылке: @B2BLabReport.