A writer tested 1,200-char vs 2,800-char posts. Longer won reach — until completion rate fell.

A writer tested 1,200-char vs 2,800-char posts. Longer won reach — until completion rate fell.

The question: is there an optimal post length for B2B reach, or does longer always mean more dwell?

The case: a B2B writer published matched insights at two lengths — short (~1,200 chars) and long (~2,800 chars) — over 8 weeks. They tracked reach and an estimated 'read completion' proxy via comment-quality signals. Sample: 28 matched pairs.

Three findings:
— Long posts averaged ~1.4x the reach of short ones — more on-screen text means more dwell time per viewer.
— But beyond ~2,500 chars, comments suggested readers skimmed — completion-flavored signals dropped.
— The best performers clustered in a band (~1,800–2,400 chars): long enough for dwell, short enough to finish.

Limitations: 'completion' is inferred, not measured — LinkedIn doesn't expose true read-through. Small sample, one writer.

What it means for B2B: length is a dwell-time lever with a ceiling — past the ceiling, you gain seconds-per-view but lose comprehension and the comments that carry conversion.

Bottom line: longer helped reach but had a sweet spot near 2,000 chars — more isn't monotonically better.