Book a call

    Case study · Life Science Connect

    How Life Science Connect got its editors posting on LinkedIn.

    A four-week employee advocacy pilot across three brands: the problem, what we built, and what it produced. April to August 2026.

    269ICP engagementsAcross the three brands
    114KImpressionsOn 161 posts
    1.7xICP engagement per impressionEditor posts against brand page posts
    Jim Pomager and Matt PillarVP, Community Success · VP, Editorial and Content

    The problem

    LinkedIn was not reaching the people sponsors pay for

    Life Science Connect is a B2B publisher with 15 brands. In April 2026 it used LinkedIn to promote events, and nobody could tell whether the right people were seeing any of it.

    15
    brands, each with its own LinkedIn page and its own editors
    350
    events a year to promote, which filled every page's calendar
    2
    automation tools sending connection requests and DMs from editor and sales accounts

    What was happening on LinkedIn

    The brand pages posted an event a day with a registration link. Editors posted links to their own articles. The audience development team sent cold DMs at volume to hit registration targets, and some accounts were getting warnings from LinkedIn.

    Reach was flat. Nobody could say whether the people sponsors pay to reach, the manufacturing, quality and regulatory leaders at pharma and biotech companies, were seeing any of it.

    What LSC wanted: one LinkedIn model that works for all 15 brands and shows whether the right people are engaging.

    Source: Influent's interviews with LSC's audience development and editorial teams, April 2026.

    The opportunity

    The editors already had the audience

    LSC's editors are known by name to the people sponsors pay to reach, and most of them have more followers than the brand pages they write for. Nobody had asked them to post as themselves.

    The bet: LinkedIn gives people more reach than company pages. If the editors wrote posts with strong hooks, they would reach more of the right people than the pages ever had. So the pilot put the editors in front and the pages behind them.

    Three of 15 brands were chosen for the pilot: Cell & Gene, Outsourced Pharma and Advancing RNA. Connection counts from LinkedIn, November 2026.

    Our solution

    Train the editors to post, then measure who engages

    Influent did not write the posts. The editors did. We built the plan, taught them how to write a hook, and tracked who engaged.

    1. 01

      Diagnose

      We reviewed every brand page, editor profile and DM campaign, and interviewed both teams. April.

    2. 02

      Design

      A playbook for each brand, an ICP for each brand loaded into Fluentcy, and a guide to post types. May.

    3. 03

      Teach

      Two kickoff sessions and a written guide. The main lesson: spend most of your time on the hook, and lead with the takeaway, not the link. June.

    4. 04

      Coach

      Weekly themes in a shared Slack channel, feedback on hooks during the pilot, and a walkthrough of who was engaging in week four. July.

    What we asked of each editor

    Four posts a week for four weeks, written by the editors themselves and scheduled in Ordinal, on top of their normal workload. They delivered 80 of the 96.

    Four-phase engagement, April 6 to August 6, 2026. Pilot posts June 29 to July 26.

    The results

    What four weeks produced

    269
    ICP engagements across the three brands
    114K
    impressions on 161 posts
    2 to 3x
    LinkedIn traffic to the websites in two of the three brands
    174
    people in the ICP engaged, at companies like Sanofi, AstraZeneca, BMS and Lilly
    1.7x
    editor posts earned 1.7 times the ICP engagement per impression of brand page posts
    71%
    of editor posts reached at least one person in the ICP

    June 29 to July 26, 2026. Measured in Fluentcy and Ordinal. Website traffic from LSC's own analytics.

    The results

    Editor posts beat brand page posts

    76%

    of ICP engagement came from editor posts. Editors wrote half the posts.

    2.7

    ICP engagements per 1,000 impressions on editor posts, against 1.6 on brand page posts.

    Posts · Six editors

    80

    Posts · Three brand pages

    81

    Impressions · Six editors

    77,857

    Impressions · Three brand pages

    36,248

    ICP engagements · Six editors

    210

    ICP engagements · Three brand pages

    59

    Source: Influent's pilot analysis, June 29 to July 26, 2026.

    Why it worked

    The hook made the difference

    Two posts by the same editor, one day apart. The only difference is the hook. Across all 80 editor posts, hooks that challenged what the reader believed earned 5.5 ICP engagements per post. Hooks that described the topic earned 0.8, at the same reach.

    Erin Harris's July 13 LinkedIn post, with a hook that describes the topic
    931
    impressions
    1
    ICP engagement
    July 13
    hook describes the topic
    Erin Harris's July 14 LinkedIn post, with a hook that challenges a belief
    5,568
    impressions
    25
    ICP engagements
    July 14
    hook challenges a belief

    Screenshots from LinkedIn. Both posts linked to a Cell & Gene article.

    Why it worked

    Every editor had a post that worked

    The eight best posts came from four editors across all three brands.

    Advancing RNA was the most efficient brand: 52 companies reached from 30 editor posts.

    Source: Influent's pilot analysis. Headshots from LinkedIn.

    What the client said

    What LSC's leadership said

    “Our referral traffic from LinkedIn to the website was easily double, maybe triple, for the month.”
    “The biggest takeaway for the editors was: wow, if Erin can do that, if we spend a few more minutes on our posts, I think we can make some measurable progress.”
    “There was a material improvement in follower and connection growth among the pilot editors, even those who aren’t running automated connection campaigns. That was really good to see.”

    Phase 4 final readout, August 6, 2026. Quotes lightly trimmed for the slide.

    The results

    The people who engaged

    Manufacturing, quality and regulatory leaders at the companies LSC's sponsors sell to.

    People in the ICP who engaged

    Where the 174 people work

    • Thermo Fisher Scientific
    • AstraZeneca
    • Sanofi
    • Bristol Myers Squibb
    • Eli Lilly
    • Legend Biotech
    • Kite Pharma
    • Biogen
    • Astellas Gene Therapies
    • AbbVie
    • Alnylam
    • Lonza
    • Genentech
    • Novartis
    • Pfizer
    • Johnson & Johnson
    • GSK
    • Amgen
    • Takeda
    • Catalent
    • Arcellx
    • Cartesian Therapeutics
    • Codexis
    • Aspen Neuroscience
    • Alliance for mRNA Medicines

    Source: Fluentcy, posts published June 29 to July 26, 2026. Titles from LinkedIn.

    Post examples

    The posts that performed best

    The posts that reached the most people in the ICP.

    Post examples

    The eight best posts

    #PostAuthorICP engagementsImpressions
    1Visible particulates are a manufacturing strategy problemErin Harris255,568
    2Oligo purification is about molecular behavior, not the methodMichael Soloway133,367
    3The Phase 1 manufacturing model decides commercial scaleErin Harris132,757
    4Outsourced Pharma is back in the live events businessLouis Garguilo121,434
    5An open question on antibody-oligonucleotide conjugatesLouis Garguilo83,207
    6When should a cell therapy developer engage a CDMO?Outsourced Pharma page7540
    7Should editing reagents be classified as drug substance?Jon O’Connell6 comments2,242
    8What six Orangetheory franchises teach about choosing a CDMOJeffrey Buguliskis10.2 per 1K293

    Source: Influent's pilot analysis.

    Post example 1 · A question people disagree about

    The most commented post of the pilot

    In week two we asked editors to end posts with a question. Seven tried it and six got no replies. This one got six comments because the question is about something the industry is actually arguing over: whether editing reagents should be classified as drug substance. The head of a cell therapy program pushed back in the thread and another editor answered him.

    Comments on editor posts doubled from the first two weeks to the last two, from 17 to 34.

    6
    comments
    2,242
    impressions
    2.36
    engagements per person on Jon's posts, the most of any editor
    2x
    comments on editor posts in weeks 3 and 4
    Jon O'Connell's LinkedIn post asking whether editing reagents should be classified as drug substance

    Screenshot from LinkedIn. Metrics from Influent's pilot analysis.

    Post example 2 · An unexpected way into a technical subject

    The best ratio of ICP engagement to impressions

    This post shares a contributor’s article, but the hook is the contributor’s background: he built six Orangetheory franchises before moving into supplier management for cell therapy. The reader cannot guess where it is going, and the person turns out to be an expert.

    Everyone in the ICP who engaged with Jeffrey during the pilot was a director or above. The format is easy to repeat. Every editor knows people who took an unusual route into the industry.

    10.2
    ICP engagements per 1,000 impressions
    293
    impressions
    3
    ICP engagements
    100%
    of the ICP who engaged were director or above
    Jeffrey Buguliskis's LinkedIn post about what six Orangetheory franchises teach about choosing a CDMO

    Screenshot from LinkedIn. Metrics from Influent's pilot analysis.

    Post example 3 · Technical depth with a point of view

    The most saved post of the pilot

    This post shares a contributor article, but the hook is the article’s argument: the purification method matters less than understanding how the molecule behaves. Eight people saved it to come back to, and the article’s authors added to the thread.

    Advancing RNA reached 52 companies in four weeks, the most of the three brands.

    13
    ICP engagements
    3,367
    impressions
    8
    saves
    36
    reactions
    Michael Soloway's LinkedIn post about oligonucleotide purification by anion exchange chromatography

    Screenshot from LinkedIn. Metrics from Influent's pilot analysis.

    Our recommendations

    Three things we told LSC to stop

    Three findings cost LSC something it was used to. One cost us.

    Cold DMs at volume

    Automated connection requests and DMs were getting accounts flagged. We recommended turning them off and sending about 30 personal messages a week to people who had already engaged with an editor.

    Expecting brand pages to reach the ICP

    Better writing on the brand pages earned likes and clicks, but 69% of page posts reached no one in the ICP. Pages should keep promoting events and articles, and reshare editor posts that are doing well.

    Paying for our software

    Fluentcy worked in the pilot and LSC liked it, but it cost too much to run across 15 brands. We recommended a tool at $150 a month per brand and wrote the guide for getting leads into their CRM.

    Source: Influent's pilot analysis and tool recommendations, August 2026.

    The handoff

    What LSC received to run it without us

    LSC wanted a model it could run across 15 brands without us. The pilot proved it on three. The handoff package covers the rest.

    The verdict

    Keep going. Editors lead. Pages promote events and reshare editor posts that are doing well.

    The playbook

    A guide to launching any brand in six to eight weeks, writing standards, a checklist for spotting AI writing, profile guides and a quarterly measurement plan.

    The stack

    Turn off the DM automation. Track ICP engagement on editor profiles with a tool LSC can afford, and get leads into HubSpot with a guide we wrote.

    The three changes with the most upside

    Fix the hooks first. Have editors write their own view instead of summarizing the article. Give someone the job of resharing editor posts.

    Phase 4 documentation package, delivered August 6, 2026.

    Contact

    Your experts can be your LinkedIn channel