September brought everyone back to LinkedIn and the feed got harder. See what still earned reach for the accounts we manage, from posting three times a week to personal stories.
Content by
September brought everyone back to LinkedIn at once. The accounts we manage published 408 posts, more than in any month this summer.
The feed got harder. The typical September post reached 1,472 people, about a third fewer than in August. We wrote about why reach is falling across the platform in Everyone's reach is down. Why so? And what still works?
These are working professionals: founders, executives and specialists at Finnish and Nordic companies, writing under their own names, mostly to a Finnish-speaking professional audience. Most of them have between 1,000 and 5,000 followers.
Everything below describes what that group actually produced in September, at a scale any ordinary profile can reach.
The median post reached 1,472 people, earned 23 reactions and landed at a 1.82% engagement rate.
Every figure here is a median: the middle post. LinkedIn runs on a power law, where one post in fifty travels far enough to drag an average somewhere unhelpful. The median tells you what a normal Tuesday looks like.
Median monthly reach per LinkedIn account, by posting rhythm · September 2026
This finding comes back every month, and in a month when the typical post reached fewer people, it mattered more than anything else on this list.
Accounts posting three or more times a week reached more than twice as many people over the month as accounts posting one to three times. And each post did just as well: a single post reached about as many people in both groups. The extra posts simply added up.
It holds when we compare the same people with themselves, too. In Everyone's reach is down. Why so? And what still works? we found that in the months when an account stepped up to three to five posts a week, its monthly reach was about 70% higher than in its own quieter months.
The same LinkedIn accounts compared with themselves · March to September 2026
About 70% more monthly reach in the months an account posted three to five times a week, compared with its own quieter months.
More posts also meant more chances at a breakout: a post that reaches three times as many people as your typical post. Almost four in five accounts posting three or more times a week had one in September. Among accounts posting one to three times a week, fewer than half did.
Share of LinkedIn accounts with at least one breakout post · September 2026
Key takeaway: Accounts posting three or more times a week reached more than twice as many people over the month, and each post did just as well.
What to do with it: Post three times a week. Of everything in this article, it makes the biggest difference.
Your subject comes with your work, but the kind of post is something anyone can choose.
Median reach per post, by type of post · September 2026
Opinion was the most common type by far, almost half of all September posts. Personal stories, about the writer's own life, background or turning points, were about one post in eight, and they reached furthest by a wide margin.
That held when we compared each writer with themselves. In about seven out of ten accounts that shared a personal story, it reached further than the same person's other posts, about 75% further at the median.
Did it work in every field?
We also looked at the fields our writers work in, comparing each writer's personal stories with their own other posts.
Reach of a personal story vs the same writer's other posts, by field · September 2026
In tech, marketing and media, a personal story was the strongest type of post. In consulting and advisory work, it did about as well as the writers' other posts, no better and no worse.
Key takeaway: A personal story reached about 75% more people than the same writer's other posts.
What to do with it: Work some personal stories into each month: a decision you had to make, a mistake, or a moment from your own working life. Anyone can do it, because the subject is you!
Median reach per LinkedIn post · September 2026
A year, an age, an amount, a count. Posts that opened with a concrete number reached about 50% further than the same writer's other posts, in three out of four accounts that tried it.
It worked best in personal stories, building in public and practical advice. In opinion posts it made no difference. And it was not a one-off: the pattern held in three of the last four months.
Key takeaway: Opening with a concrete number took a post about 50% further than the same writer's usual post.
What to do with it: Find the number in your story: the year it happened, how long it took, how many people were in the room. Then put it in the first line.
Video is something people talk about a lot. Many feel their videos don't perform the way they expected, and that can be really demotivating. So we looked at video over a longer stretch: every video our accounts posted from June to September, compared with the same writers' other posts.
Reach of a video vs the same writer's other posts · June to September 2026
In almost nine out of ten accounts that posted both, the video reached fewer people than the images.
Reach is not the only thing video does, though. On video, people see your face and hear your voice, and that builds a stronger sense of knowing you, even before you have met: a parasocial bond. We wrote about why that matters in Why should a leader dream about a stranger hugging them at an industry event?
Images kept their lead over text-only posts across the summer. In September the gap closed: for the same writers, a text-only post did just as well as one with an image.
Key takeaway: Over four months, a video reached about a third fewer people than the same writer's image post, but it builds something reach numbers don't show.
What to do with it: Don't judge your videos by reach alone. Use video when your face and voice add something: a talk, a demo, a story you want people to hear from you. For an everyday post, a photo, a screenshot or plain text is enough.
Reach and engagement rate both move with follower count, but in opposite directions. Bigger accounts reach further per post and turn a smaller share of that reach into reactions. That is how the platform (all of them, actually) works, so the useful comparison is with accounts your own size.
Reach per post, by follower count:
Impressions per post, by follower count · September 2026
| Followers | Typical | Strong | Excellent |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1,001 to 5,000 | 1,106 | 2,061 | 4,733 |
| 5,001 to 10,000 | 2,496 | 5,028 | 11,248 |
| 10,000 and over | 4,280 | 10,518 | 26,943 |
Engagement rate, by follower count:
Engagement rate per post, by follower count · September 2026
| Followers | Typical | Strong | Excellent |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1,001 to 5,000 | 1.9% | 2.7% | 3.3% |
| 5,001 to 10,000 | 1.7% | 2.6% | 3.1% |
| 10,000 and over | 1.4% | 2.2% | 2.8% |
Want to see where a post of your own lands? Slide in your follower count and the post's numbers!
Slide in your follower count and one post's numbers
Compared with accounts with 1,001 to 5,000 followers
Key takeaway: At every account size, a typical post lands at 1.4% to 1.9% engagement, and a post around 3% is an excellent one.
What to do with it: Find your row, or run your last post through the checker, and read your own month against accounts your size rather than the loudest account in your feed.
The accounts we manage added about 5,000 followers in September. In August, the figure was about 4,300.
Follower count is still an interesting number to follow: it shows how many people decided they want to hear more from you. But it no longer decides how many people see your posts. LinkedIn's rebuilt feed starts from what each reader is interested in, and your network is now one input among many. On three of my own recent posts, 74% to 88% of impressions came from outside my network. We went through the change in Everyone's reach is down. Why so? And what still works?
Key takeaway: Your follower count is no longer the floor or the ceiling of your reach. Every post earns its own audience.
What to do with it: Keep an eye on follower growth as a sign of trust, and judge each post by how many people it reached and the conversations it started.
This one surprised us, and we don't yet know what to make of it.
When we compared each writer with themselves, posts written mainly as “I” reached about a third further than their posts written mainly as “we”.
Reach of the same writer's posts, by how they were written · June to September 2026
It held in more than four out of five accounts that wrote both ways, in every month from June to September, in Finnish and in English, and in opinion, advice and building-in-public posts alike.
What we don't know yet is why. It could be the word itself. It could be what tends to come with it: an “I” post is usually closer to the writer, their own view or experience, while a “we” post often speaks for the company. We will keep watching it.
Key takeaway: Posts written as “I” reached about a third further than the same writer's “we” posts.
What to do with it: Next time a post starts with “we”, try writing it as “I”: what did you see, decide or learn?
We test more than we report. These made no consistent difference when we compared each writer with their own posts:
Your time is better spent on what the post says than on when it goes out.
Some of September's drop was out of everyone's hands. LinkedIn changed how its feed decides what to show, and most of the accounts we work with felt it.
What stayed in the writers' hands was how often they showed up and what they chose to share. In September those two things made the biggest difference: accounts posting three times a week reached more than twice as many people over the month, and personal stories traveled further than anything else.
The accounts in this data kept going. They published more posts than in any summer month, and they added more followers than in any month this summer.
Written by
Co-Founder & CEO
