In a recent LinkedIn post, Matt Barker discusses how the framing of a business opinion can affect what readers do next. The post reports on a comparison of two similar updates he shared on consecutive days, then offers a five-step test for creators. This article covers Barker’s LinkedIn analysis; it is not written by him.
“This is pretty hilarious and it proves how you need to treat content as one big TEST.”
Similar reach, different reader actions
Barker says the two posts received comparable impressions—12,600 and 13,400—but generated notably different results beneath that headline metric. One brought 164 profile views and six saves; the other brought 48 profile views and 51 saves. The contrast, as Barker presents it, suggests that reach alone may not show whether a post is advancing its intended goal.
His broader argument is that content should be assessed against a specific outcome. A post meant to prompt a potential buyer to visit a profile may need a different structure from one designed to persuade readers to save an argument for later.
Match the format to the desired outcome
According to Barker, a story can give readers a reason to check out the author, while a compact case built around a belief, comparison and steps may be more likely to earn saves. He illustrates the story format with an account of growing an audience without seeing a sales change, then refocusing on desired clients and filling three consulting spots.
“Want a buyer to check you out? Write a story. Want a buyer to act? Write a compelling argument.”
Barker says that story-led version received 164 profile views and 15 clicks on the profile button. For the save-oriented version, he compares an audience with a large follower count to a smaller email list with replies, then recommends starting a list, growing it through LinkedIn and emailing it. That version received 51 saves and four reposts.
Measure the metric that matters
The post’s examples distinguish attention from intent: profile visits may help indicate interest in learning more about a business, while saves can signal that readers found an argument worth keeping. Those signals do not, by themselves, establish sales impact. Barker’s proposed test focuses on comparing the outcomes the creator chose in advance.
A repeatable comparison
To run the experiment, Barker advises starting with an existing opinion, writing two versions with different packaging, publishing them a day apart, and comparing profile views and saves. The final step is to retain the version that better serves the chosen objective.
“The way you package your content is VERY important, depending on what metric you want to optimise for.”
Barker’s post frames content as an ongoing test of presentation rather than a contest for impressions alone. Its practical takeaway is to define the desired reader action first, then judge each version by the metric tied to that outcome.
📝 About This Content
This article is based on insights shared by Matt Barker on LinkedIn.
📅 Originally posted on November 5, 2026 | View original post on LinkedIn →