u/manuayala

More about me:

Worked as a legal researcher and investigator before the layoff.

Had no marketing budget, so I had to learn distribution just to stay visible.

Built a content system from scratch. Over 150,000 organic impressions in 100 days, mostly from managing partners and founders reading my posts on LinkedIn.

Learned AEO to get found inside AI answer engines instead of just Google. Took a site from 0 to 300+ visitors a day in three months.

Picked up AI animation almost by accident, doing it for fun before anyone asked for it.

Learned all of this out of necessity. SEO, AEO, content systems, distribution. Not because I set out to be a marketer, I set out to get in front of the right people.

What direction is in demand right now for this skill set? What roles should I be looking at or pitching for? Is this a growth role, a content strategist role, something else?

Hi sub, a few things about my situation:

• Used to work a 9 to 5 as a legal researcher and investigator before getting laid off while transitioning.

• Launched my own online consultancy helping law firms find operational bottlenecks and implement AI.

• Enterprise sales cycles are brutally slow, got a couple of projects to work but as one offs. I am literally funding my online business by doing local tech services like SEO, websites and ads in my city to pay the bills, which also isn't as consistent and it's less margins.

• Had zero marketing budget so I was forced to learn distribution to survive. I built a content creation machinery from scratch.

• Generated over 150,000 organic impressions in 100 days and got 1000+ managing partners and founders reading my stuff consistently in LinkedIn.

• Learned AEO (Answer Engine Optimization) to figure out how to get firms visible inside ChatGPT and Perplexity instead of just Google. Got my website from 0 to over 300 visitors a day in 3 months, only led to one deal so far (tho the 300 are just coming in since last week and I had a bottleneck on my technical stuff when I created a lead magnet that was making my site without WWW redirect to Beehive, legit lost many opportunities there).

• Accidentally picked up AI animation. Pitched a founder for operations consulting, he said they were packed but needed AI video help. Since I did that for fun before I said why not, showed him some stuff based of the style he wanted and closed the gig.

• Learned all these skills (SEO, AEO, content systems) just to distribute my own brand, and I know how to get in front of the right people to build a consistent workflow.

In other words, I built a modern B2B growth skillset out of necessity, but pushing a consulting business with a 6 month sales cycle is starving me out. I need to pivot to where the cash flow is faster.

What direction is in demand right now for these skills?
Which are the type of roles I should be looking at or pitching to B2B founders? I know sales probably beats all of those skills or being properly connected, but that's clearly something I'm not getting good at speedrunning.

Should I package AEO and AI content into a productized service? Partner with agencies? Or just look for an in house growth role? Where should I aim to? Appreciate your feedback!

https://reddit.com/link/1ua9g9m/video/d9bmofzg6a8h1/player

Hi everyone,

I work with legal and i got tired of the typical corporate AI explainer videos and decided to experiment with a different format since I've actually been working more with AI animation than actual AI implementations in the last month.

So I created a short noir detective film to talk about a real problem in AI adoption: many companies think AI removes work, but it often just moves the bottleneck to review, verification, hallucinations, and risk checks.

The video is one minute long. I used GPT Image 2 for the images (legit it's at least 50% of the work) Kling for animation, ElevenLabs for voice, and a mix of other tools + manual editing. It's not perfect (you can clearly see some AI artifacts), but I wanted to test if this kind of narrative style could make technical topics more memorable.

I'm planning to do more episodes in different styles.

Would love honest feedback from the community:

- Does this kind of storytelling format work for explaining AI concepts?

- Is it useful or just too gimmicky?

- What other AI-related topics or bottlenecks would you like to see explored this way?

Thanks in advance!

Legit I had to compromise with a lot of the quality since I had only this week to work on this, so for a lot of shots I had to be ok with "good enough", I even added more inserts than I anticipated. Would love to read any feedback!

https://reddit.com/link/1ua97pa/video/phur6e324a8h1/player

Hi everyone,

I got tired of the usual corporate AI videos and decided to try something different. So I made a short noir-style detective film about what actually happens when firms implement AI.

The core idea is simple: AI didn’t remove the work. It just moved the bottleneck.

I turned a real workflow problem into a one-minute case file. It’s not perfect, you can still spot a lot of AI flaws, but it was fun to make and I want to keep doing more episodes. (I was supposed to post this on LinkedIn 4 days ago, but after too many reshoots I finally accepted "good enough" on some shots.)

I’d really appreciate honest feedback from people in legal tech or law firms. Does this format work for you? Is it useful, entertaining, too weird, or somewhere in between?

Also, if you liked it, what other AI-related topic or bottleneck would you like to see in the next case? And with what style? I left some hints in the final shot at topics, for style I'll aim towards animation since its more forgiving.

Thanks in advance for watching and commenting.

Últimamente estuve jugando demasiado a esos juegos de draft tipo 82-0 o 38-0, así que decidí armar un simulador propio pero enfocado 100% en la historia de los Mundiales.

El funcionamiento es simple: son 11 rondas. En cada una te toca una selección aleatoria de cualquier Copa del Mundo entre 1930 y 2022, y tenés que elegir a un jugador para tu XI titular.

Algunas partidas salen brutales, pero otras quedan completamente malditas. Ayer hice una simulación donde combiné a la Argentina del 86, el Brasil del 70 y la Francia de 2018… y de alguna manera inexplicable terminé el draft sin un solo lateral natural en todo el equipo. Obviamente el simulador me trituró en Octavos de final.

Lo comparto por acá principalmente porque la mejor parte de estos simuladores es debatir sobre los ratings (las medias) y las posiciones de los jugadores de cada época.

Intenté calibrar el motor de partidos con una onda "Moneyball", donde el OVR (la valoración general) no es lo único que importa para ganar los mano a mano contra los campeones históricos, sino el equilibrio táctico de las líneas (sin quemar mucho el algoritmo para los que quieran testear la lógica). También sumé un "Expert Mode" sin estadísticas visibles en pantalla para los que quieran jugar a pura intuición futbolera.

Si vieran un error grosero en los ratings o posiciones de un jugador histórico de los Mundiales en el juego, ¿cuál sería el primero que corregirían?

Built a World Cup version of the 82-0 / 38-0 draft games.

You get 11 rounds. Each round gives you a random World Cup squad from history and you pick one player.

Messi 2022? Great.

Brazil 1970? Even better.

Didn't choose a good LB when you had your chance? Good luck.

The goal is simple: build the strongest World Cup XI possible using squads from every tournament from 1930 to 2022.

Free, no signup needed:

invicto.live

Built this myself over the last few weeks using historical World Cup squads and player ratings after getting addicted to 82-0. Happy to hear feedback on ratings, positions, missing players or anything that feels off.

Hey everyone,

I’m offering AI-assisted animation production at portfolio-builder rates while I take on a limited number of new projects.

This is not just “send me a prompt and I’ll generate random clips.”

For my latest sample, the client only gave me a broad direction: stickfigure style, use any part of his podcast. I chose the segment, built the visual approach, created style variations, designed the characters, planned the story flow, created the frames, animated the piece, and handled the final production.

What I can help with:

• Podcast clip animations
• Short animated explainers
• Music video / lyric-style visuals
• Social media clips
• Simple character-based scenes
• Stylized AI-assisted animated sequences

Pricing:

• 720p Starter: $175 per finished minute
• 1080p Standard: $325 per finished minute
• 4K Premium: $450 per finished minute

These are starting estimations, it depends also on the complexity of what you need. What I do already uses sound effects but if for example you want talking heads and such, it ads complexity and voice models so we'd have to discuss the pricing there.

Shorter test projects are welcome. A 30-second test starts at $75 for 720p.

Videos longer than 15 min can have a discount price.

Payment via Payoneer, USDT is also accepted, less preferred AirTM but still an option.

What’s included:

• Visual direction
• Style exploration
• Character/look development
• Scene planning
• AI-assisted frame creation
• Animation/editing
• Final rendered video

Best fit:

This is ideal if you want something creative, stylized, and affordable, but you do not have the budget for a traditional animation studio.

Not the best fit:

Highly complex character animation, frame-perfect lip sync, heavy VFX, or Pixar-level polish. I want to be upfront about that.

Sample link

If you have a podcast, song, script, or idea you want animated, send me a message with the length, style, and goal for the video.

Hey everyone,

I’m offering AI-assisted animation production at portfolio-builder rates while I take on a limited number of new projects.

This is not just “send me a prompt and I’ll generate random clips.”

For my latest sample, the client only gave me a broad direction: stickfigure style, use any part of his podcast. I chose the segment, built the visual approach, created style variations, designed the characters, planned the story flow, created the frames, animated the piece, and handled the final production.

What I can help with:

• Podcast clip animations
• Short animated explainers
• Music video / lyric-style visuals
• Social media clips
• Simple character-based scenes
• Stylized AI-assisted animated sequences

Pricing:

• 720p Starter: $175 per finished minute
• 1080p Standard: $325 per finished minute
• 4K Premium: $450 per finished minute

These are starting estimations, it depends also on the complexity of what you need. What I do already uses sound effects but if for example you want talking heads and such, it ads complexity and voice models so we'd have to discuss the pricing there.

Shorter test projects are welcome. A 30-second test starts at $75 for 720p.

Videos longer than 15 min can have a discount price.

Payment via Payoneer, USDT is also accepted, less preferred AirTM but still an option.

What’s included:

• Visual direction
• Style exploration
• Character/look development
• Scene planning
• AI-assisted frame creation
• Animation/editing
• Final rendered video

Best fit:

This is ideal if you want something creative, stylized, and affordable, but you do not have the budget for a traditional animation studio.

Not the best fit:

Highly complex character animation, frame-perfect lip sync, heavy VFX, or Pixar-level polish. I want to be upfront about that.

Sample link

If you have a podcast, song, script, or idea you want animated, send me a message with the length, style, and goal for the video.

Hey everyone,

I’m offering AI-assisted animation production at portfolio-builder rates while I take on a limited number of new projects.

This is not just “send me a prompt and I’ll generate random clips.”

For my latest sample, the client only gave me a broad direction: stickfigure style, use any part of his podcast. I chose the segment, built the visual approach, created style variations, designed the characters, planned the story flow, created the frames, animated the piece, and handled the final production.

What I can help with:

• Podcast clip animations
• Short animated explainers
• Music video / lyric-style visuals
• Social media clips
• Simple character-based scenes
• Stylized AI-assisted animated sequences

Pricing:

• 720p Starter: $175 per finished minute
• 1080p Standard: $325 per finished minute
• 4K Premium: $450 per finished minute

These are starting estimations, it depends also on the complexity of what you need. What I do already uses sound effects but if for example you want talking heads and such, it ads complexity and voice models so we'd have to discuss the pricing there.

Shorter test projects are welcome. A 30-second test starts at $75 for 720p.

Videos longer than 15 min can have a discount price.

Payment via Payoneer, USDT is also accepted, less preferred AirTM but still an option.

What’s included:

• Visual direction
• Style exploration
• Character/look development
• Scene planning
• AI-assisted frame creation
• Animation/editing
• Final rendered video

Best fit:

This is ideal if you want something creative, stylized, and affordable, but you do not have the budget for a traditional animation studio.

Not the best fit:

Highly complex character animation, frame-perfect lip sync, heavy VFX, or Pixar-level polish. I want to be upfront about that.

Sample link

If you have a podcast, song, script, or idea you want animated, send me a message with the length, style, and goal for the video.

Hey everyone,

I’m offering AI-assisted animation production at portfolio-builder rates while I take on a limited number of new projects.

This is not just “send me a prompt and I’ll generate random clips.”

For my latest sample, the client only gave me a broad direction: stickfigure style, use any part of his podcast. I chose the segment, built the visual approach, created style variations, designed the characters, planned the story flow, created the frames, animated the piece, and handled the final production.

What I can help with:

• Podcast clip animations
• Short animated explainers
• Music video / lyric-style visuals
• Social media clips
• Simple character-based scenes
• Stylized AI-assisted animated sequences

Pricing:

• 720p Starter: $175 per finished minute
• 1080p Standard: $325 per finished minute
• 4K Premium: $450 per finished minute

These are starting estimations, it depends also on the complexity of what you need. What I do already uses sound effects but if for example you want talking heads and such, it ads complexity and voice models so we'd have to discuss the pricing there.

Shorter test projects are welcome. A 30-second test starts at $75 for 720p.

Videos longer than 15 min can have a discount price.

Payment via Payoneer, USDT is also accepted, less preferred AirTM but still an option.

What’s included:

• Visual direction
• Style exploration
• Character/look development
• Scene planning
• AI-assisted frame creation
• Animation/editing
• Final rendered video

Best fit:

This is ideal if you want something creative, stylized, and affordable, but you do not have the budget for a traditional animation studio.

Not the best fit:

Highly complex character animation, frame-perfect lip sync, heavy VFX, or Pixar-level polish. I want to be upfront about that.

Sample link

If you have a podcast, song, script, or idea you want animated, send me a message with the length, style, and goal for the video.

Hey everyone,

I’m offering AI-assisted animation production at portfolio-builder rates while I take on a limited number of new projects.

This is not just “send me a prompt and I’ll generate random clips.”

For my latest sample, the client only gave me a broad direction: stickfigure style, use any part of his podcast. I chose the segment, built the visual approach, created style variations, designed the characters, planned the story flow, created the frames, animated the piece, and handled the final production.

What I can help with:

• Podcast clip animations
• Short animated explainers
• Music video / lyric-style visuals
• Social media clips
• Simple character-based scenes
• Stylized AI-assisted animated sequences

Pricing:

• 720p Starter: $175 per finished minute
• 1080p Standard: $325 per finished minute
• 4K Premium: $450 per finished minute

These are starting estimations, it depends also on the complexity of what you need. What I do already uses sound effects but if for example you want talking heads and such, it ads complexity and voice models so we'd have to discuss the pricing there.

Shorter test projects are welcome. A 30-second test starts at $75 for 720p.

Videos longer than 15 min can have a discount price.

Payment via Payoneer, USDT is also accepted, less preferred AirTM but still an option.

What’s included:

• Visual direction
• Style exploration
• Character/look development
• Scene planning
• AI-assisted frame creation
• Animation/editing
• Final rendered video

Best fit:

This is ideal if you want something creative, stylized, and affordable, but you do not have the budget for a traditional animation studio.

Not the best fit:

Highly complex character animation, frame-perfect lip sync, heavy VFX, or Pixar-level polish. I want to be upfront about that.

Sample link

If you have a podcast, song, script, or idea you want animated, send me a message with the length, style, and goal for the video.

I used to hate LinkedIn. An not in the “lol LinkedIn cringe” way (tho yes), more in the sense that every time I opened it, it felt like a theater play for professionals.

Everyone was suddenly a thought leader, every internship became “building at the intersection of X and Y”, every 2 month course became “Harvard trained” profile, etc.

So I avoided it for a long time. Tested here and there but barely enough.

But I work in a niche B2B space, and at some point I had to accept it: if your buyers, partners, operators and weird niche experts are all there, you either learn the platform or you keep complaining from the outside.

So I started posting seriously around March. (tho I did my first tests again on feb with a piece on something I covered on my blog and had content from there)

I had a tiny account. Around 30 followers. Bad profile. No audience. No real system.

10 weeks later I’m close to 1,000 followers (922 atm, from 800 last week), and more importantly, I’ve had actual conversations with people in my market that I probably never would’ve reached cold. Most of the conversations I had were inbound btw, I'm no cold outreach degen, I suck at that stuff, I guess im trying to speedrun sales the same way im trying to speedrun Linkedin.

Not life changing numbers, but enough to learn a few things.

The biggest one:

LinkedIn does not reward “expertise” by itself.

It rewards expertise that is packaged in a way the market can instantly understand. The algo is very new friendly atm, which is great. Just the other day I commented on a woman's post who was saying that her 10k account was having on average 700 impressions and I though I was having a rough patch with 300 impressions with my account 15 times smaller at that time. 

Whatever they did to overhaul the algo this year, is clearly favoring just content that feels fresh, and by fresh I don't mean just news, tho sometimes it can be, but rather fresh takes, fresh angles. 

Also, one mistake I made was thinking depth was enough. I’d write long, researched posts with second and third order thinking, but sometimes they landed flat because the entry point was too buried.

The posts that worked had a clearer tension.

Something like:

• here’s what everyone is missing
• here’s the part of the story nobody is naming
• here’s why this trend matters beyond the obvious headline
• here’s the positive version of the thing everyone is scared of

My last post that really took off in my niche was basically about AI and legal work.

The hook was:

“Legal can name the work AI threatens.
It cannot yet name the work AI creates.”

That one worked better than I expected because it wasn’t just fear or hype. It gave people a cleaner way to think about the future. A bit more optimistic, but still grounded.
I used a Bezos line on how a farmer could see the tractor replacing him but not that we'd have dog psychologist in the future. But I added my own style here saying that he'd not see that his great grand son could be managing their social media account, because many inventions and market signals needed to happen before that role could come to be relevant.

That was interesting to me because a previous breakout post worked for the opposite reason: fear/FOMO.

That previous one started:
"Y Combinator just told founders to start law firms staffed with AI and compete with existing attorneys.

Not build tools for lawyers. Compete against them."

And I thought THIS was the formula, grab some external entity that's big enough, and give it my spin. At the time I thought: ok then its hot news plus my take on a FOMO stance, there's the formula.
Well it turns out it wasn't as linear, and it wasn't about the hot news but rather as a take that others didn't. That YC post was actually like 2 week old news but just nobody covered it with the angle I did on the post, covering second and third order thinking, giving some value.

That's why the Bezos post gave me a new angle that I like way more, and people liked it not only because of the takes but because it also gives them a tool or a framework to piggyback from, I had people saying this is the most feel good post they've read in a while on the space, how everyone can tell about the roles AI is going to replace but not to create, and this makes it a take others can use.

So I’m starting to think there are two very different B2B content motions:

1. “You’re missing the threat”
2. “You’re missing the opportunity”

Both can work, but they create different kinds of conversations.

The threat posts get reach because people are anxious. This one got me more conversations with law firm owners btw.

The opportunity posts get shared because people want a smarter, less depressing frame to repeat. This one got me more conversations with people who are legal vendors, or are building adyacent to legal. Some lawyers that are trying to build as well.

A few things I’d tell anyone trying to grow in a niche B2B category:

Don’t just post “tips.”
Post your read of the market.

Don’t try to sound like the whole industry.
Sound like one person with a specific angle. Mine is I do research like a MF, I don't look at the obvious, I check whats happening in other verticals, since legal usually lags behind, so in a way it makes it predictable. Everyone is fully behind Claude atm in legal and I was calling it waay before, not because I'm a genius or anything but because I was seeing the enterprise adoption in other categories.

Commenting under bigger accounts works, but only if you actually add something. Generic “great insight” comments are dead air. 

Visual identity matters more than people admit. If your posts look recognizable in the feed, you borrow trust before people even read you.

Your profile is part of the funnel. I used to avoid CTAs in posts because I wanted the profile to do that job. Someone reads a post, clicks, understands what you do, then decides if you’re worth following or talking to.

And honestly, reps matter more than strategy at first.

You can’t really know your angle from thinking. You learn it by posting, watching what gets ignored, watching what gets saved, watching what gets DMs, and then slowly realizing what people actually trust you for.
I thought I had one lane, and last week I unlocked another one, I hope to come back here two months time and tell you I grew to double my size and with a new formula, and I'll share it here. Anyway I'll continue to test formats, to post consistently and interact with people like a real person.

I’m still very much figuring it out, but the main thing I learned is this:

I guess how I'd like to wrap up is that B2B content works when it gives the market language for something it already feels but hasn’t named yet.

I hope this helps somebody, if you want more specifics, please let me know and I'll say. Important to note at times I took this as a part time job, legit spent hours thinking, refining content, even some comments, so be prepared to spend time if you want to do things yourself and figure out what works for you.

Oh and please focus on having a nice profile, when my viral hit went live I wasn't prepared tbh, I probably let some leads scape just by not having a clean profile with a good funnel.

Some metrics for those who like metrics:
- Last 90 days impressions 136,754
- 923 total followers as of right now
- 348 connections (about 95% of them inbound, maybe even higher)
- 344 subscribers to my newsletter
- 20ish meetings, had weeks with up to 4 calls, others with just 1. It was a mix of profiles tho, some were connectors or people building in the space.

Demographics:

Job titles:

- Founder: 11.1%

- Co-Founder: 5.3%

- Chief Executive Officer: 4.6%

- Attorney: 3.3%

- Lawyer: 3.0%

Top locations:

- London Area, United Kingdom: 5.9%

- New York City Metropolitan Area: 5.5%

- San Francisco Bay Area: 4.2%

- Washington DC-Baltimore Area: 2.5%

- Greater Delhi Area: 2.2%

Industries:

- Legal Services: 24.7%

- Law Practice: 23.3%

- Technology, Information and Internet: 8.1%

- IT Services and IT Consulting: 6.7%

- Business Consulting and Services: 5.0%

Seniority:

- Senior: 27.9%

- CXO: 13.5%

- Owner: 11.1%

- Entry: 10.9%

- Director: 10.8%

Company size:

- 1-10 employees: 26.0%

- 11-50 employees: 17.9%

- 51-200 employees: 11.0%

- 1001-5000 employees: 7.9%

- 201-500 employees: 5.8%

If you have some tip I might be missing please let me know too, I'm constantly trying to improve.

I used to hate LinkedIn. An not in the “lol LinkedIn cringe” way (tho yes), more in the sense that every time I opened it, it felt like a theater play for professionals.

Everyone was suddenly a thought leader, every internship became “building at the intersection of X and Y”, every 2 month course became “Harvard trained” profile, etc.

So I avoided it for a long time. Tested here and there but barely enough.

But I work in a niche B2B space, and at some point I had to accept it: if your buyers, partners, operators and weird niche experts are all there, you either learn the platform or you keep complaining from the outside.

So I started posting seriously around March. (tho I did my first tests again on feb with a piece on something I covered on my blog and had content from there)

I had a tiny account. Around 30 followers. Bad profile. No audience. No real system.

10 weeks later I’m close to 1,000 followers (922 atm, from 800 last week), and more importantly, I’ve had actual conversations with people in my market that I probably never would’ve reached cold. Most of the conversations I had were inbound btw, I'm no cold outreach degen, I suck at that stuff, I guess im trying to speedrun sales the same way im trying to speedrun Linkedin.

Not life changing numbers, but enough to learn a few things.

The biggest one:

LinkedIn does not reward “expertise” by itself.

It rewards expertise that is packaged in a way the market can instantly understand. The algo is very new friendly atm, which is great. Just the other day I commented on a woman's post who was saying that her 10k account was having on average 700 impressions and I though I was having a rough patch with 300 impressions with my account 15 times smaller at that time. 

Whatever they did to overhaul the algo this year, is clearly favoring just content that feels fresh, and by fresh I don't mean just news, tho sometimes it can be, but rather fresh takes, fresh angles. 

Also, one mistake I made was thinking depth was enough. I’d write long, researched posts with second and third order thinking, but sometimes they landed flat because the entry point was too buried.

The posts that worked had a clearer tension.

Something like:

• here’s what everyone is missing
• here’s the part of the story nobody is naming
• here’s why this trend matters beyond the obvious headline
• here’s the positive version of the thing everyone is scared of

My last post that really took off in my niche was basically about AI and legal work.

The hook was:

“Legal can name the work AI threatens.
It cannot yet name the work AI creates.”

That one worked better than I expected because it wasn’t just fear or hype. It gave people a cleaner way to think about the future. A bit more optimistic, but still grounded.
I used a Bezos line on how a farmer could see the tractor replacing him but not that we'd have dog psychologist in the future. But I added my own style here saying that he'd not see that his great grand son could be managing their social media account, because many inventions and market signals needed to happen before that role could come to be relevant.

That was interesting to me because a previous breakout post worked for the opposite reason: fear/FOMO.

That previous one started:
"Y Combinator just told founders to start law firms staffed with AI and compete with existing attorneys.

Not build tools for lawyers. Compete against them."

And I thought THIS was the formula, grab some external entity that's big enough, and give it my spin. At the time I thought: ok then its hot news plus my take on a FOMO stance, there's the formula.
Well it turns out it wasn't as linear, and it wasn't about the hot news but rather as a take that others didn't. That YC post was actually like 2 week old news but just nobody covered it with the angle I did on the post, covering second and third order thinking, giving some value.

That's why the Bezos post gave me a new angle that I like way more, and people liked it not only because of the takes but because it also gives them a tool or a framework to piggyback from, I had people saying this is the most feel good post they've read in a while on the space, how everyone can tell about the roles AI is going to replace but not to create, and this makes it a take others can use.

So I’m starting to think there are two very different B2B content motions:

1. “You’re missing the threat”
2. “You’re missing the opportunity”

Both can work, but they create different kinds of conversations.

The threat posts get reach because people are anxious. This one got me more conversations with law firm owners btw.

The opportunity posts get shared because people want a smarter, less depressing frame to repeat. This one got me more conversations with people who are legal vendors, or are building adyacent to legal. Some lawyers that are trying to build as well.

A few things I’d tell anyone trying to grow in a niche B2B category:

Don’t just post “tips.”
Post your read of the market.

Don’t try to sound like the whole industry.
Sound like one person with a specific angle. Mine is I do research like a MF, I don't look at the obvious, I check whats happening in other verticals, since legal usually lags behind, so in a way it makes it predictable. Everyone is fully behind Claude atm in legal and I was calling it waay before, not because I'm a genius or anything but because I was seeing the enterprise adoption in other categories.

Commenting under bigger accounts works, but only if you actually add something. Generic “great insight” comments are dead air. 

Visual identity matters more than people admit. If your posts look recognizable in the feed, you borrow trust before people even read you.

Your profile is part of the funnel. I used to avoid CTAs in posts because I wanted the profile to do that job. Someone reads a post, clicks, understands what you do, then decides if you’re worth following or talking to.

And honestly, reps matter more than strategy at first.

You can’t really know your angle from thinking. You learn it by posting, watching what gets ignored, watching what gets saved, watching what gets DMs, and then slowly realizing what people actually trust you for.
I thought I had one lane, and last week I unlocked another one, I hope to come back here two months time and tell you I grew to double my size and with a new formula, and I'll share it here. Anyway I'll continue to test formats, to post consistently and interact with people like a real person.

I’m still very much figuring it out, but the main thing I learned is this:

I guess how I'd like to wrap up is that B2B content works when it gives the market language for something it already feels but hasn’t named yet.

I hope this helps somebody, if you want more specifics, please let me know and I'll say. Important to note at times I took this as a part time job, legit spent hours thinking, refining content, even some comments, so be prepared to spend time if you want to do things yourself and figure out what works for you.

Oh and please focus on having a nice profile, when my viral hit went live I wasn't prepared tbh, I probably let some leads scape just by not having a clean profile with a good funnel.

If you have some tip I might be missing please let me know too, I'm constantly trying to improve.

This might be a bit long because i’m still thinking it through, but i’ll try to keep it tight.

i’ve been watching the Claude for Legal launch and wanted to sanity check my read here.

Everyone is understandably comparing it to Harvey, CoCounsel, Legora, Westlaw, etc. makes sense. that’s the obvious legaltech angle.

but i’m not sure the important part is “Claude is now for lawyers.”

Feels more like legal is just the latest vertical Anthropic is plugging into a bigger infrastructure strategy.

a week before the legal launch, they pushed a similar thing into finance. agents/templates/workflows for pitchbooks, audits, credit memos, financial analysis, all that kind of stuff.

Then small business. QuickBooks, PayPal, HubSpot, Canva, DocuSign, Google Workspace, Microsoft 365.

Now legal. Westlaw, CoCounsel, Harvey, DocuSign, Box, Everlaw, Microsoft 365, legal plugins, MCP connectors.

and at the same time you have Notion turning the workspace into a place where agents, data, workers and humans can operate together. Microsoft putting Copilot where work already happens. Salesforce pushing agents into the customer operating system.

So to me the pattern is less “AI company launches legal tool” and more “get the model closer to the actual workflow.”

the boring historical comparison in my head is Word.

Lawyers didn’t stay in Word because Word is beautiful. they stayed because the work lived there. drafts, comments, redlines, templates, partner edits, client versions, final_final_v7, all of it.

once the work lives somewhere, everything around the work adapts to that place.

That’s why i think people sometimes underestimate these connector/MCP moves. not because MCP-ready is magic. it’s not. but if models can call tools, pull context, trigger actions and sit inside the systems where the work already happens, then the model is only part of the story.

the real question becomes: who owns the workflow layer before the lawyer even sees the work?

For legal, that means Word, Outlook, DMS, CLM, DocuSign, intake, research, matter updates, e-discovery, billing, client systems, whatever people already live in.

and this is where i think the next vendor wave gets annoying.

A year ago everything was AI-powered. then everything was a copilot. then everything was an agent. now i think we’re going to get the same thing with Claude/MCP/connectors.

built on Claude. MCP-ready. agent-native. workflow orchestration. connects to every model. plugs into your existing tools.

Some of that will be legit. some of it will be reheated wrapper language.

the questions i’d ask are way more boring:

• what workflow does this actually improve?
• where does human review happen?
• what does the audit trail show?
• what system of record does it touch?
• what happens when it’s wrong?
• what breaks if the vendor disappears?
• does the connector actually change the workflow, or is it just a nicer entry point into the same product?

i’m not anti-vendor (maybe i am). some vendors are going to be very valuable here, especially if they own real workflow, review, implementation, auditability, or domain-specific data.

but i do think Claude-powered or MCP-ready is a bad starting point for buying anything.

better starting point is probably: what work are we trying to make easier, safer, faster, or more auditable?

then figure out if the answer is a vendor, an internal workflow, a connector, a model, or some boring mix of all of it.

am i overreading this?

are firms actually starting to think in terms of workflow ownership, or is the buying conversation still mostly “which AI tool should we get?”

btw i did a waaay longer version of this for the blue social media but waay too long for here, can share it in comments if wanted.

Been following BigLaw AI deployments pretty closely, and Freshfields seems to be taking a different route from most of the market.

On April 15, they described their Google Cloud partnership as “no longer an experiment. It is infrastructure.”

The reported numbers were pretty notable:

5,000+ lawyers on Gemini
2,800 Workspace seats
2,100 NotebookLM Enterprise daily users

Then, on April 23, they added Anthropic Claude across all 33 offices.

Multi-year deal. Reported 500% adoption growth in the first six weeks.

What I find interesting is that this does not look like a simple “Google vs Claude” story.

It looks more like Freshfields is treating the model layer as interchangeable, while trying to own the application and governance layer through Freshfields Lab, internal AI Champions, and firmwide governance.

That feels different from most of the BigLaw deployment patterns so far.

CMS, DLA Piper, Latham, A&O Shearman: Harvey-heavy.

Clifford Chance: Microsoft / Azure OpenAI.

Reed Smith: internal build through Gravity Stack.

Freshfields: multi-LLM plus owned application layer.

At the same time, the Sullivan & Cromwell hallucination issue feels like a reminder that written AI policies alone are not enough.

If 40 AI hallucinations can make it into a Chapter 15 motion at an Am Law top 10 firm, the real question probably is not “which tool did they use?”

It is: what verification layer existed between AI output and filed work?

Curious how people here see this:

1. Is the multi-LLM approach actually sustainable, or does it become expensive complexity?
2. For mid-size firms that cannot build a Freshfields Lab, what is the realistic version of “owning the application layer”?
3. If Harvey gets deeper into Microsoft 365 and Copilot environments, do Microsoft-standardized firms effectively inherit parts of the Harvey ecosystem whether they planned to or not?

Would especially love to hear from people implementing this inside firms, not just evaluating vendors.