Every programme starts the same way: a Slack message with a link and a suggested caption. A few people paste it, the feed fills with identical sentences on the same morning, and the whole thing reads as coordinated because it is. The fix is not better captions. It is a different unit of work.
Used by leaders from
None of them are that your colleagues do not care. They are all about what you are asking them to do.
Posting a paragraph you did not write, under your own name, to people who know how you talk, is genuinely uncomfortable. Most people quietly decline rather than say so.
The ask lands mid-morning with no context and competes with everything else in the channel. By the time anyone reads it, the window it was meant for has closed.
The people who did post never hear what happened, so there is no reason to do it again. Advocacy dies of silence far more often than of refusal.
Not one post shared twelve times. Twelve posts that happen to be about the same thing, each in the voice of the person whose name is on it.
The angle, the fact, the thing worth saying. One input, kept in one place, instead of a caption nobody wants to use.
Every participating employee has their own voice profile, built from what they have already posted. The engineer’s version and the salesperson’s version are genuinely different posts.
Nothing publishes under someone’s name until they have read it and said yes. That single step is the difference between a programme people tolerate and one they use.
Per person, not just programme totals. People keep posting when they can see that it did something for them, and not otherwise.
Employee advocacy tools have a habit of asking staff to install an extension or share credentials. That is where these programmes get blocked internally, and rightly.
A browser extension acting on an employee’s session, or a shared account posting on their behalf. It puts personal accounts at risk, it is impossible to audit, and it usually breaches your own policy on credential sharing.
Every employee connects their own account from LinkedIn and can disconnect it themselves the day they leave, without asking IT or comms. You keep an audit trail of who approved what. Nobody on your team ever sees a credential.
Being straight about scope: this is a publishing and voice tool, not a compliance product. It gives you an approval step and a record of who said yes, which is what most teams actually need. If you are in a regulated industry with formal archiving obligations, ask us before you buy rather than after.
The usual advocacy pricing is a per-seat licence and a call. Ours is on the page.
Comms staff, editors and approvers are never charged for. You pay for the accounts that publish, so the people running the programme do not add to the bill.
Fourteen days free, no card. Pilot it with a leadership team, see whether the posts actually sound like them, and add the rest only if it works.
Per employee account. Comms staff and approvers are free.