Five Routes to Getting Your LinkedIn Posts Written

On this page

The five routes, and the four lines that separate them
What each route costs in your own hours, which is the line nobody prices
The seven options side by side, including two that are not writing services
Voice risk is the difference that never appears in a quote
What happens when you stop, which decides the real cost
Which route fits your situation
How to test one route for ninety days before committing to it

The short answer

Five routes exist: writing them yourself, a freelance writer working from your material, an interview led retainer, an AI drafting tool, and an in house hire. They differ far less on price than on how many of your own hours they consume and what remains when they end. Compare them on four lines, which are money, your hours, voice risk and continuity. Two of the five suit most readers, and the expensive ones are not automatically among them.

The five routes, and the four lines that separate them

There are five structurally different ways to get an executive's LinkedIn posts written, and every one of them is a real answer for somebody. You write them yourself. You hand your material to a freelance writer. You buy an interview led retainer, where somebody extracts the material from you on a schedule. You use an AI drafting tool. Or you hire somebody in house and give them the job alongside other work. Most published comparisons of these routes stop at price, which is the line that discriminates least.

Disclosure, because it matters here

Two of the options named on this page, Supersonify and Ra-Aha, are sister services run by the same team as this site. They appear because they fit two of the routes described, not because they are being sold to you, and each one carries the same kind of downside line as every other entry. No other company is named anywhere on this page. We cannot verify a third party's pricing or scope, and describing what we cannot check would make the whole comparison worthless.

The four lines that actually separate the routes are money, your own hours, voice risk and continuity. Money is the one everybody prices. Your hours are the one nobody prices, and they usually decide the answer. Voice risk is how far the finished sentence sits from the person who holds the opinion. Continuity is what you still own on the day the arrangement ends. A route can win on money and lose on the other three, which is how buyers end up cancelling something cheap and calling the whole category a waste.

Around 3% of members post more than once a week. Whichever route you pick, the bar for standing out is set by a very small group of people who are consistent, not by a large group who are talented.

Aggregate 2026 LinkedIn statistics reports

What each route costs in your own hours, which is the line nobody prices

Every route consumes your time, and the routes that consume the least of it tend to produce the most generic writing, because your time is where the original material lives. The table below runs each route through the same assumption, which is two posts a week, or 104 posts a year. Every figure in it is arithmetic on a stated assumption rather than a survey, and every assumption is yours to replace.

Route	Your time per post (assumed)	Your hours per year	Hours you keep versus writing it yourself
You write them yourself	75 minutes, covering the idea, the draft and the edit	130	0, this is the baseline
Freelance writer from your briefs	20 minutes of briefing and review	35	95
Interview led retainer	45 minutes fortnightly, plus 10 minutes of review per post	37	93
AI drafting tool	25 minutes of prompting, correcting and fact checking	43	87
In house writer, first year	6 minutes per post, plus an hour a week of management and 20 hours of hiring	82	48

Illustrative arithmetic at two posts a week, 104 posts a year. All per post times are stated assumptions, not measured data. Change them to your own and redo the multiplication.

Two things fall out of that table that no vendor page will tell you. The first is that the AI route costs you eight more hours a year than the freelance route, because correcting a confident wrong draft is slower than briefing a person who asks questions. The second is that the interview led retainer and the freelance route land within two hours of each other on your time, so the choice between them is not a time choice at all. It is a choice about who supplies the thinking.

Now put a value on the reclaimed hours. If you price your own hour at 150 dollars, purely to make the arithmetic visible, then the 93 hours a retainer hands back are worth 13,950 dollars a year, and any retainer costing less than that pays for itself on time alone before a single post performs. Price your hour at 75 and the same 93 hours are worth 6,975, which moves the answer. Use a rate you would genuinely pay somebody else to take this work off you, and check the fee side of the sum in what a ghostwriter actually costs.

The seven options side by side, including two that are not writing services

The block below compares the five writing routes plus two services that solve an adjacent problem, because a meaningful share of people who go looking for a writer do not have a writing problem. The order is by how many readers of this page each option genuinely fits, most common first. That ordering is not flattering to the expensive end, and it is not meant to be.

Writing them yourself on a fixed weekly system

You keep the writing and remove the decision, by fixing a slot, a format and a source of raw material rather than waiting for the mood. The system is the purchase, not the prose.

Best forAnyone publishing fewer than two posts a week whose material is fresh, who can write a clear email, and who has never actually tried a fixed slot rather than a good intention.

Costs youNo money and roughly 130 hours a year at the assumptions above, which is about three working weeks. That is the entire cost, and it is larger than most people expect when they say writing is free.

Watch outIt fails silently the first quarter you get busy, and because nobody is waiting on you the failure produces no signal until a recruiter or a buyer looks at your profile and finds four months of nothing.

A freelance writer working from your material

You supply the angle, the voice notes and the facts, and somebody else turns them into finished posts. The thinking stays with you and you are buying execution hours against a brief.

Best forPeople who already know what they want to say and run out of Thursdays, and who can record a five minute voice note without needing to be interviewed.

Costs youThe lowest paid option per post in most arrangements, plus about 35 of your hours a year. The published rate cards for this work disagree with each other wildly and none of them state scope, so treat any range you find as one seller's packaging.

Watch outThe output is capped by the quality of your brief, so a thin week of material produces thin posts at full price, and the writer has no mechanism and no mandate to tell you the angle is weak.

An interview led ghostwriting retainer

A recurring interview pulls the material out of your head, a transcript discipline stores it, and posts are built from things you said rather than things you already published. You are paying for the questions asked of you.

Best forExecutives whose material exists only in conversation, who talk far better than they write, and who will reliably show up for a 45 minute call every fortnight.

Costs youThe most expensive of the five routes in fee terms, and about 37 of your hours a year. On the arithmetic above, it becomes the cheaper option than writing everything yourself once you value your own hour above roughly 150 dollars.

Watch outIt collapses the moment you stop attending the interviews, and the collapse is invisible for about six weeks because the writer will quietly work from your archive until the archive runs dry.

Ra-Aha, positioning and profile advisory for individuals sister service

Advisory work on an individual's positioning, headline, About section and profile, so that what you are known for is settled before anybody writes at volume. It is diagnosis and repair rather than weekly production.

Best forThe founder or executive who cannot yet name the reader in a job title, or whose posts get read while the profile they lead to gives nobody a reason to act.

Costs youA defined engagement rather than an ongoing fee, and a genuine claim on your attention while it runs. Cheaper than a year of production, and useless if what you needed was production.

Watch outIt produces no posts. If your positioning is already sharp and your problem is simply that Thursday keeps arriving without a draft, this fixes nothing you were worried about and you will feel that within a fortnight.

Supersonify, LinkedIn run as a company growth channel sister service

LinkedIn handled at company and team level: the company page, paid campaigns, employee advocacy and the reporting that ties activity to pipeline. Executive posting becomes one input into a channel rather than the whole channel.

Best forA company with a marketing team, a budget and a board that wants the channel reported on, where one founder posting alone is no longer the constraint.

Costs youA programme cost plus media spend, and meaningful time from somebody internal who owns the relationship. This is the heaviest option on the page in both money and coordination.

Watch outIt is the wrong purchase for an individual. If you are one person who wants better posts, a company channel programme buys you reporting infrastructure you have no use for and does not solve the writing at all.

An AI drafting tool

A model turns your notes, transcripts or previous posts into drafts on demand. It recombines what has already been written down and cannot reach anything that exists only in your head.

Best forSomebody who already writes, wants a faster second draft and an editor for structure, and has the judgement to notice when a sentence is confidently wrong.

Costs youThe smallest money of any route by a wide margin, and about 43 of your hours a year at the assumptions above, which is more of your time than the freelance route consumes.

Watch outIt cannot produce a first hand fact, so unless you feed it something new each week it will paraphrase your own back catalogue with growing confidence, and readers notice that pattern long before they can name it.

An in house content hire

Somebody on payroll writes the executive's posts alongside other marketing work, sitting close to sales calls, product decisions and customer language.

Best forCompanies past the point where one person's posts are the whole programme, with enough adjacent work to justify a full role rather than a slice of one.

Costs youA full salary, of which the executive's LinkedIn realistically consumes a fraction, plus roughly 82 of your hours in year one once hiring and management are counted.

Watch outYou are buying a whole role to get a small part of it, and everything stops when that one person is on leave or resigns, which makes it the least resilient option on this page despite being the most expensive.

Notice what the order does. The two cheapest options sit at the top, the two sister services sit in the middle where the evidence puts them, and the most expensive route sits last with the bluntest downside attached. If you finish this page and pick the first entry, the page has done its job.

What to take away

The five routes are separated by four lines, and only one of those lines is money, which is why price comparisons between them keep producing the wrong answer.
Under the stated assumptions in this piece, an interview led retainer hands back about 93 hours a year against writing every post yourself, and that reclaimed time is the real product you are buying.
An AI drafting tool consumes more of your hours per year than a freelance writer working from your voice notes does, because correcting and fact checking a draft is slower than briefing one.
Voice risk is the difference no quote contains, and it rises with every layer of distance between the person who holds the opinion and the person typing the sentence.
The question that separates a good arrangement from an expensive one is what remains in your possession on the day it ends, which is the voice file, the idea queue and the interview archive.

Voice risk is the difference that never appears in a quote

Voice risk is the distance between the person who holds the opinion and the person who types the sentence. It is the reason two arrangements at the same price produce results that feel nothing alike, and no quote has ever contained a line for it.

Writing it yourself carries no voice risk and full judgement risk. Nobody will tell you the story you like best is the weakest one, so your blind spots are published at the same rate as your insights.
A freelance writer on your briefs carries low voice risk while your briefs are rich, and rising voice risk the moment you get busy, because a thin brief forces the writer to guess and a guess sounds like everybody else.
An interview led retainer carries the lowest voice risk of any outsourced route, because the sentences are built from things you actually said. The risk moves elsewhere: to your attendance.
An AI tool carries the highest voice risk per hour spent, since it averages toward the most common phrasing in its training and the result is fluent, competent and unattributable.
An in house writer starts with high voice risk and ends with the lowest of all, because proximity teaches them how you talk. That improvement lives in one person's head and leaves when they do.

The test for voice risk is not whether a post sounds like you to you. Authors are unreliable judges of their own voice. The test is whether a colleague who has sat in meetings with you for a year can pick your post out of three, with the name removed. Run that once a quarter and you will catch drift about two months before your audience does.

What happens when you stop, which decides the real cost

Every route ends eventually. The writer moves on, the budget gets cut, the quarter goes sideways. What you own on that day is the difference between restarting and resuming, and it is worth more than any monthly saving. Five things either stay with you or leave, and you can check all five before you sign anything.

The Standstill Test

Imagine the arrangement stops tomorrow morning. Ask what is still in your possession by the afternoon. Anything that is not is something you were renting rather than building.

The voice fileThe written record of how you talk: the words you use, the ones you refuse, sentence length, what you are willing to claim in public. If it lives in a writer's head or in their private notes, you start the next arrangement at month one instead of month three.

The idea queueThe list of angles you agreed were worth publishing, including the ones that never got written. A mature queue is six months of runway. Losing it is the single most expensive thing that can happen quietly, because nobody notices an absence of ideas until the calendar is empty.

The interview archiveThe recordings and transcripts of every extraction session. This is your raw material, not the writer's working file, and it is the only asset on this list that compounds. A year of transcripts can be mined by anybody who comes next, including you.

The publishing habitWhether posting survives without somebody chasing you. Routes that hide the calendar from you build no habit at all, which is why cancellation is usually followed by four months of silence rather than a return to writing it yourself.

The relationshipsThe comment threads, the replies, the people who message you after a post. These accrue to your account regardless of who typed the words, which is the one thing every route leaves behind, and the reason the whole exercise is worth doing at all.

Score a route out of five on that test before you compare prices. Anything scoring three or lower is a rental, and rentals should be priced as rentals. A route that scores five is buying you an asset you keep, and it can be worth materially more per month than a cheaper arrangement that leaves you with nothing but an empty calendar.

Which route fits your situation

The diagnosis is not company size, funding stage or follower count. It is how much original material you generate, how fast you decide, and whether the constraint is time, judgement or positioning. Find the row that describes your week.

If this describes your week	The route that fits	What you are actually buying
You have plenty to say and no fixed slot to say it in	Write them yourself on a system	A calendar decision, which costs nothing and is the most commonly skipped fix on this list
You know exactly what you want to say and cannot find the hours to write it	Freelance writer on your briefs	Execution hours against thinking you already did, which is why this should be the cheapest paid option you consider
The material is all in your head and none of it is written down anywhere	Interview led retainer	The questions asked of you, and a transcript archive that outlives the arrangement
You cannot name the reader in a job title, or the profile undoes the posts	Positioning and profile advisory first	A settled answer to what you are known for, before you pay anybody to repeat it 104 times
You already write well and want a faster second draft	AI drafting tool with your own material as input	Structural editing at speed, on the strict condition that you supply something new each week
Several executives, a marketing team and a board asking about pipeline	A company level channel programme	Coordination, paid support and reporting, which no individual writing arrangement provides
You post twice a year around funding news	None of the above, buy the pieces individually	Project work priced per piece, since a monthly fee against a quarterly need is a subscription to guilt

Match the route to your inputs rather than your budget. The middle column is the route, the right column is what the money or the time is genuinely buying.

Two rows there deliberately point away from paying anybody. That is not modesty, it is the arithmetic. If your constraint is a calendar slot, no amount of money buys you one, and the fee simply converts a habit problem into an invoice you resent. If you do end up paying, the structure of the payment is its own decision, worked through in paying per post or per month.

How to test one route for ninety days before committing to it

Ninety days is the shortest honest trial, because the first month measures onboarding rather than work. Run it as a defined test with numbers attached, and the decision at the end makes itself. Most buyers instead run an undefined trial, form an impression, and argue with themselves about it for a year.

Write down the baseline first

Count what you published in the previous ninety days, how many hours it took, and what came of it in replies, meetings or inbound messages. Without this number you will compare the new arrangement against a flattering memory of the old one.

Pick one route, not two

Running a freelancer and an AI tool at the same time feels efficient and destroys the result, because you will never know which one produced the good month. Serial tests are slower and are the only ones that answer anything.

Agree the angle before any drafting starts

Approve the specific argument rather than the topic. Approving a topic and then rejecting the angle is the most common way a paid draft dies, and it looks like a writing failure when it was a briefing failure.

Log every unpublished draft with a reason

Three reasons cover almost everything: the idea was never agreed, the approver was unavailable, or the subject stopped being true. All three are fixable in the arrangement rather than in the prose, and none of them are visible without a log.

Review at day 90 against the four lines

Money, your hours, voice risk and what you would keep if it stopped. Score each one against your baseline. If your hours went up and nothing else improved, the route is wrong for you regardless of how good the posts read.

One more thing worth doing before you commit. Ask whichever provider you are considering how they will hand back the voice file and the transcripts if you leave. The answer takes ten seconds and sorts a shortlist faster than any portfolio, and it sits alongside the questions that reveal a real process as the cheapest diligence available to you.

You are not choosing between five prices. You are choosing which of your own inputs you are willing to keep supplying, because every one of these routes runs on something only you have.The house position

Questions people ask next

Can I combine two of these routes rather than picking one?

Yes, and one combination works better than any single route. Use an interview led arrangement for the posts that carry an argument, and write the short reactive ones yourself the same week they happen. The failure mode is splitting the same post across two routes, which produces a draft nobody owns and an argument about voice.

How long before any of these routes shows a result?

Plan on a quarter before the pattern is readable and two quarters before inbound changes noticeably. The first month is ramp under every route, including writing it yourself, because you are building a queue and a habit at the same time. Judge month two and month three, and ignore the performance of any individual post entirely.

Is an AI tool enough on its own if my budget is zero?

It is enough to fix structure and speed, and not enough to fix substance. A model can only recombine what has been written down already, so with no new input each week it will paraphrase your own back catalogue. Feed it a transcript of a real customer conversation weekly and it becomes genuinely useful.

What is the cheapest route that still sounds like me?

Writing them yourself on a fixed system, and it is cheapest only in money. At two posts a week it costs roughly 130 hours a year, which is about three working weeks. If your hour is worth more than about 150 dollars, an outsourced route is cheaper in real terms and most people never run that sum.

Should I hire in house if I plan to post for years?

Only if there is enough adjacent work to justify a full role. An executive's LinkedIn at two posts a week consumes a fraction of somebody's week, so you are buying a whole hire to get a slice of it. The volume test is whether the same person also owns the company page, the newsletter and customer stories.

How do I stop a route from quietly degrading after a few months?

Track one number, which is posts published divided by drafts produced, and one qualitative check, which is whether a colleague can still identify your writing with the name removed. Degradation always shows in those two before it shows in engagement, usually about two months earlier.

Sources

Send one old post.

Email any post you have published, with your LinkedIn URL. A rewrite in your voice comes back free, so you can judge the craft on your own words.

Get the free rewrite →

Or write to bksarkhedi78@gmail.com

The five ways to get LinkedIn posts written, compared on the four lines that decide it