Skip to content
    ← Podcast
    CONTENT CREATION
    Podcast 13 min read

    Why Chasing Metrics Ruins Your Content w/ Chris Do

    with Chris Do

    Chris Do argues for creating from honest intention, not using audience metrics as a measure of personal worth.

    Chris Do

    Chris Do

    Founder, The Futur™ · January 31, 2026

    The audience is not a jury

    A successful post can be a bad bargain if it becomes permission to feel worthwhile. Chris Do, the guest in this podcast conversation, describes more than a decade of online publishing, a multimillion-dollar brand, and a YouTube channel approaching three million followers. His challenge to creators comes from inside that success: the numbers cannot be allowed to decide what the work means, or what its maker is worth.

    This is not a rejection of having an audience. It is a rejection of treating every audience response as a personal verdict.

    Do opens with advice he recently gave his content team: “Content is not a scorecard.” The distinction sounds simple until the score starts moving. Impressions rise, comments arrive, followers accumulate, and the next post inherits an assignment that has little to do with the original idea: repeat the feeling.

    Content performance is not a measure of personal worth. That is the central boundary in his argument. A post can travel widely without resolving the creator's uncertainty, just as a quiet response does not establish that the creator has nothing valuable to say.

    The danger, as Do describes it, is not merely checking a dashboard. It is allowing the dashboard to regulate confidence. A strong response produces a high; a weak response produces a collapse; publishing becomes a way of negotiating with strangers over whether the day has gone well.

    His examples locate that dependence in ordinary behavior rather than an abstract debate about platforms:

    • A creator wakes up and immediately checks how a post performed.
    • Positive numbers produce an emotional high that feels bigger than the post itself.
    • A disappointing response brings anxiety or a sudden loss of confidence.
    • The next piece is shaped around recovering approval rather than expressing an idea.

    These are not presented as clinical criteria. They are warning signs in Do's account of what happens when audience feedback starts carrying the weight of self-esteem. The platform is no longer just distributing the work. Its response is being asked to stabilize the person making it.

    That emotional cost belongs beside any discussion of reach. The related conversation The Costs of Being Internet Famous names the other side of visibility, a useful counterpoint to the assumption that a larger audience settles the matter.

    Do's position has an obvious tension. He establishes his experience partly through the very numbers he urges creators not to chase. The distinction is between describing an outcome and making that outcome the governing purpose. Audience growth can explain why someone is worth hearing without becoming the reason for every sentence that person publishes.

    His account also should not be mistaken for proof that strategy never works. He says he has not organized his content around posting times, hashtags, trending sounds, or algorithms. That is an account of his practice, not a universal test of every publishing method.

    The sharper argument concerns authority. Someone must decide whether a piece was worth making. Do wants that decision to begin with the creator's intention, not end with a stranger's reaction.

    The work can reveal the thought

    Removing the scorecard leaves a difficult opening. If engagement is not the organizing principle, what gives a creator direction? Do's answer is less polished than a content strategy and more demanding than simply posting whatever comes to mind: create to discover what is actually believed.

    Articulation is a way of clarifying thought. For Do, publishing is not only the delivery of a finished conclusion. It is part of finding the conclusion. Putting an experience into language exposes what is clear, what remains confused, and which assumptions have survived without much examination.

    That changes the role of the post. Instead of serving exclusively as a product designed to win attention, it becomes an attempt to make an idea legible. Other people are invited into that process, but their presence does not require the creator to pretend the thinking was complete before it began.

    There is still a standard. The idea must be expressed honestly, and the expression must be open to correction. Do does not describe authenticity as a shield against criticism. In fact, audience questions and negative responses are among the signals he uses to reconsider his language.

    A hostile comment can be read as rejection. It can also prompt a more useful examination of what was transmitted. Was the wording careless? Did the framing obscure the intention? Did something meant to help fail to help the person receiving it?

    Those possibilities move attention away from whether the audience likes the speaker and toward whether the communication worked. They do not establish that every criticism is correct. They establish that criticism can contain information without becoming a verdict on identity.

    Do describes several reasons for making something before its performance is known:

    • Understand an idea by putting it into words.
    • Examine what is actually believed rather than what sounds convincing.
    • Process an experience that has not yet become clear.
    • Let other people encounter and respond to that thinking.

    This is a different use of feedback. Counting reactions asks how much response occurred. Reading the questions asks where understanding broke down. Both concern the audience, but only the second directly addresses the clarity of the message Do says he wants to improve.

    The distinction makes Dealing With Negative Feedback a natural companion to this argument. Here, the essential move is to separate the sting of criticism from the possibility that a sentence, example, or framing needs revision.

    There is also a limit to prediction. Do describes hearing, sometimes much later, that something he considered obvious or relatively insignificant helped another person change direction. In his account, the creator does not always know which idea will arrive at the right moment for someone else.

    That observation does not promise hidden greatness in every overlooked post. It challenges the assumption that immediate response captures every kind of value. A delayed message from one person and a visible burst of engagement are different forms of evidence.

    The practical consequence is permission to keep expressing ideas without requiring certainty about their reception. Clarity can be the immediate result. Helpfulness can emerge later. Neither requires the creator to confuse public approval with proof that the underlying thought deserves to exist.

    Honesty begins before the story

    Authenticity is easy to claim after a post succeeds. Do places the harder test earlier, before publication, when the creator still knows why the post was written. The visible content can look generous while the private intention is to collect praise.

    His example is a creator feeling low who publishes a story about a charitable act or a moment of taking the high road. Nothing in the subject automatically makes the post dishonest. The issue is whether the story is being used to solicit affirmation while concealing that need.

    Do's alternative is not emotional self-sufficiency. A person who feels lost can say so and ask for conversation. The difference is that the request becomes visible. An audience can respond to an honest expression of loneliness rather than being recruited into praising an apparently unrelated accomplishment.

    That distinction matters because it avoids a false choice between polished confidence and silence. Needing support is not the same as disguising a bid for support. The first can be stated plainly; the second makes the audience infer a purpose that the creator has declined to name.

    The same problem appears in commercial content. Do describes posts built around an idea, an emotional connection, or an expression of understanding, only to end with a request to buy a course, attend an event, or provide a vote. He acknowledges his own participation in the pattern.

    The ask changes the interpretation of everything before it. What initially felt like recognition now appears to have been preparation for a transaction. The audience is left reconsidering whether the story was shared because it mattered or because it made the request easier to accept.

    His everyday example is deliberately blunt: praise someone for being attractive and intelligent, then ask for a ride to the airport. The favor casts suspicion backward over the compliment. Its placement supplies a motive the listener did not have when the praise first arrived.

    Put the ask before the persuasion. Do recommends reversing the order. State the request first, then offer the compliment or explain the story. His concise formulation is “Sequence does matter.”

    This is not a claim that rearranging sentences automatically produces trust. The request can still be unwelcome, and the compliment can still be insincere. What changes is the audience's access to the speaker's intention before deciding how to interpret the rest.

    The examples resolve into a few direct distinctions:

    • Ask for emotional support instead of disguising the need as a success story.
    • Name the course, event, or favor before building a case around it.
    • Let the audience know a request exists before asking it to invest emotionally.

    The subject overlaps with The WORST Way to Tell Any Story, but Do's concern here is specifically ethical and relational. Order matters because it determines when the listener can understand what the speaker wants.

    Commercial intention does not have to invalidate a human connection. Concealed intention can make that connection feel instrumental. The better standard is not content without a business purpose. It is content that does not require the audience to discover the business purpose after the emotional work has already been done.

    A person is more than a lesson

    The demand for usefulness sounds generous. Every post should teach something, solve something, deliver an insight, or move someone toward an outcome. Yet Do argues that making utility compulsory can introduce another kind of performance, one that hides the person behind a continuous demonstration of competence.

    “You can post without a takeaway,” he says. The statement cuts against the pressure to package every observation as a lesson. A funny moment does not need to become a business principle. An honest experience does not require a concluding instruction to justify its appearance.

    Not every post needs to teach or convert. In Do's account, content can be an act of transparency, a way to share humor, or a means of getting an experience out of the creator's system. These purposes are not failed versions of educational content. They are different reasons to communicate.

    His comparison is friendship. Ordinary conversation does not have to finish with advice. The expectation would make even a casual exchange feel like a performance review, with every anecdote required to prove its value before the other person could enjoy it.

    The same pressure can flatten a public presence. If every story arrives with a lesson and every lesson ends with a request, the audience encounters an instructor or seller at every turn. There is little room to see how the person notices things when no demonstration is underway.

    Do is particularly concerned with the impression created by constant teaching. Craftsmanship and control can become barriers to connection. The creator appears capable, but also perpetually arranged. The audience sees the finished explanation without encountering much of the human being who made it.

    This is not an argument for careless production or artificial vulnerability. Manufacturing an unpolished moment to appear relatable would reproduce the same hidden agenda in a different visual style. The issue is whether every available moment has been forced into a predetermined function.

    The kinds of posts Do makes room for are intentionally ordinary:

    • A funny observation that does not become advice.
    • An experience shared for transparency rather than instruction.
    • An in-between moment that reveals a less controlled side of the creator.
    • A thought expressed without a call to action attached.

    The absence of a takeaway does not mean the absence of connection. Someone can recognize another person's humor, uncertainty, or way of seeing without being told what to do next. That recognition is part of the relationship Do wants content to support.

    There is an important contrast with his own publishing context. He promotes Content Lab during the conversation, asks for audience feedback, and describes commercial outcomes from his content. His argument is not that calls to action are forbidden. It is that they do not belong in every exchange by default.

    That leaves room for both teaching and presence, both offers and ordinary expression. A creator does not have to abandon expertise to become more human. The expertise simply does not need to occupy every available inch of the relationship.

    The editorial test changes accordingly. Instead of asking whether a post contains enough instruction to earn its place, the creator can examine whether it has been burdened with a lesson it never needed. Sometimes the useful edit is not another takeaway. It is removing the demand for one.

    The obvious idea has another audience

    A creator with years of experience faces another obstacle: useful knowledge can stop feeling like knowledge. The distinction between what was learned and what seems obvious begins to disappear. Material that once required effort now looks too basic to share.

    Do names this the curse of knowledge. His explanation centers on the difficulty of remembering an earlier stage of learning after spending five, ten, or twenty-five years doing something. The expert's present fluency makes the beginner's original difficulty harder to reconstruct.

    In his account, that is a reason to return to the beginner's perspective, not a reason to inflate a simple idea into something more elaborate. A useful explanation does not become worthless because the person giving it no longer struggles with the subject.

    Write with the beginner's difficulty in view. This is the guiding principle Do describes using when he starts to create. The point is to remember where the confusion lived before experience made the next move feel automatic.

    That perspective changes the standard for originality. The relevant comparison is not only whether the expert has heard the idea before. It is whether the person encountering it has the understanding needed to move forward. Familiarity for the speaker does not establish familiarity for the receiver.

    Do connects this to the delayed responses he receives from people helped by apparently modest pieces of content. Something that felt obvious at the time of publication can arrive as an important explanation for someone else. The creator's estimate of novelty does not reliably establish the audience's need.

    The promise should remain proportionate. Do does not say that sharing experience eliminates another person's pain. He describes reducing the time spent in difficulty by giving someone access to lessons already learned. The work remains theirs; the explanation can help them navigate it.

    That distinction protects educational content from an inflated claim. A creator can offer a path without pretending to remove every obstacle. Helpfulness does not require a total solution, and authority does not require certainty about every outcome that follows.

    This also clarifies the relationship between knowing an audience and expressing a personal point of view. The supplied episode Know your audience provides a related reference point. Here, Do's emphasis is on remembering a state of understanding rather than treating the audience as a target to be moved.

    The material begins with experience, but the explanation must account for someone who has not yet had it. An expert's shorthand can conceal the very connection a beginner needs explained. Returning to that earlier perspective creates a reason to make the familiar explicit.

    There is no contradiction between this kind of teaching and leaving some posts without a lesson. Do is rejecting compulsory utility, not useful work. When an explanation is the honest purpose, the beginner's perspective gives it direction. When it is not, a creator does not have to invent one.

    The larger shift is from proving expertise to making experience available. The first asks the audience to recognize the creator's accomplishment. The second considers what another person can do with the understanding being offered. Similar material, different intention.

    Set the intention before publishing

    Do's strongest warning arrives where the content problem becomes a personal one. A creator can adopt a more natural voice, stop adding unnecessary lessons, and place every commercial request upfront while still relying on publication to repair a lack of self-acceptance.

    “No amount of likes will fix insecurity.” The line is uncompromising because it separates two problems that publishing can make look interchangeable. Reaching people is a communication task. Accepting oneself cannot simply be delegated to the people reached.

    Approval cannot substitute for self-acceptance. Do warns that success does not necessarily end the chase when attention is being used to fill an emotional gap. A larger response can become another temporary reassurance rather than a resolution.

    He suggests examining whose approval the creator is seeking. In his account, strangers can become stand-ins for a parent, older sibling, mentor, or teacher whose affirmation felt unavailable. That is his proposed avenue of reflection, not evidence that every concern about engagement originates in childhood.

    The distinction matters. Frustration with a weak post does not establish unresolved trauma, and a content conversation cannot diagnose the reason someone needs reassurance. Do recommends working with a therapist when possible and being honest about the feelings involved.

    His practical advice therefore operates at two levels: examine the piece being made, and examine the emotional job it has been assigned. A clearer sentence can solve a communication problem. It cannot be expected to resolve every need that made publishing feel urgent.

    Applied to the next piece of content, his guidance becomes a small set of checks rather than a new performance formula:

    • Identify the intention. Distinguish expression, connection, teaching, and selling from an unspoken demand for praise.
    • Make the request visible. If support, attendance, or a purchase is wanted, state that purpose plainly.
    • Inspect the framing. Use audience questions to locate unclear language without treating criticism as a verdict on identity.
    • Remove forced utility. Let an observation remain an observation when a lesson or call to action adds nothing honest.
    • Remember the beginner. Explain the part that experience has made easy to overlook.

    None of those checks promises a viral result. That is precisely the point. They establish standards the creator can act on before the audience responds: clarity, transparency, relevance, and a truthful relationship between the reason for posting and the post itself.

    Do says this approach has accompanied a loyal audience, inbound leads, and lasting brand equity in his own work. Those outcomes matter, but they do not turn honesty into a disguised conversion trick. Treating authenticity purely as a better way to extract engagement would restore the same dependency under a more appealing name.

    The challenge is to let a piece succeed at its stated purpose without demanding that it settle the creator's value. A clear explanation can be worthwhile before it spreads. A direct request can be honest even when it is declined.

    Let the audience respond to the work. Stop asking it to authorize the person.

    TRANSCRIPT

    After growing our YouTube channel to almost 3 million followers, here's what I told my content team recently. If you're using social media as a scorecard, you're playing the wrong game. Let that settle in for a second. Because if you felt the pressure to post, perform, or chase some arbitrary metric, this you're gonna wanna replay 10 times over because I will break down what not to do and what to do and save you my 10 years doing it. And why should you be listening to me? I've been creating content online for over a decade, built a multi -million dollar brand, millions of followers, millions in revenue. And in all that time, I've never cared about the algorithm, never studied best posting times, never followed formulas. Why? Because it feels right. So if you've lost your way in content, I wanna help you find it again. I'm gonna cover why chasing metrics is a trap, what I focus on instead when I create, and provide you with an anchor for the new way of creating, especially if you're a creator who feels like you've lost your way. Okay, let's get right into it. First off, content is not a scorecard. Social media makes it easy to tie your worth to numbers, impressions, comments, growth. But when you start measuring every post by performance, you stop creating with intention. The reason why I create content is not to hit a certain number of likes, subscribes, follows, or even engagement or reactions. For me, creating on social media is just to learn about who I am and what my thoughts and ideas are. It's not about any other performance metric. So when you start looking at the metrics that everyone talks about and how the algorithm changes, you're missing the whole point. We want to figure out what our ideas are. And I can usually gauge that just by how the questions and sometimes the negative feedback comes. It's not about, oh my gosh, you don't like me, you don't like these ideas. It's just the... tricks that everyone talks about and how the algorithm changes, you're missing the whole point. We want to figure out what our ideas are. And I can usually gauge that just by how the questions and sometimes the negative feedback comes. It's not about, oh my gosh, you don't like me. You don't like these ideas. Just the way I interpret that is I'm not being clear or I should have been more careful with the words and the way I frame the conversation because my intention is not to make you upset. I'm trying to help. And clearly in this instance for that person, it wasn't helpful. So this allows me to process the feedback as negative as it might be to be able to better myself and to better articulate something because the whole point of communication is to make sure transmission and receiver are in alignment. If you obsess, and I know that's a really strong word because I know most people would not describe themselves as being obsessed on the numbers and the performance of a piece of content you create, you're at the whims of the highs and lows of whatever the world, the algorithm serves you. And we don't want to have our emotional regulation be exported or to be in control by someone other than us. It makes no sense. So your esteem, your sense of worth, and your confidence can ride high or can crash down below. And these are things you want to avoid. If you wake up one morning and you look at the performance of your post and you feel high, high, or conversely, if you feel like this bottomless amount of depression and anxiety, it's a sign that so much of your self -value and your self -worth is placed in the hands of strangers. So if metrics don't guide the work, what does? The answer is to create because it feels right. You don't create because it's strategic. You create because it feels like the most honest thing to do. This is where clarity lives. You gain clarity through articulation, quote by David C. Baker. So for me, I create to understand my thinking, see what I actually believe, process what I'm experiencing, and to stay in conversation with myself while bringing others along for the journey. Sorry to interrupt the episode. I want to let you know that I'm starting this community where we're going to help people just like you, experts, authors, and coaches to develop your personal brand. It's called Content Lab. So for more information on that, just check out the... I'm experiencing, and to stay in conversation with myself while bringing others along for the journey. Sorry to interrupt the episode. I want to let you know that I'm starting this community where we're going to help people just like you, experts, authors, and coaches to develop your personal brand. It's called Content Lab. So for more information on that, just check out the links in the description. Now back to our show. Let me tell you something about the power of creating content. You don't exactly know who is going to reach and how it's going to hit them. So sometimes you'll make something that feel relatively insignificant, obvious to you, but you'll hear days, weeks, months, years later that it's hit someone and it's changed their lives for the better. And this is the best feeling in the world because what you've done as an act of self -expression has actually lifted someone else, has given them a path forward, and given them tools so that they can change their lives. This is incredible. And you can't quite accurately predict what you say is going to hit. So the best thing you can do is just keep expressing yourself. So having said that, how do you know when something you create is true and authentic to yourself? This is a very difficult question to answer because only you know the truth. And it starts with your intention. Why did you write this post? So for example, if you're feeling low and you need to pick me up, you might write something to get the attention and praise of other people. You might talk about something charitable that you've done or how you took the high road. And you know in your heart, you wrote it for that reason. This is when possibly you may be out of alignment because you wrote with an agenda other than to express yourself. Now, there's a solution for this. If you have the clarity and self -awareness, what I would do is say, hey, y 'all, I'm feeling really down right now. And I'm asking for your help because I'm a little lost in the sea right now. And I would love it if we can have a conversation so that I just feel like I'm not alone in this pursuit. That would be much more genuine and honest reflection of where you're at in your emotional state versus talking about something that you know is going to hype you up. Now, people do this all the time. And you can see right through it most of the times, which is when they'll say, okay, here it is. And this is very true. And I'm guilty of this too. So let's just be real with this, okay? Let's just say you're trying to launch a course. You want to get people to attend an event that you're doing or to vote you up. Now people do this all the time and you can see right through it most of the times, which is when they'll say, okay, here it is. And this is very true. And I'm guilty of this too. So let's just be real with this, okay? Let's just say you're trying to launch a course. You want to get people to attend an event that you're doing or to vote you up. But instead of just coming out and asking for it and being super transparent about it, you don't feel good about that. So what you do is you try and write a post about an idea that just conveniently ends with the ask that you're about to have. What happens is when people watch the first part, they'll get this feeling like, yeah, I want to support you. This is amazing. Or you see me, I feel so understood right now. I feel so seen. And then you ask for something like, oh, I see why you said all those things. It's because you want me to do something. And then it starts to have that scent of being disingenuous. And this is what you want to try to avoid. For example, if you say, you know, you're really attractive, you're really smart. By the way, can you drive me to the airport? See what happens there? You negate everything that you said before because the ask is really clear. There's a simple solution for this. Load the ask up front and then give the compliment or tell the story. So if you said, you know what? I hate to do this, but can you drive me to the airport? And by the way, I know I haven't said this enough, but you're really attractive and really intelligent. So this way they kind of know already what the ask is and then you can hit them with the compliment if that's the case. The order does matter. Sequence does matter. If you've enjoyed this, let me know what you found to be valuable in the comments and I'll do more of a content just like this. Which brings me to my next point. You don't need a call to action every time you post. Not everything you publish has to teach, convert, or call someone to action. You can post without a takeaway. Yeah, I know. You can write without packaging the insight. And what I mean is, sometimes I create to be transparent. Sometimes I create to share something funny. Sometimes I create because I need to get it out of my system. You don't need to optimize everything for utility. We don't expect every conversation with a friend to end with advice. So why do we treat content that way? Not everything you create has to have a big takeaway or lesson. It's too much pressure for you to do so. Sometimes I create because I need to get it out of my system. You don't need to optimize everything for utility. We don't expect every conversation with a friend to end with advice. So why do we treat content that way? Not everything you create has to have a big takeaway or lesson. It's too much pressure for you to do so. It's more important that in between those stories with a lesson that you can just share openly without a catchphrase or a CTA. And that allows people to know there's a real human out there that I relate to. And that's more important than takeaways and lessons every single time you post. On a personal brand note, I just want to emphasize something that a lot of people miss, which is sometimes in your zeal to create content that always teaches, you create an air of craftsmanship, of control that keeps you and your audience from really connecting. People just sometimes want to see you unfiltered and unplugged. And those in -between takes are what allows them to see that side of you. Okay, Chris, so if we're not creating to teach or perform or jam somebody down our funnel, what are we actually doing? Well, you may already miss it, but I've already said it. You create to connect with people through your content. is about connection and sometimes polish gets in the way of that. So create because you want to connect. You want to share. You believe diverse perspectives makes the world better. You know someone like you is waiting for permission to speak up. So when they see you doing that, it gives them the courage to do the same. Because here's what I've learned. You never know who needed to hear it. And most of the time, neither do they until they experience it. But there's a form of cognitive bias called the curse of knowledge that we forget that there was a time in which we struggled with something. And if you're 5, 10, 25 years into doing something, you have to work really hard remembering how difficult it was for you when it was year one. So when you share something that you've learned, you're basically giving someone the express path to move past the trials and tribulations of what you had to go through. And you expedite the outcome a little bit faster for them. You're not saying I'm going to eliminate the pain, but I'm going to reduce the time in which you feel that pain. I like to use this as a guiding principle when I start to write and create content. I think about what it's like to be a beginner again. Now, what I just explained to you is what has served me throughout my... the outcome a little bit faster for them. You're not saying I'm going to eliminate the pain, but I'm going to reduce the time in which you feel that pain. I like to use this as a guiding principle when I start to write and create content. I think about what it's like to be a beginner again. Now, what I just explained to you is what has served me throughout my career and especially in the growth of my personal brand across social media. So if you're resonating with this, I do need to warn you of the one thing that'll get in the way of you being able to be successful with this kind of philosophy. Don't create from insecurity. If you're creating because you need to feel seen, liked, or affirmed by strangers, you're setting yourself up for a painful cycle. Here's what I mean. No amount of likes will fix insecurity. The internet can't validate what you haven't accepted in yourself. If you're chasing attention to fill a gap, you'll keep chasing even when you succeed. So fair warning, don't let social media become a mirror for self -worth. It will lie to you. So how do you check yourself when that pattern shows up in your life and you're noticing this about yourself, that you're feeling the highs and lows, the push and pull of the engagement and the algorithm? I want you to think about something and ask yourself this question. What is it about myself that I don't like or need to affirm by strangers? And usually what happens here is we start to recognize a pattern, which is the internet, social media following, the algorithm is a surrogate for someone else in your life. A parent usually, an older sibling, a mentor, a teacher, who at one point withheld love, respect, or affirmation from you that you can't get, but we don't have the power when we're young. And so now we're adults trapped with this unresolved childhood trauma and now we're seeking strangers to fill that void. So what I would do is start getting in touch with myself by asking, what is it that I need to know about myself? Whose approval do I need to get? Who needs to give me permission so that I can show up for myself and not have to rely on the whims of strangers and the algorithm for my own self -worth and validation? And if possible, what I would do is to start working with a therapist, have these conversations in open, honest, and transparent ways, and really be vulnerable here. myself and not have to rely on the whims of strangers and the algorithm for my own self -worth and validation. And if possible, what I would do is to start working with a therapist, have these conversations in open, honest, and transparent ways, and really be vulnerable here. Tell your truth so that you can work through this problem. I leave you with this. Ignore the rules. Focus on the feelings. For over 10 years of creating content across multiple platforms, it's strange for me to tell you this, but I've never optimized for the time of day hashtags, trending sounds, or algorithms. And yet, I built a loyal audience, strong inbound leads, and lasting brand equity. Why? Because people, believe it or not, can feel when you're being real. There's a tone of voice that you share. There's a sense that you care about them and that you're being genuinely vulnerable and not performing for an outcome. Believe it or not, people are way smarter than you think. That your body, your words, and your tonality betray the true intention behind it all. So get right with yourself and the audience will get right with you. If you've enjoyed this video, I want to remind you about Content Lab, something that I've launched, and it's designed to help coaches, content creators, and authors just like you create content that consistently cuts through the clutter.
    Download transcript

    Enjoyed this? There’s more where it came from.

    Get insights on creativity, business, and design from The Futur.

    You can unsubscribe anytime. By submitting, you agree to receive communications and to our Privacy Policy.

    “No amount of likes will fix insecurity.”

    — Chris Do

    Key Takeaways

    Details

    Topic
    CONTENT CREATION

    Share