David H.
Helping you Build a systemised Business, managed by your team, so you can step away from the demanding jobs enabling you to focus on fun stuff whilst keeping most of your equity so you receive a high ‘retirement’ income
David H. advises mid-market business owners on exits and M&A by publishing 5.4 posts per week, with a distinctive move of embedding real deal math and founder psychology into narrative-driven case studies. His top post (450 eng) uses a rhetorical question hook paired with contrarian framing, but his highest-converting format is the medium-length story (80-180 words, avg 36 eng) that walks through a specific business transformation.
5.4/wk
70 posts in 30d
19
avg per post
30%
comments / total
3.7%
reposts / total
story
Wed · 9 PM CET
Voice & tone
David writes like a deal veteran who's seen founders make the same mistakes repeatedly. He's direct without being harsh, mixing specificity (exact valuations, percentages, checklist items) with empathy for founder psychology. His tone says: 'I've done this a hundred times, here's what actually works.' He uses short declarative sentences followed by numbered proof points, creating a rhythm that feels both authoritative and accessible. A signature move: stating what founders believe, then gently demolishing it with math.
Signature phrases
- “Most founders cling to 100% of something small because letting go feels like losing control.”
- “Owning everything isn't the goal. Building something worth selling for life changing amounts is.”
- “So please stop trying to sound smart and focus your energy on fixing businesses”
- “The reality is that the labels no longer work.”
- “A quarter of the money was worth three times more than the whole pie.”
Top 3 posts, dissected
Their highest-engagement posts, broken down line by line. Steal the structure.
Can anyone really be surprised when tensions flare? Since the days of Enoch Powell, many of the people who actually have to live with the consequences of government policy have felt ignored. In our view, social cohesion was beginning to recover during the 1990s. People got on with their lives, integrated, and shared a common sense of belonging. Yet for decades people have voted, petitioned, lobbied, written to MPs and protested peacefully about immigration and community cohesion. Instead of listening, successive governments have too often responded with labels and accusations. Even senior politicians from across the political spectrum have admitted that multiculturalism, as it has been practised, has not delivered the outcomes that were promised. Yet the answer always seems to be more of the same. The reality is that the labels no longer work. They have been used so often and so casually that they have lost their power. People are no longer prepared to be dismissed simply for raising concerns about issues that affect their families, communities and future.
The opening 'Can anyone really be surprised when tensions flare?' uses a rhetorical question that feels like shared frustration, not a sales pitch. It invites agreement before delivering the argument. The question is broad enough to apply to multiple contexts (founder frustration, policy frustration, team conflict), so it stops multiple reader types.
The post opens with a rhetorical question, then moves into historical context (Enoch Powell reference, 1990s social cohesion), then escalates through three layers: what people have tried (voting, petitioning, protesting), what government did wrong (labeling, dismissing), and the conclusion (labels no longer work). The structure is: setup, evidence of failure, reframe of reality.
- Rhetorical question that invites agreement before argument
- Historical grounding (Enoch Powell, 1990s) to establish credibility and scope
- Parallel list structure ('voted, petitioned, lobbied, written to MPs and protested') to show exhaustion of options
- Escalation through repetition ('too often,' 'always seems to be,' 'used so often and so casually')
- Shift from external blame to internal realization ('The reality is that the labels no longer work')
No explicit CTA. The post ends with a reframe of reality that invites readers to sit with the insight. The 150 comments suggest readers are debating the premise itself, not being asked to do anything. This drives conversation because the post is unresolved.
Open with a question that makes your reader feel understood before you challenge their thinking; this creates psychological safety for disagreement and discussion in the comments.
The owner of a care home wanted £5 million for their business so they could retire. The £5m gave them a retirement income of about £200k and they would be happy with that (The picture is not the same care home) We undertook a full review and told them it was worth about £1.5 …
The hook is a specific, relatable scenario with a number that creates immediate tension: 'The owner of a care home wanted £5 million for their business so they could retire. The £5m gave them a retirement income of about £200k.' The specificity (£5m, £200k) makes it feel like a real case, not a hypothetical. The tension is immediate: the founder's assumption (£5m = good retirement) is mathematically exposed as insufficient.
The post follows a classic story arc: setup (founder wants £5m), conflict (you tell them it's worth £1.5m), complication (broker confirms your valuation), turning point (you offer to buy it for £5m in 12 months if they let you improve it), rising action (the checklist of improvements), resolution (you bought 70% for £3m, a 3x return). The checklist in the middle (✅ Cleaning up financials, ✅ Reducing owner dependence, etc.) breaks up the narrative and provides tactical proof points.
- Specific opening scenario with numbers that create tension
- Emotional beat: 'They didn't love hearing that because this news shattered their retirement dreams'
- Turning point that reframes the bad news as an opportunity ('So we all agreed to take the company off the market')
- Checklist of improvements (8 items with checkmarks) that shows the work required
- Cliffhanger ending ('12 months later, we brought 70% of the care home for £3m. A 3x in...') that cuts off mid-sentence
The post ends mid-sentence with a cliffhanger, forcing readers to comment asking for the rest of the story or to engage with the math. This is a deliberate engagement tactic: the post is incomplete, so readers must interact to get closure.
Use a specific, relatable scenario with numbers that expose founder assumptions as wrong, then show the checklist of improvements that fix the problem; end with a cliffhanger that forces readers to ask for more.
If you owned a business making £300k to £1m per year and was run by your management team, would you sell your equity and live off the investment income? Or would you retain your equity and live off the dividends? Or maybe a half way house where you retained some equity and liquid…
The hook is a multi-part question that forces the reader to choose between three options: 'If you owned a business making £300k to £1m per year and was run by your management team, would you sell your equity and live off the investment income? Or would you retain your equity and live off the dividends? Or maybe a half way house...' The specificity (£300k-£1m revenue, 'run by your management team') makes it feel personally relevant. The three options create a forced choice that engages the reader's decision-making process.
The post is structured as a question with three options, followed by a qualifier ('The business is one that will thrive in the AI world and not fail ie an accountancy practice or Day care nursery'), then a closing question ('What would you do?'). There is no answer provided. The entire post is a prompt for reader input.
- Multi-part question that forces the reader to consider their own situation
- Specific revenue range (£300k-£1m) that targets a particular founder segment
- Qualifier that narrows the scenario to recession-proof businesses
- No answer provided; the post is purely a prompt
- Closing question that invites comment
The post ends with 'What would you do?' This is a direct invitation for comments. The 48 comments (highest comment rate of the top 5) show that readers are engaging with the question itself, not being sold a solution. The post is a conversation starter, not a pitch.
Ask your audience a multi-part question that forces them to choose between options relevant to their situation; provide no answer, only the prompt. This drives comments because readers want to share their choice and debate the options.
What drives their engagement
David's posts drive comments by ending with unresolved questions or cliffhangers that force readers to ask for clarification or debate the premise. Post 3 (66 eng, 48 comments) is pure question with no answer. Post 2 ends mid-sentence. Post 1 ends with a reframe that invites disagreement. Comments are driven by incompleteness, not by CTAs asking for shares.
Reposts are low (3.7% overall) because David's content is highly specific to founder/exit decisions, not broadly applicable. The posts that do get reposted (posts 2, 4) contain specific deal math or contrarian claims that feel worth sharing as proof of expertise. Reposts come from posts that make a bold, defensible claim with numbers.
Low. David optimizes for reach and comments, not saves. His posts are designed to be read once and debated in comments, not bookmarked for later reference. The medium-length story format (80-180 words) is optimized for scroll-stopping and engagement, not for being a reference guide.
Content pillars
Deal Math & Valuation Reality
35%Specific numbers showing how founder assumptions about business value are wrong, then what actually drives value (EBITDA vs cash profit, equity retention vs full sale, PE structures).
Founder Psychology & Ego Traps
25%Psychological barriers that keep founders from optimizing exits: control obsession, refusing to delegate, clinging to 100% equity, ignoring obvious improvements.
Business Transformation Playbooks
25%Step-by-step case studies showing how to increase business value before sale through operational fixes (financials cleanup, management team building, occupancy optimization, lead flow systems).
Exit Strategy Frameworks
15%Tactical choices founders face at decision points: full sale vs partial PE sale vs dividend retention, timing considerations, equity structures that maximize final payout.
Hook patterns
Rhetorical Question + Vulnerability Reveal
Open with a question that sounds like founder self-doubt, then reveal the counterintuitive answer that reframes their thinking
“If you owned a business making £300k to £1m per year and was run by your management team, would you sell your equity and live off the investment income? Or would you retain your equity and live off the dividends?”
→ Founders see themselves in the question immediately, creating cognitive engagement before you deliver the insight.
Specific Number + Founder Behavior Contradiction
[Specific valuation or outcome] + 'A founder did exactly that' + reveal the counterintuitive choice they made
“Would you sell 75% of your company to PE for £20m and work with PE to make £75m selling the rest of your equity later? A founder did exactly that after selling 75% to a PE group for £25 million.”
→ The specificity (£25m, 75%, £75m later) signals real deal experience; the question format makes it feel like a choice the reader could make.
Contrarian Credibility Claim
'I can always tell a [type of person] by [their mistake]' + explanation of why they're wrong
“I can always tell an amateur micro business buyer by their use of EBITDA when discussing micro businesses.”
→ Establishes authority through pattern recognition; readers want to avoid being the amateur, so they read to learn the distinction.
Outcome Paradox
State a counterintuitive outcome that contradicts founder assumptions, then prove it with math
“A quarter of the money was worth three times more than the whole pie.”
→ The paradox creates cognitive dissonance that demands explanation; readers must read the full post to resolve it.
Story Setup with Shattered Expectation
Founder wants X outcome, you deliver bad news that contradicts their assumption, then show the path to a better outcome
“The owner of a care home wanted £5 million for their business so they could retire. The £5m gave them a retirement income of about £200k and they would be happy with that. We undertook a full review and told them it was worth about £1.5 million. They didn't love hearing that because this news shattered their retirement dreams.”
→ Vulnerability (bad news) followed by redemption (the real solution) creates emotional investment and comment-worthy discussion.
Top-performing hooks
“Can anyone really be surprised when tensions flare?”
“The owner of a care home wanted £5 million for their business so they could retire. The £5m gave them a retirement income of about £200k and they would be happy with that”
→ The post builds credibility through a detailed transformation narrative showing specific operational improvements that drove 3x valuation growth, while the contrarian P.S. about ethical business pract
“If you owned a business making £300k to £1m per year and was run by your management team, would you sell your equity and live off the investment income? Or would you retain your equity and live off the dividends? Or maybe a half way house where you r”
“Would you sell 75% of your company to PE for £20m and work with PE to make £75m selling the rest of your equity later?”
“I can always tell an amateur micro business buyer by their use of EBITDA when discussing micro businesses.”
“Our permanent desks give you everything you need to grow your business from just £170 (+GST) a month. Where you can:”
“Selling your business? DO NOT trust a broker.......They will tell you lies such as "Your business is worth £5m based on adjusted EBITDA." when its only worth £1m. (but could be £3m........)”
→ The post challenges conventional wisdom about business brokers with specific, relatable examples that resonate with founders considering exits, while positioning the author as a knowledgeable buyer wh
“Why buying 100% equity from a retiring business owner is likely to result in a train wreck”
“If I were making £150K a year as a corporate exec and I were fed up of my career:”
→ The post uses a powerful negation framework that validates the reader's frustrations before presenting an unconventional solution, positioning the author as someone with insider knowledge of high-inco
“We are absolutely delighted to be returning to one of our favourite dates on the calendar!”
What works
- Story openings with specific numbers drive 41 avg engagement. Post 2 opens with 'The owner of a care home wanted £5 million' and hits 76 eng. The specificity (£5m, £200k income) makes the story feel real, not hypothetical.
- Questions that force a choice between 3+ options drive high comment rates. Post 3 asks 'would you sell equity, retain equity, or do a halfway house?' and generates 48 comments (73% of its 66 eng). Readers want to debate the options.
- Cliffhanger endings that cut off mid-sentence drive comments asking for the rest. Post 2 ends with 'A 3x in...' and forces readers to comment asking what happened next.
- Contrarian claims about what 'amateurs' do wrong establish authority and drive engagement. Post 5 opens with 'I can always tell an amateur micro business buyer by their use of EBITDA' and generates 49 eng. Readers want to avoid being the amateur.
- Checklists of specific improvements (8 items with checkmarks) provide tactical proof that the transformation is real. Post 2's checklist (Cleaning up financials, Reducing owner dependence, Build the management team, etc.) makes the story credible.
- Math that contradicts founder assumptions drives engagement. Post 4's claim that '25% of the scaled company was worth 3x more than 75% of the original company' is paradoxical enough to demand explanation and comment.
Steal this for your own LinkedIn
- Open your next post with a specific number + founder assumption that's wrong. Example: 'The founder thought £2m was a good exit. We told him it was worth £800k. He didn't love hearing that.' This creates immediate tension and relatability.
- End a post with a cliffhanger or unresolved question instead of a CTA. Don't ask people to 'drop a comment below.' Instead, cut your story short or ask 'What would you do?' and let the incompleteness drive engagement.
- Use a checklist of 6-8 specific improvements (with checkmarks) to prove that a transformation is real and actionable. This breaks up narrative text and provides tactical proof points that readers can steal.
- Ask a multi-part question that forces readers to choose between 3 options relevant to their situation. Don't provide the answer. Let readers debate in comments. This drives comment engagement over reach.
- Lead with a contrarian claim about what 'amateurs' or 'most founders' do wrong. This establishes authority through pattern recognition and makes readers want to avoid being the person you're describing.
- Use specific numbers (valuations, percentages, revenue ranges) instead of round numbers. £5m, £1.5m, 70%, £300k-£1m feel real. £5m, £2m, 50%, £300k-£1m feel hypothetical.
Compare David with…
Get the full David H. playbook
Hook templates, content calendar, posting cadence, and the exact frameworks they use - delivered to your inbox.
Posting patterns
David posts 5.4 times per week (70 posts in 70 days), maintaining extreme consistency. This is a daily-plus cadence that keeps him visible in followers' feeds without being spammy.
Wednesday at 20:00 UTC performs best. This is evening UK time, likely when business owners are winding down and scrolling. The consistency of posting at this time suggests a scheduled approach.
Medium-length posts (80-180 words) average 36 engagement, nearly 3x the long-form average (12 eng). This is David's sweet spot. Long-form (180-350 words) averages 12 eng, suggesting that his audience prefers punchy, story-driven posts over detailed explanations. The medium length allows for a complete story arc (setup, conflict, resolution) without losing readers to scroll fatigue.
Engagement by day
Content mix
avg 41 engagements per post
avg 24 engagements per post
avg 9 engagements per post
avg 20 engagements per post
avg 9 engagements per post
David's format mix works because his audience (mid-market founders considering exits) needs both emotional reassurance and tactical proof. The 36% long-form posts provide detailed case studies that build credibility, but the 27% medium-length posts (his highest-engagement format at 36 avg eng) are where he converts attention into comments. By mixing story-driven narratives (3% of posts, but 41 avg eng) with contrarian claims (3% of posts, 20 avg eng) and specific deal math, David creates a rhythm that feels authoritative without being preachy. The low repost rate (3.7%) reflects that his content is niche-specific, not broadly shareable, which is appropriate for an M&A advisor whose audience is a specific founder segment, not a general business audience.
