Jakub Zajicek
Founder, JZ Consulting | LinkedIn Organic & Paid for B2B Founders & Executives | 300+ clients since 2019 (incl. Gong, Canva, Paddle) | Built and sold #1 B2B podcast booking agency
Jakub Zajicek teaches B2B service providers how to generate qualified leads on LinkedIn through paid systems and strategic outreach, moving away from organic-only tactics. His most distinctive move is the vulnerable question hook paired with hyper-specific client case studies showing exact spend and timeline (e.g., '£25 spend, 2 senior execs in 24 hours'), which drives his top posts to 750+ engagement.
5.1/wk
16 posts in 30d
59
avg per post
26.5%
comments / total
0.8%
reposts / total
problem-solution
Sat · 2 AM CET
Voice & tone
Direct, slightly frustrated on behalf of the reader, then solution-focused. He uses casual language ('Tired of it all? 😫') mixed with confident claims ('I was too') to build rapport before pivoting to proof. The tone says: 'I've been where you are, I fixed it, here's exactly what worked.' No fluff, no corporate speak.
Signature phrases
- “Are you stuck under 1k impressions on every post?”
- “I was too.”
- “the results are wild! 🤯”
- “Grab it here:”
- “PS: It gives you everything you need to DIY the whole thing yourself.”
- “guarantees reach WITHOUT relying on the algorithm or going viral”
Top 3 posts, dissected
Their highest-engagement posts, broken down line by line. Steal the structure.
Are you stuck under 1k impressions on every post? Only get “pity likes” from 4 people you know? Tired of it all? 😫 I was too. ↓ So I built a system that guarantees reach WITHOUT relying on the algorithm or going viral. You can get it here, free: https://lnkd.in/gK9Au5br I spent $1000s running it for myself and my clients... and the results are wild! 🤯 ✅ One client targeted a tiny audience of just 25k people in the UK. The very next day, 2 senior executives (perfect fit) asked to learn more about their offer. Promotion spend? £25. ✅ When I launched a brand-new offer, I used the same system. Within 7 hours I had my first call booked (after spending less than $7). Before that, my posts never broke 200 impressions. ✅ Another client used it to reach US execs in the hospitality industry. Within 2 days, 3 of them signed up for his weekly seminar. Total ad spend? Under $50. (And all of them showed up.) ↓ I broke down my EXACT step-by-step process in a free guide. Grab it here: https://lnkd.in/gK9Au5br PS: It gives you everything you need to DIY the whole thing yourself.
The hook 'Are you stuck under 1k impressions on every post?' is a direct pattern match to the reader's pain. It's phrased as a question, not a statement, which forces the reader to answer internally. The follow-up 'Only get pity likes from 4 people you know?' is hyper-specific and slightly self-deprecating, which signals the creator understands the shame of low reach. The emoji 😫 gives permission to feel frustrated.
Admission (I was too) → Solution claim (I built a system) → Free offer link → 3 client case studies (each with specific spend, timeline, and outcome) → Restatement of offer + link → PS with reassurance (DIY-able). The architecture moves from problem acknowledgment to proof to CTA, with proof taking up 60% of the post.
- Checkmark bullets (✅) for case studies — visual break that makes wins scannable
- Specific currency and spend amounts (£25, $7, $50) — removes vagueness and builds trust
- Timeline specificity (next day, 7 hours, 2 days) — creates urgency and proves speed
- Parenthetical details (perfect fit, all of them showed up) — adds credibility without cluttering main claim
- Repetition of CTA (appears 3 times) — increases likelihood of click without feeling pushy
The CTA is 'Grab it here' paired with a link, repeated twice. The PS ('It gives you everything you need to DIY the whole thing yourself') removes objection that this is a bait-and-switch for a paid course. This drives comments because readers feel safe clicking and want to ask follow-up questions about implementation.
Lead with proof (specific case studies with numbers) before asking for the click; the proof does the selling, so your CTA can be simple and repeated without feeling salesy.
Are you stuck under 1k impressions on every post? Only get “pity likes” from 4 people you know? Tired of it all? 😫 I was too. ↓ So I built a system that guarantees reach WITHOUT relying on the algorithm or going viral. You can get it here, free: https://lnkd.in/gK9Au5br I s…
Identical hook to post 1: 'Are you stuck under 1k impressions on every post?' This repetition is intentional. The creator is testing what works and doubling down on the highest-performing hook pattern. The vulnerability + specificity combo is so effective that reusing it across multiple posts still generates 750 engagement.
Same as post 1: problem acknowledgment → solution claim → proof via 3 case studies → CTA + link → PS. The consistency of structure across high-performing posts suggests this is a proven template, not accidental.
- Emoji usage (🤯 for 'wild results') — breaks text monotony and signals excitement
- Contrasting before/after (posts never broke 200 impressions vs. first call in 7 hours) — shows magnitude of change
- Audience size detail (25k people in the UK) — makes the win feel achievable for readers with similar audience size
- Outcome specificity (2 senior executives, 3 signed up for seminar) — shows quality of lead, not just volume
Identical close to post 1. The PS is the key differentiator: 'It gives you everything you need to DIY the whole thing yourself.' This removes the fear that the guide is just a sales funnel. Readers comment because they want to know if it's truly DIY or if there's a paid upsell.
When you find a hook that works (750 engagement), test it again on a similar audience; the hook is the variable, not the structure, so you can reuse the template with fresh case studies.
Are you stuck under 1k impressions on every post? Only get “pity likes” from 4 people you know? Tired of it all? 😫 I was too. ↓ So I built a system that guarantees reach WITHOUT relying on the algorithm or going viral. You can get it here, free: https://lnkd.in/gK9Au5br I s…
The hook 'There are 3 ways to win on LinkedIn right now.' is a bold framework statement that promises taxonomy. It's less emotionally charged than the vulnerable question hooks, which explains why this post got only 45 engagement vs. 750. However, it still works because it signals authority and clarity. The reader expects a useful breakdown, not a sales pitch.
Framework intro (3 ways) → 3 sections, each with Pros/Cons subheadings → each section lists 4-5 bullet points. This is a listicle structure optimized for scanning. The post is cut off in the data, but the visible portion shows balanced pros and cons, which builds trust (not all pros = sales pitch).
- Pros/Cons subheadings — makes comparison easy and shows the creator isn't biased toward one method
- Plus/minus symbols (+ and -) — visual shorthand that speeds up scanning
- Specific pain points in cons (Organic reach is declining, Takes months of consistency) — shows the creator understands trade-offs
- Concrete examples in pros (Comments on other people's posts put you in front of their audience for free) — makes abstract benefit tangible
No visible CTA in the truncated text, which is typical for educational listicles. The value is in the framework itself, not a link. This post likely gets saved more than clicked, which explains the lower engagement but higher utility.
Use framework posts (3 ways, 5 steps, etc.) when you want to establish authority and get saves; use case study posts (with specific wins) when you want clicks and comments. Mix both formats to serve different reader intents.
What drives their engagement
Vulnerable question hooks that make readers feel seen (avg 531 engagement for vulnerable questions vs. 14 for bold statements). Readers comment to ask follow-up questions about implementation, timeline, or whether the system works for their specific niche. The PS that reassures readers it's DIY-able also reduces friction to commenting (they feel safe asking questions).
Repost rate is only 0.8%, which is very low. This suggests Jakub optimizes for reach and comments, not viral spread. The specific, proprietary nature of his system (his own framework, not universal advice) makes it less shareable. Readers want to keep the lead gen secret to themselves.
Framework posts (the 3 ways to win) are likely saved more than case study posts, but the data doesn't isolate saves. The listicle format with pros/cons is inherently more reference-able than a case study. However, the case study posts drive more total engagement, suggesting Jakub prioritizes comments and clicks over saves.
Content pillars
Lead Generation Systems
62%Teaches paid LinkedIn strategies and systems that bypass organic reach decay, with emphasis on ROI and speed to first conversation.
LinkedIn Strategy Frameworks
18%Breaks down the 3 main ways to win on LinkedIn (content, outreach, ads) with pros/cons for each, helping readers choose their path.
Personal Case Studies
15%Shares specific client wins with exact metrics (spend, timeline, outcome) to prove the system works at scale.
Mindset Shifts
5%Challenges reader assumptions about what's possible on LinkedIn (e.g., organic reach is dead, speed matters more than months of waiting).
Hook patterns
Vulnerable Question
Relatable pain point phrased as a question + emotional reaction emoji, e.g. 'Are you [stuck/frustrated with X]? [Specific symptom]? Tired of it all? 😫'
“Are you stuck under 1k impressions on every post? Only get 'pity likes' from 4 people you know? Tired of it all? 😫”
→ Immediate pattern match for the reader's exact frustration, followed by permission to feel frustrated, which lowers defenses and opens them to the solution.
Bold Framework Statement
Definitive claim about number of ways/paths/options to achieve goal, e.g. 'There are X ways to win on [platform] right now.'
“There are 3 ways to win on LinkedIn right now.”
→ Positions the creator as someone who has mapped the landscape; reader expects clarity and taxonomy, which feels authoritative.
Contrarian Claim
Statement that contradicts common LinkedIn advice, e.g. 'Organic reach is declining' or 'Likes and comments are not meetings.'
“Likes and comments are not meetings. You can have great engagement and zero pipeline.”
→ Stops readers who thought they were on the right track; creates cognitive dissonance that demands resolution via reading further.
Proof-First Opening
Lead with a specific, tiny metric or outcome before explaining the method, e.g. 'Within 7 hours I had my first call booked (after spending less than $7).'
“Within 7 hours I had my first call booked (after spending less than $7). Before that, my posts never broke 200 impressions.”
→ Credibility is established before the pitch; reader is already curious how this happened, so they keep reading.
Admission + Pivot
Creator admits they had the same problem, then immediately pivots to 'so I built/created/discovered X' to show agency.
“I was too. ↓ So I built a system that guarantees reach WITHOUT relying on the algorithm or going viral.”
→ Removes the 'guru distance' and signals the creator is a peer who solved it, not a distant expert selling theory.
Top-performing hooks
“Are you stuck under 1k impressions on every post?”
→ The post uses a relatable pain point to draw the reader in and then offers a solution backed by social proof (case studies). The free guide provides immediate value and a clear call to action.
“There are 3 ways to win on LinkedIn right now.”
→ The post breaks down complex LinkedIn strategies into easily digestible options with clear pros and cons, making it valuable for the target audience. The integrated approach positions the author as a
“Everyone is using AI to write content.”
→ The post identifies a common problem (forgettable AI content) and offers a structured solution (strategy, substance, style). It provides actionable advice and positions the author as an expert in AI-d
“One thing I can say with confidence: Only a TINY portion of people on LinkedIn can actually recognize when something is written by AI.”
→ The post uses a bold statement to grab attention and challenges the common perception that AI-generated content is easily detectable. It leverages social proof (Tony Robbins example) to further suppor
“The number one reason founders stop posting on LinkedIn isn't that it doesn't work. It's that it takes too long.”
→ The post identifies a common pain point for founders on LinkedIn (time commitment) and offers a solution (system building). The contrarian angle of 'fix the system, not your work ethic' is also likely
“Had a call with Ilan Asseo, co-founder of Kakiyo last week. And he said something that surprised me... 😳”
→ The post uses a compelling story to illustrate the importance of staying true to one's brand values. It resonates by highlighting a contrarian stance and offering valuable lead magnets, increasing eng
“Stop publicly shaming people for sending bad outreach.”
→ The post uses a contrarian approach by criticizing the common practice of shaming beginners. This resonates with many who have been in that position, sparking engagement and discussion around a more s
“Your best LinkedIn content is already sitting in your last 10 calls.”
→ The post offers a practical solution to a common problem (content creation block) by leveraging existing resources (call recordings) and AI. It provides a clear, actionable step, making it easy for th
“Here are 6 patterns that separate the founders who get leads on LinkedIn from the ones who don't.”
→ The numbered list format makes the advice easily digestible. The post provides actionable tips for founders struggling with lead generation on LinkedIn, and includes a clear call to action for a free
“LinkedIn gurus mostly sell to other LinkedIn gurus. Try applying their "proven viral post formulas" while selling hip fracture solutions to Swiss orthopedic surgeons.”
→ The post challenges the common advice of generic LinkedIn growth strategies, positioning the author as an expert who understands the nuances of specific B2B industries. The inclusion of a real client
What works
- Vulnerable question hook: 6 posts using 'Are you stuck under X?' pattern averaged 531 engagement, 9x higher than bold statement hooks (34 posts, avg 14 engagement). The pattern works because it's a direct pattern match to reader pain, not a generic claim.
- Specific spend + timeline + outcome in case studies: Posts 1-4 all cite exact currency (£25, $7, $50), exact timeline (next day, 7 hours, 2 days), and exact outcome (2 execs, 3 signups). This specificity is what separates 750 engagement from 45 engagement in the same creator's feed.
- Problem-solution format dominance: 62% of posts use this format (41 posts, avg 89 engagement), which is 8.9x higher than numbered lists (18%, avg 10 engagement). The format works because it mirrors how readers think: I have a problem, does this creator have the solution?
- Repetition of high-performing hooks: Posts 1-4 use nearly identical hooks and still generate 750 engagement each. This shows the creator tests what works and doubles down, rather than chasing novelty. The hook is the variable that matters most.
- Free offer with DIY reassurance: The PS 'It gives you everything you need to DIY the whole thing yourself' appears in top posts and likely reduces objection to clicking. Readers comment because they want to verify the claim before clicking.
- Checkmark bullets for case studies: The ✅ symbol makes wins visually distinct and scannable. Readers can skim the post and immediately see 3 proof points without reading full sentences.
Steal this for your own LinkedIn
- Write your next post using the vulnerable question hook: 'Are you [specific pain point]? [Specific symptom]? Tired of it all? 😫' Then follow with 'I was too' and your solution. Test this on your audience and measure engagement against your baseline.
- Add specific spend and timeline to every case study or win you mention. Instead of 'I got a client a meeting,' write 'Within 7 hours I had my first call booked (after spending less than $7).' The specificity is what makes readers believe you.
- Use the problem-solution structure for 60%+ of your posts: Open with a relatable pain point, admit you had it, then show your solution via proof (case studies, framework, or specific tactic). This mirrors how your reader's brain works.
- Repeat your best-performing hook on 3-4 consecutive posts. Don't assume it's stale just because you wrote it once. If it generated 750 engagement, test it again with fresh case studies or examples. The hook is the variable, not the structure.
- End case study posts with a reassurance statement that removes objection to clicking (e.g., 'It gives you everything you need to DIY the whole thing yourself'). This signals you're not hiding the good stuff behind a paywall, which makes readers feel safe engaging.
- Break up long-form posts with visual elements: checkmarks (✅), plus/minus symbols (+/-), or numbered sections. Readers scan before they read, so make your proof points visually distinct and skimmable.
Compare Jakub with…
vs Lea 🌈 Turner
Jakub Zajicek vs Lea Turner: Niche dominance beats follower count
vs Timi Merivirta
Jakub Zajicek vs Timi Merivirta: Paid systems vs full-funnel frameworks
vs Cem Atik
Cem Atik vs Jakub Zajicek: Authority at scale versus trust through specificity
vs Bill Gates
Bill Gates vs Jakub Zajicek: Global impact versus qualified leads
vs Mark Tweed
Jakub Zajicek vs Mark Tweed: Systems vs Stories on LinkedIn
vs Sakshi Tyagi
Jakub Zajicek vs Sakshi Tyagi: Systems vs Story on LinkedIn
Get the full Jakub Zajicek playbook
Hook templates, content calendar, posting cadence, and the exact frameworks they use - delivered to your inbox.
Posting patterns
Posts 5.1 times per week (roughly daily), with 16 posts in the last 30 days showing consistent output. This high cadence keeps the creator top-of-mind and allows for rapid testing of hooks and formats.
Saturday at 1 UTC (which is early morning in US/UK time zones, likely 8-9 PM Friday night US Eastern). This suggests readers are checking LinkedIn late Friday or early Saturday morning, possibly during commute or weekend planning.
Long-form posts (180-350 words) average 152 engagement, which is 2.5x higher than medium-length (80-180 words, avg 10 engagement). The case study posts are in the long-form range and include 3 separate examples with specific metrics, which justifies the length. Readers scroll for proof, not brevity.
Engagement by day
Content mix
avg 89 engagements per post
avg 10 engagements per post
avg 9 engagements per post
Jakub's 62% problem-solution format works because his audience is actively frustrated (low reach, no pipeline) and looking for a fix, not education. The 18% listicles (3 ways to win) serve readers who want to understand the landscape before committing to one tactic. Together, the mix satisfies both the reader who wants a quick answer (case study post) and the reader who wants to think through options (framework post). The high post frequency (5.1/week) allows him to test both formats and double down on what works.
