Jesse Geul
Van moordzaken naar sollicitatiegesprekken I Ex-rechercheur nu recruitment trainer, spreker en LinkedIn Top Voice❗️
Jesse Geul writes recruitment and workplace culture posts in Dutch that flip conventional wisdom on its head, using bold contrarian claims and personal stories to spark debate. His signature move is the provocative opening statement (like 'LinkedIn heeft Jutta verpest') followed by a structured argument that defends an unpopular position, which generates 2x the engagement of his other formats.
3/wk
8 posts in 30d
345
avg per post
16.3%
comments / total
0.8%
reposts / total
problem-solution
Fri · 9 AM CET
Voice & tone
Direct, slightly irreverent, and unafraid to name hypocrisy. He uses casual Dutch phrasing ('Tamelijk geniaal,' 'Bedankt LinkedIn!') and speaks as a peer, not an expert. He admits uncertainty ('Ik heb geen moeite met hoge bonussen, maar wel met de redenatie') and invites readers into genuine questions rather than lecturing. The tone feels like a sharp colleague calling out office nonsense over coffee.
Signature phrases
- “Bedankt LinkedIn!”
- “Dus vandaag draaien we de rollen om.”
- “Dat zegt natuurlijk allemaal niks over je kwaliteiten.”
- “Maar je kan in beperkingen denken en iedereen gelijk behandelen / Of je kan denken in mogelijkheden.”
- “Alsof je niet mag zeggen dat [X] en het altijd de schuld is van [Y].”
- “Dan bevind je zich in een van de realiteit losgeslagen bubbel”
Top 3 posts, dissected
Their highest-engagement posts, broken down line by line. Steal the structure.
Linkedin heeft Jutta verpest❗ Ik was fan. Maar door de 371 inhakers die ik deze week heb gezien is Jutta nooit met hetzelfde. Nu associeer ik haar met: 🔸 Transformatiecoaches die het belang van doorzetten benadrukken 🔸 Loopbaancoaches die zeggen dat je altijd je eigen pad moet volgen 🔸 Social media experts die personal branding als reden van haar succes opvoeren 🔸 Leadership coaches, executive coaches, business coaches, coaches die extraverte vrouwen van 45+ met blauwe ogen en moeite met autoriteit in hun kracht zetten coaches.. Bedankt LinkedIn!
'LinkedIn heeft Jutta verpest❗' stops scroll because it's a specific accusation (not vague), uses a real name (makes it concrete), and the emoji signals this is opinion-as-entertainment, not fact. Readers want to know who Jutta is and why she's 'ruined.'
Hook + personal admission ('Ik was fan') + problem statement (371 copycats) + bulleted list of associations (4 types of coaches) + ironic closing ('Bedankt LinkedIn!'). The structure moves from emotional to analytical to sarcastic.
- Admission of bias upfront ('Ik was fan') builds trust before the critique
- Specific number (371) makes the problem feel quantified and real, not just opinion
- Emoji bullets (🔸) break visual monotony and make each point scannable
- Escalating absurdity in the list (from 'transformatiecoaches' to 'coaches die extraverte vrouwen van 45+ met blauwe ogen...' coaches) creates humor and relatability
- Closing with sarcasm ('Bedankt LinkedIn!') invites readers to share the frustration rather than defend LinkedIn
No explicit CTA; the post ends with sarcasm and implicit agreement. Readers comment to either defend Jutta, agree with the critique, or add their own examples of LinkedIn trends they hate. The open-endedness drives the 352 comments.
Start with a specific, named target (person, brand, trend) and admit your bias before critiquing it; this disarms defensiveness and makes the opinion feel earned rather than preachy.
Een vacature speciaal voor ouders met jonge kinderen; nooit voor 09.00 uur beginnen❗ Als vader van twee jonge kinderen voelt de maandag als een oase van rust. Dat begint om 09.00 uur zodra ik het ochtendritueel heb overleefd en de kids op de opvang zijn. Laptop open. Kopje ko…
'Een vacature speciaal voor ouders met jonge kinderen; nooit voor 09.00 uur beginnen❗' works because it's a concrete policy (not abstract), immediately relatable to parents, and the emoji signals this is a positive discovery, not a complaint. The specificity of '09.00 uur' makes it real.
Hook + personal vulnerability (father's Monday ritual) + relatable problem (both parents need early starts) + real-world example (care facility solution) + counterargument section (criticism) + binary choice at end ('Ben jij team iedereen gelijk?'). The structure moves from personal to universal to philosophical.
- Sensory detail ('Laptop open. Kopje koffie.') makes the Monday feeling visceral and memorable
- Parallel structure ('Als ik echter... Als zij vroeg moet beginnen dan is het omgekeerd') shows the symmetry of the problem
- Emoji-prefixed objections (😱 😢) make criticism feel light and anticipated, not defensive
- Explicit philosophy shift ('Maar je kan in beperkingen denken... Of je kan denken in mogelijkheden') reframes the debate from fairness to innovation
- Unfinished binary question at end ('Ben jij team iedereen gelijk? …') invites readers to complete their own answer in comments
Ends with an incomplete question that forces readers to pick a side. No 'let me know in the comments'—the question itself is the CTA. This drives 100 comments because readers feel compelled to declare their position.
Use personal sensory detail to make abstract workplace problems feel lived, then reframe the debate as a choice between two philosophies rather than right vs. wrong; end with an incomplete question that requires the reader to finish the thought.
5 redenen waarom recruiters wel fantastisch zijn❗ Recruiters bashen is hard op weg om een olympische sport te worden. Laatst schreef ik een post met tips voor sollicitanten, maar binnen drie comments namen de zure verongelijkte mensen het over om hun gal te spuwen over recruit…
'5 redenen waarom recruiters wel fantastisch zijn❗' reverses the expected narrative (recruiters are usually criticized), uses a listicle number (which signals scannable value), and the emoji signals this is a hot take. Readers click because they expect to disagree or be surprised.
Hook + context (recruiters are being bashed) + personal observation (people blame recruiters unfairly) + numbered list of 5 reasons (each with emoji bullet and 1-2 sentence explanation) + implicit invitation to reconsider. The structure is simple: problem + defense + evidence.
- Admission of trend ('Recruiters bashen is hard op weg om een olympische sport te worden') validates reader experience before defending recruiters
- Specific example of the problem ('Laatst schreef ik een post... binnen drie comments namen de zure verongelijkte mensen het over') makes the critique feel earned
- Phrase 'Dus vandaag draaien we de rollen om' signals a deliberate flip, not a random opinion
- Each bullet starts with 'Recruiters [verb]' for parallel structure and rhythm
- Parenthetical asides ('Managers zeggen namelijk snel nee op basis van een cv. Recruiters zorgen dan toch vaak voor een gesprek') add nuance and show insider knowledge
- Emoji bullets (🔸) make each reason feel like a distinct argument, not a wall of text
Post is truncated in the data, but the pattern suggests it ends without a hard CTA—just the list of reasons. Readers comment to either defend their recruiter hate, agree, or add their own reasons. The 129 comments come from the debate itself.
When defending an unpopular position, lead with acknowledgment of the criticism, then flip the narrative with a numbered list; use parallel sentence structure and parenthetical asides to show you understand the counterargument and have thought through it.
What drives their engagement
Unresolved binary choices and contrarian claims that invite readers to pick a side. Posts that end with a question (especially incomplete ones like 'Ben jij team iedereen gelijk? …') generate 16.3% conversation rate because readers feel compelled to declare their position. Posts that defend unpopular groups (recruiters, managers) also spark debate because readers want to argue.
Repost rate is very low (0.8%), suggesting Jesse's audience engages through comments and likes, not amplification. This is typical for niche, opinion-driven content where readers want to debate, not broadcast. Posts with specific, local examples (like the care facility policy) are less likely to be reposted than universal principles.
Low. This creator optimizes for reach and conversation, not reference material. Posts are time-bound opinions and stories, not frameworks or checklists readers would save for later. The 16.3% conversation rate shows readers engage in real-time debate rather than bookmark for future use.
Content pillars
Recruitment Myth-Busting
33%Defends recruiters or job seekers against common criticism by reframing the narrative with specific examples and contrarian logic.
Workplace Culture & Fairness
25%Explores tensions between equality and flexibility, using real scenarios (like the 9am start time for parents) to challenge rigid thinking.
Corporate Hypocrisy Callouts
20%Exposes contradictions in how large organizations talk about talent versus how they actually behave (e.g., Ahold Delhaize bonus scandal).
Personal Stories & Vulnerability
15%Shares lived experience as a father or former detective to ground abstract HR debates in human reality.
Event & Speaking Promotion
7%Announces training sessions and speaking engagements; lowest engagement format but maintains presence.
Hook patterns
Bold Accusation with Emoji
[Person/Platform/Group] + [strong verb] + [consequence] + ❗
“LinkedIn heeft Jutta verpest❗”
→ The emoji signals opinion, not fact. Readers click to defend or agree, creating immediate polarization.
Contrarian List Opener
[Number] redenen waarom [unpopular group] + [positive claim] + ❗
“5 redenen waarom recruiters wel fantastisch zijn❗”
→ Readers expect criticism of recruiters; the reversal creates cognitive dissonance and curiosity.
Vulnerable Scenario Question
Relatable personal situation + 'Maar hoe doe je dat in hemelsnaam als...' + specific problem
“Als vader van twee jonge kinderen voelt de maandag als een oase van rust... Maar hoe doe je dat in hemelsnaam als je allebei vroeg moet beginnen?”
→ Readers see themselves in the setup and want to know the solution or debate it.
Absurd Salary Claim
[Large number] is een te laag salaris om [desired outcome] + ❗️
“8,3 miljoen is een te laag salaris om de juiste mensen aan te trekken❗️”
→ The premise is so extreme it forces readers to engage with the logic underneath.
Future-Focused Question
Is dit de toekomst van [topic]❓ + problem statement + binary choice at end
“Is dit de toekomst van solliciteren❓”
→ Frames a debate as inevitable, making readers choose a side rather than dismiss the topic.
Observation + Ironic Gratitude
Observation of trend + 'Bedankt [Platform]!' + list of unintended consequences
“Ik was fan. Maar door de 371 inhakers die ik deze week heb gezien... Bedankt LinkedIn!”
→ Sarcasm signals shared frustration; the list validates reader experience.
Top-performing hooks
“Linkedin heeft Jutta verpest❗”
→ The post uses a bold, negative statement to grab attention and then humorously criticizes the overuse of personal branding tropes associated with a specific individual. This resonates with users who a
“Een vacature speciaal voor ouders met jonge kinderen; nooit voor 09.00 uur beginnen❗”
→ The post combines relatable personal vulnerability with a thought-provoking organizational solution, then ends with a polarizing question that invites debate and perspective-sharing, naturally driving
“5 redenen waarom recruiters wel fantastisch zijn❗”
→ The post uses a contrarian approach by defending recruiters, which is likely to grab attention and spark debate. The numbered list format makes the content easily digestible, and the call to action en
“8,3 miljoen is een te laag salaris om de juiste mensen aan te trekken❗️”
→ The post uses a bold statement to grab attention and then critiques a controversial topic (executive compensation) with a relatable tone, sparking debate and engagement. The use of rhetorical question
“Is dit de toekomst van solliciteren❓”
→ The post uses a relevant and controversial topic (AI in recruitment) and poses a direct question to the audience, encouraging them to share their opinions. The examples of bias resonate with many, mak
“Salaris is het belangrijkste bij het zoeken naar een nieuwe baan❗”
→ The post uses a contrarian viewpoint to spark debate and draw attention to the importance of salary transparency. By addressing a specific opposing argument and providing a clear explanation, the auth
“Als je een waardeloos cv hebt, kan je altijd nog recruiter worden❗️”
→ The post uses a humorous and slightly offensive statement to grab attention, followed by a relatable cultural reference (Donald Duck) to create a connection with the audience. The unexpected punchline
“Zou dit de reden zijn dat veel mensen te laat komen op werk❓”
→ The post uses a simple, relatable question about being late to work, which encourages people to share their opinions and experiences. The question is open-ended and relevant to a broad audience, makin
“Dit is waarom het YoungCapital wel lukt om jong talent aan te trekken❗️”
→ The post highlights specific strategies used by a successful company to attract young talent, providing valuable insights for others in the recruitment field. The mention of an upcoming event with a l
“Vacatureteksten zijn dood toch? Oh ja, verklaar dit succes dan eens❗️”
→ The post uses a client testimonial to demonstrate the effectiveness of a specific approach to writing job descriptions, directly addressing a common pain point in recruitment. The inclusion of a quest
What works
- Contrarian claims with specific numbers: '5 redenen waarom recruiters wel fantastisch zijn' and '8,3 miljoen is een te laag salaris' average 636 and 684 engagement respectively, 2x the baseline. The formula is [number] + [unpopular claim] + [emoji].
- Bold statements with emoji punctuation: 15 posts using this hook style average 485 engagement. The emoji (❗ ❗️ ❓) signals opinion-as-entertainment and gives readers permission to disagree without feeling lectured.
- Personal vulnerability paired with universal problem: The 9am start-time post (793 engagement) opens with 'As a father of two' before pivoting to a workplace policy debate. This pattern makes abstract HR issues feel lived and relatable.
- Parallel structure and repetition: 'Managers zeggen namelijk snel nee... Recruiters zorgen dan toch vaak voor een gesprek' and 'Als ik echter... Als zij vroeg moet beginnen dan is het omgekeerd' create rhythm and make arguments memorable.
- Incomplete questions at the end: Posts ending with '…' or unfinished binary choices ('Ben jij team iedereen gelijk? …') drive higher comment rates because readers feel compelled to finish the thought. This is a low-key CTA that feels organic.
- Specific, named examples: 'LinkedIn heeft Jutta verpest,' 'Ahold Delhaize,' and 'een zorginstelling' make arguments concrete and searchable. Vague examples ('some companies') don't spark the same debate.
Steal this for your own LinkedIn
- Write your next post hook as a bold, specific claim with an emoji. Don't say 'Recruiters are underrated.' Say '5 redenen waarom recruiters wel fantastisch zijn❗' and watch comments spike.
- Open with a personal admission of bias or vulnerability ('Ik was fan,' 'Als vader van twee jonge kinderen') before pivoting to a universal problem. This disarms defensiveness and makes your opinion feel earned.
- End with an incomplete question or binary choice instead of a CTA. Replace 'Let me know your thoughts' with 'Ben jij team [A] of team [B]? …' and let readers finish the argument in comments.
- Use emoji bullets (🔸) and parallel sentence structure to make lists scannable and rhythmic. Each bullet should start with the same subject or verb for consistency.
- Name specific people, companies, or policies in your examples. 'Jutta,' 'Ahold Delhaize,' '09.00 uur' are more memorable and debate-worthy than generic references.
- Pair a tight, provocative hook (under 80 words) with a medium-to-long explanation (180-350 words). The hook stops the scroll; the body earns the engagement.
Compare Jesse with…
Get the full Jesse Geul playbook
Hook templates, content calendar, posting cadence, and the exact frameworks they use - delivered to your inbox.
Posting patterns
3 posts per week on average, with 8 posts in the last 30 days (slowing down slightly). Consistency is moderate; he's not a daily poster but maintains a predictable presence.
Friday at 8am UTC performs best. This is early morning in Western Europe (9am CET), when professionals are settling into their day and scrolling before meetings start.
Long-form (180-350 words) averages 417 engagement, outperforming medium (302) and short (241). However, micro posts (<30 words) average 449 engagement, suggesting his most viral hooks are extremely tight. The strategy appears to be: tight, provocative hook + medium-to-long explanation. Avoid filler; every sentence should earn its place.
Engagement by day
Content mix
avg 449 engagements per post
avg 334 engagements per post
avg 376 engagements per post
avg 83 engagements per post
avg 136 engagements per post
avg 262 engagements per post
Problem-solution posts (33%) dominate because they position Jesse as someone who sees workplace dysfunction and offers a reframe, not a fix. Story posts (18%) ground abstract debates in lived experience, making them feel less preachy. Numbered lists (8%) provide structure and scannability. Together, this mix creates the impression of a sharp observer who thinks differently about recruitment and culture, not a consultant selling a framework. The low repost rate and high comment rate suggest his audience comes for debate, not inspiration.
