Roel Willemse 🟡
↳ Become Irresistible on LinkedIn | Turns People into Brands | Personal Branding Expert, Coach, Speaker & Mentor ✌🏻 | Personal Branding Community
Roel Willemse builds a personal brand by mixing sharp observations about culture, communication, and LinkedIn itself with vulnerable confessions that spark debate. His signature move is the bold statement hook paired with a conversational, self-aware voice that admits confusion or regret, which generates 475 avg engagement and a 20.7% comment rate.
3.8/wk
8 posts in 30d
225
avg per post
20.7%
comments / total
0.7%
reposts / total
problem-solution
Sat · 9 AM CET
Voice & tone
Roel writes like a friend who just noticed something weird and needs to tell you about it immediately. He's self-deprecating ("Oh, shit…"), curious ("Welk Rotterdams woord is jouw favoriet?"), and willing to contradict himself mid-post ("Maar goed, waar was ik?"). He uses Dutch colloquialisms and casual asides to feel approachable, never polished. The tone says: I'm figuring this out too, and I'm inviting you into my thinking.
Signature phrases
- “Ik ben een sucker voor dit soort inhakers.”
- “Dat is wat een sterke inhaker doet.”
- “Maar goed, waar was ik?”
- “Onpopulaire mening, maar ik moet het toch kwijt.”
- “Doe er je voordeel mee, zou ik zeggen.”
- “Ik heb spijt van mijn LinkedIn verificatiebadge.”
Top 3 posts, dissected
Their highest-engagement posts, broken down line by line. Steal the structure.
De inhaker van deze Intratuin. Ik ben een sucker voor dit soort inhakers. Veel bedrijven werken nog steeds met een inhaakkalender, en te vaak komen daar afgezaagde ideëen uit. Maar in deze Intratuin heb je me te pakken. Ben deze zelf niet tegengekomen, maar dit is zo’n inhaker waar ik tot aan de kassa van zou kunnen genieten. Ik heb ook geen idee of dit vanuit Intratuin komt, of vanuit één communicatiemedewerker in een jolige bui. Maar ik weet wel dat dit soort kleine dingen mijn dag kunnen maken. Dat is wat een sterke inhaker doet.
De inhaker van deze Intratuin. Ik ben een sucker voor dit soort inhakers. This works because it names a specific marketing term (inhaker) that most readers recognize, then immediately reveals the writer's bias. No pretense of objectivity. The second sentence is short and punchy, which makes the admission feel genuine rather than strategic.
Observation (what he saw) > Confession (why he cares) > Problem diagnosis (why most companies fail at this) > Payoff (why this one works) > Reflection (what this teaches about brand). The post moves from specific example to general principle, making it feel like a lesson earned from real experience.
- Casual Dutch phrasing (inhaker, afgezaagde ideëen) that signals insider knowledge
- Short sentences after longer ones to create rhythm and emphasis
- Parenthetical asides (Ik heb ook geen idee of dit vanuit Intratuin komt) that mimic thinking out loud
- Ending with a universal insight (Dat is wat een sterke inhaker doet) that elevates the specific example
No explicit CTA. Instead, the post ends with a principle (Dat is wat een sterke inhaker doet) that invites readers to apply it themselves and comment with their own examples. The lack of a hard ask makes the engagement feel organic.
Start with a specific, named observation that shows you have taste, then zoom out to the principle so readers can apply it to their own work.
Er schijnen dus boomer-emoji te zijn. En blijkbaar gebruik ik die! 😂 Logisch eigenlijk ook dat verschillende generaties hun eigen taal hebben. En emoji zijn een taal op zichzelf. Dus waar ik ongegeneerd een duim gebruik, kan een ander dat als kortaf of zelfs als een afwijzing …
Er schijnen dus boomer-emoji te zijn. En blijkbaar gebruik ik die! This hook works because it's surprising (emoji have generational markers?), then immediately self-implicates the writer (I'm the boomer). The emoji at the end (😂) is self-aware; he's laughing at himself, which disarms any defensiveness from readers.
Observation (boomer emoji exist) > Personal admission (I use them) > Explanation (different generations interpret emoji differently) > Consequence (unintended offense) > Joke (Oh, shit…) > Reflection (do with this what you will). The structure mirrors a conversation where someone realizes mid-thought that they've been doing something wrong.
- Parenthetical self-correction (Logisch eigenlijk ook dat) that shows thinking in real time
- Specific examples of misinterpretation (duim, knipoog) that make the abstract concrete
- Self-deprecating humor (Sorry nog voor alle onbedoelde avances) that softens the message
- Ending with a joke that circles back to the hook (Oh, shit…) and proves his point by using a boomer emoji
The post ends with a joke that proves the point. No ask for comments, but the humor and self-awareness invite readers to share their own generational emoji fails. The comment rate (292 comments) suggests readers felt safe to pile on with their own examples.
Use self-deprecating humor to make a point about audience differences; readers will comment to share their own version of the mistake.
Omdat ik merkt dat een Rotterdammert zich nog steeds onbegrepen ken voelen. Verloren zelfs. Wat voor hun normale taal is, ken voor een ander onbegrijpelijk wezen. Daarom deze herhaling van de les: Rotterdams voor Beginners. Welk Rotterdams woord is jouw favoriet?
Ik heb spijt van mijn LinkedIn verificatiebadge. This works because it's a confession that contradicts the expected narrative (badges are good, right?). The second sentence (Omdat ik nu pas weet waar ik ja tegen heb gezegd) creates a mystery: what did he agree to without reading? Readers want to know.
Confession (I regret the badge) > Mystery (I didn't read the fine print) > Reassurance (it seemed innocent) > Revelation (here's what I actually agreed to) > List of data points (17 parties, mostly US-based) > Reframe (it's marketing, not trust) > Consequence (I can't undo it). The structure moves from personal regret to systemic critique, making it feel like a public service announcement.
- Specific numbers (Zeventien partijen om precies te zijn) that add credibility and shock value
- Short, punchy sentences (Voor een schildje achter mijn naam. Een schildje dat LinkedIn verpakt als vertrouwen.) that build momentum
- Parenthetical asides (Dat is bij een IKEA-kast niet zo erg, maar in dit geval toch wel een dingetje) that use humor to soften criticism
- Capitalization and line breaks for emphasis (Paspoortscan. Selfie met biometrische check. Metadata.)
The post ends with a soft CTA (Wil je hier meer over weten? In dit artike…) that links to more information. But the real engagement driver is the confession itself; readers comment to share their own regrets or defend the badge.
Confess a mistake or regret about something your audience also uses; then reveal the hidden cost or truth. Readers will comment to debate or share their own experience.
What drives their engagement
Roel ends most posts with either a question (Welk Rotterdams woord is jouw favoriet?) or a confession that invites debate (Onpopulaire mening, maar ik moet het toch kwijt). His 20.7% comment rate is driven by posts that feel unfinished or controversial, signaling to readers that their input is welcome. The vulnerability also makes readers feel safe to disagree.
Reposts are rare (0.7% rate), suggesting Roel optimizes for reach and comments over shareability. Posts that get reposted tend to be the ones with universal insights (Dat is wat een sterke inhaker doet) or surprising data (Zeventien partijen om precies te zijn). Readers repost when they want to signal their own taste or educate their network.
Low. Roel's posts are designed for immediate engagement and conversation, not reference. Readers comment and move on rather than save for later. His content is timely (cultural observations, LinkedIn critiques) rather than evergreen, which reduces save rate but increases comment velocity.
Content pillars
LinkedIn Mechanics & Critique
28%Exposes how LinkedIn features actually work (verification badges, algorithms, fake trust signals) and why creators should think differently about them.
Cultural Observation & Language
24%Mines everyday moments (emoji generational divides, Rotterdam dialect, snackbar etiquette) to teach how communication shifts across contexts and audiences.
Personal Brand Vulnerability
22%Shares regrets, confessions, and unpopular opinions to model how admitting mistakes builds credibility faster than perfection.
Marketing & Brand Authenticity
18%Critiques hollow marketing tactics ("inhaker" calendars, visibility without contribution) and argues for substance over vanity metrics.
Audience Engagement & Questions
8%Ends posts with genuine questions that invite readers to contribute their own experience, turning the comment section into a conversation.
Hook patterns
Bold Observation + Admission of Bias
[Specific observation]. [Confession that you're drawn to it or affected by it].
“De inhaker van deze Intratuin. Ik ben een sucker voor dit soort inhakers.”
→ Signals you're not neutral; you have taste and opinions, which makes readers curious what you'll say next.
Generational or Cultural Insight
[Surprising fact about how groups differ]. [Personal admission that you didn't know or do it wrong].
“Er schijnen dus boomer-emoji te zijn. En blijkbaar gebruik ik die!”
→ Creates immediate relatability by naming a shared experience (generational difference) and self-implicating the writer.
Regret or Confession Opening
Ik heb spijt van [specific thing]. Omdat [reason that unfolds into a bigger insight].
“Ik heb spijt van mijn LinkedIn verificatiebadge. Omdat ik nu pas weet waar ik ja tegen heb gezegd.”
→ Vulnerability disarms skepticism; readers expect a story that justifies the regret, so they keep reading.
Contrarian Claim with Permission to Disagree
Onpopulaire mening, maar ik moet het toch kwijt. [Claim that challenges conventional wisdom].
“Onpopulaire mening, maar ik moet het toch kwijt. Ook als ik mensen hiermee tegen de schenen schop.”
→ Signals the post will be different; readers who disagree are more likely to comment and debate.
Empathy Problem Statement
Omdat ik merkt dat [specific group] zich [emotional state] voelen. [Reframe of why this matters].
“Omdat ik merkt dat een Rotterdammert zich nog steeds onbegrepen ken voelen. Verloren zelfs.”
→ Positions the writer as an advocate; readers in that group feel seen and are motivated to engage.
Intriguing Observation Without Immediate Payoff
[Specific detail or moment]. [Pause or reflection]. [Question that opens the mystery].
“Ik kan zelfs niet meer normaal in de snackbar zitten. Daarom heb ik ervoor gekozen om dit te delen met je.”
→ Creates curiosity gap; readers scroll to find out what the snackbar moment means.
Top-performing hooks
“De inhaker van deze Intratuin.”
→ The post taps into a shared frustration among marketers (generic inhaker calendars) and contrasts it with a genuine moment of delight, making it highly relatable and conversation-worthy. The personal,
“Er schijnen dus boomer-emoji te zijn.”
→ The post uses humor and relatability to address a common issue of miscommunication between generations, particularly regarding emoji usage. The self-deprecating tone and admission of unintentional 'ad
“Omdat ik merkt dat een Rotterdammert zich nog steeds onbegrepen ken voelen. Verloren zelfs.”
→ The post taps into strong local pride and cultural identity by validating the unique Rotterdams dialect, making locals feel seen and understood. The open-ended question at the end invites mass partici
“Ik heb spijt van mijn LinkedIn verificatiebadge.”
→ The post triggers a strong emotional response by tapping into widespread privacy anxiety and a relatable mistake many LinkedIn users have made, creating urgency and regret that drives shares. The grad
“Onpopulaire mening, maar ik moet het toch kwijt.”
→ The post brilliantly uses the very clickbait hook formula it criticizes, creating a self-aware meta-joke that rewards readers who stay till the end with a humorous punchline about snackbar toppings. T
“LinkedIn, we moeten praten.”
→ The post taps into a widely shared frustration among LinkedIn users — declining feed quality and algorithm-driven isolation — making it instantly relatable and shareable. The specific, concrete exampl
“Soms klinken dingen mooier dan ze zijn.”
→ The post subverts the typical LinkedIn success narrative by listing physical ailments instead of achievements, creating immediate emotional contrast that resonates with overworked professionals. Its r
“Sommige mensen nemen LinkedIn veel te serieus.”
→ The post uses a relatable fictional character (Berry) to humorously dramatize a universal LinkedIn frustration, building tension through repeated emotional escalation before landing a self-aware punch
“Na een like gelijk een salespitch gooien.”
→ The post uses a strong, relatable analogy to highlight a common mistake on LinkedIn. It offers a clear alternative approach focused on building genuine connections, which resonates with users seeking
“Sommige mensen zijn hoog opgeleid.”
→ De post gebruikt zelfspot en herkenbaarheid rondom een 'niet-lineaire' schoolcarrière om een breed publiek aan te spreken dat zich kan identificeren met de lange weg naar succes. De combinatie van hum
What works
- Bold statement hooks generate 475 avg engagement (12 posts). Example: De inhaker van deze Intratuin. Ik ben een sucker voor dit soort inhakers. The specificity (naming Intratuin, naming the marketing tactic) makes the observation feel earned rather than generic.
- Story format with personal confession drives 205 avg engagement (14 posts). Roel doesn't just tell stories; he admits what he didn't know or got wrong, which makes readers feel less alone in their own confusion.
- Medium-length posts (80-180 words) outperform longer ones by 2.2x (271 vs 121 avg engagement). Roel's best posts are tight enough to read in one scroll but substantial enough to contain a complete thought.
- Questions at the end of posts drive comments. Welk Rotterdams woord is jouw favoriet? generated 151 comments. The question is specific enough to have a real answer, not generic (like What do you think?).
- Self-deprecating humor paired with a serious point (Oh, shit… after explaining boomer emoji) makes critique feel safe. Readers comment to pile on with their own examples rather than defend themselves.
- Contrarian claims with permission to disagree (Onpopulaire mening, maar ik moet het toch kwijt) generate 136 avg engagement. The permission to disagree actually invites more debate, not less.
Steal this for your own LinkedIn
- Start your next post with a specific observation about your industry or audience, then immediately admit your bias or confusion about it. Example: I'm obsessed with [specific thing]. Here's why most people get it wrong.
- End with a genuine question that has a real answer, not a rhetorical one. Make it specific enough that readers feel they have something to contribute (not just Yes or No).
- Write one post per week that confesses a mistake or regret about something your audience also does. Vulnerability drives comments because readers feel safe to share their own failures.
- Use short sentences (5-8 words) after longer ones to create rhythm and emphasis. Roel does this constantly: Voor een schildje achter mijn naam. Een schildje dat LinkedIn verpakt als vertrouwen.
- Include a parenthetical aside that shows you're thinking out loud. (Logisch eigenlijk ook dat verschillende generaties hun eigen taal hebben.) This makes the post feel conversational rather than polished.
- Aim for 80-180 words per post. This is long enough for a complete thought but short enough to read without scrolling. Roel's longest posts (180-350 words) underperform by 2.2x.
Compare Roel with…
Get the full Roel Willemse 🟡 playbook
Hook templates, content calendar, posting cadence, and the exact frameworks they use - delivered to your inbox.
Posting patterns
Roel posts 3.8 times per week on average, but only 8 posts in the last 30 days, suggesting inconsistent cadence. He's not optimizing for algorithmic consistency; he posts when he has something to say.
Saturday at 8 UTC performs best. This is unusual for LinkedIn (weekday mornings typically win), suggesting his audience is either global or checks LinkedIn on weekends for leisure reading rather than work.
Medium-length posts (80-180 words) perform best at 271 avg engagement. This length allows for a hook, a story or observation, and a reflection without overwhelming readers. Longer posts (180-350 words) average only 121 engagement, suggesting his audience prefers snappy insights over deep dives.
Engagement by day
Content mix
avg 69 engagements per post
avg 205 engagements per post
avg 77 engagements per post
avg 52 engagements per post
avg 175 engagements per post
Roel's 40% problem-solution and 28% story format mix works because his audience is entrepreneurs and personal brand builders who want both tactical insight and proof that the insight works. Stories show the principle in action; problem-solution posts teach the principle directly. The mix keeps the feed from feeling preachy or repetitive. His low repost rate (0.7%) and high comment rate (20.7%) suggest readers engage to debate and share their own experience, not to broadcast his ideas to their network.
