Tim McKay
Every farm grows two crops. Only one of them can escape commodity pricing. | 30 years consolidating data in commodity industries | AgTech operations & M&A integration
Tim McKay writes micro-content (38% under 30 words) that trades volume for precision, posting 5.5x per week with bold statements and contrarian claims designed to provoke thought rather than viral engagement. His signature move is the problem-agitation-solution format paired with practical guardrails (like 'remember to not make anything up'), which converts skepticism into credibility and drives his best-performing posts to 16+ engagements.
5.5/wk
71 posts in 30d
7
avg per post
14.6%
comments / total
8.2%
reposts / total
problem-solution
Wed · 10 PM CET
Voice & tone
McKay writes like a practitioner who has seen the damage caused by shortcuts. His tone is direct, slightly skeptical, and unapologetic about calling out traps. He uses short declarative sentences ('That's a trap.' 'Accuracy isn't a bonus feature.') and admits uncertainty explicitly ('no, I don't know him'). This creates permission for readers to be honest too, which is why his posts generate comments rather than passive likes.
Signature phrases
- “That's a trap.”
- “remember to not make anything up”
- “Amateurs ask for X. Pros demand Y.”
- “It's the only metric that matters.”
- “The most dangerous thing about [X] isn't that [assumption]. It's that [reframe].”
- “ok. this is ACTUALLY helpful”
Top 3 posts, dissected
Their highest-engagement posts, broken down line by line. Steal the structure.
The top LinkedIn articles share a practical structure AI loves. Our guide shows you how to use it to get parsed, summarized, and cited by AI. https://lnkd.in/dPQb9iwy
The hook 'The top LinkedIn articles share a practical structure AI loves' works because it promises a hidden system that separates winners from the rest. The word 'loves' anthropomorphizes AI and suggests the writer has reverse-engineered something others haven't. It's specific enough to feel credible but vague enough to create curiosity.
Single-sentence hook followed by a value proposition (Our guide shows you how) and a direct link. The post is stripped to its minimum viable argument. No fluff, no story, no buildup. Just promise and proof.
- Specificity through AI angle - positions the post as practical, not theoretical
- Direct link placement - removes friction between interest and action
- Passive voice in hook - makes the structure feel discovered, not invented
The link is the entire CTA. No ask for comments, no 'thoughts?' No engagement bait. This forces the reader to choose between clicking or moving on, which explains the 331 engagement (272 likes suggest people saved or shared the link without commenting).
Strip every word that doesn't move the reader toward action. The shortest posts (under 30 words) average 15 engagement because they respect the reader's time and make the next step obvious.
Your AI workflow is a ticking time bomb. Most leaders use Claude or ChatGPT to "scale speed." That’s a trap. If you scale output without constraints, you aren't scaling productivity. You are scaling liability. The most dangerous thing about LLMs isn't that they don't know th…
Your AI workflow is a ticking time bomb' opens with a threat that feels personal (your) and urgent (ticking). It's a bold statement that forces agreement or disagreement, which is why it generates comments. The reader must either defend their current approach or admit they're at risk.
Problem statement (hook) followed by agitation (the trap of scaling without constraints) followed by solution (treat AI like a junior intern, demand integrity). The middle section uses short sentences and contrasts (Amateurs vs. Pros) to build momentum. The close circles back to the hook with a reframe: accuracy is insurance, not a bonus.
- Contrast pattern - 'Amateurs ask for X. Pros demand Y.' appears twice and creates a decision framework
- Capitalization for emphasis - 'That's a trap.' 'You are scaling liability.' - makes key points scannable
- Specific failure modes - lists what LLMs hallucinate (Case law, Citations, Data points) so the threat feels real, not abstract
- Credibility guardrail - 'remember to not make anything up' in the image prompt signals the writer practices what they preach
The post ends with 'Check the image' and a hashtag list. The image contains the actual prompt, which is the deliverable. This two-layer structure (post + image) keeps the feed clean while rewarding engaged readers with the tool.
Use the problem-agitation-solution format to move readers from passive agreement to active concern. The agitation section (the middle) is where you make the stakes personal and specific. Generic warnings don't drive comments. Concrete failure modes do.
If cereal was on LinkedIn.
I wrote a book. It's called The Second Crop, and the subtitle is the whole argument: information, not yield, will decide the future of American agriculture.' This hook works because it's a bold claim disguised as a book announcement. The subtitle is the actual argument, which means the reader gets the thesis in the hook itself. No mystery, no clickbait. Just clarity.
Announcement (I wrote a book) followed by thesis (information, not yield) followed by proof (the lender, landlord, and buyer can only see what you can verify) followed by market evidence (11x revenue for software vs. 0.92x for farming) followed by a reframe of the entire agtech cycle. The post is long (350+ words) but structured in short paragraphs and dialogue, which makes it scannable despite the length.
- Dialogue as proof - the exchange between lender and farmer makes the abstract argument concrete
- Market pricing as verdict - 'The market priced this a while ago' removes opinion and lets numbers argue
- Reframe of failure - 'What got rejected in the last agtech cycle was data sold as merchandise' turns a negative into a learning
- Series signal - 'I'll be laying the argument out on this feed through the winter' creates expectation for future posts and locks in followers
The post ends with a soft CTA: 'If you want the practice side of it, the essays are where to star...' This doesn't ask for engagement. It offers a next step for readers who want to go deeper. The ellipsis suggests the thought continues elsewhere, which is a retention tactic.
Long-form posts (350+ words) can work if they're structured like a conversation, not a lecture. Use dialogue, market data, and specific examples to break up dense arguments. End with a series signal or a next-step offer rather than a generic ask for comments.
What drives their engagement
McKay's posts that generate comments (avg 6 in problem-agitation-solution format) create a decision point for the reader. By positioning two opposing approaches (Amateurs vs. Pros, scaling speed vs. scaling liability), he forces readers to either defend their current practice or admit they need to change. Comments are where that internal debate spills out.
Reposts are rare (8.2% repost rate) because McKay optimizes for depth over reach. His posts are specific to his niche (AI risk, agriculture, information architecture) rather than universal. When reposts do happen, they're on posts with market data or structural frameworks that feel like tools others want to share.
Low savability signal. McKay's posts are designed to be read once and acted on (click the link, save the prompt, apply the framework) rather than revisited. The micro-format (38% under 30 words) and direct CTAs suggest he's optimizing for immediate action, not long-term reference.
Content pillars
AI Risk and Integrity
28%Exposes the hidden costs of scaling AI without constraints, positioning accuracy and accountability as non-negotiable business requirements.
Information Architecture and Verification
24%Teaches how data and structure determine market value, using agriculture and software pricing as proof that what can be verified commands premium multiples.
Contrarian Observations
18%Reframes common LinkedIn tropes and business assumptions through humor and inversion to make readers question their defaults.
Practical Frameworks and Prompts
18%Shares actionable templates, prompts, and structural guides that readers can copy directly into their workflows.
Credibility and Validation
12%Endorses and amplifies other creators' work while modeling intellectual honesty and admitting knowledge gaps.
Hook patterns
Problem Reframed as Liability
State a common practice as a ticking threat, then reveal the hidden cost nobody talks about
“Your AI workflow is a ticking time bomb.”
→ Shifts reader from passive interest to active concern by making inaction feel dangerous rather than neutral.
Bold Structural Claim
Declare that top performers in a category share a specific structure or pattern, then offer to show how
“The top LinkedIn articles share a practical structure AI loves.”
→ Creates FOMO by suggesting there is a hidden formula that separates winners from everyone else.
Amateurs vs. Pros Inversion
Contrast what beginners do with what experts demand, positioning the reader to choose sides
“Amateurs ask for 'creativity.' Pros demand 'integrity.'”
→ Flatters the reader's aspiration to be professional while making the correct choice feel obvious.
Casual Credibility Admission
Lead with a low-stakes personal statement that signals honesty, then validate something external
“ok. this is ACTUALLY helpful for anyone looking for a holistic self-audit”
→ Breaks the performative tone of LinkedIn by admitting the writer doesn't have all the answers, which paradoxically increases trust.
Absurdist Premise
Apply a LinkedIn trope to an unexpected category to create cognitive dissonance
“If cereal was on LinkedIn.”
→ Low engagement on this format (3 avg) suggests it's experimental, but it signals personality and breaks algorithmic monotony.
Market Verdict Statement
Use pricing or valuation data as proof that the market has already decided what matters
“The market priced this a while ago. It pays 11x revenue for software and 0.92x for farming.”
→ Removes opinion from the argument by letting numbers do the persuasion work.
Top-performing hooks
“The top LinkedIn articles share a practical structure AI loves. Our guide shows you how to use it to get parsed, summarized, and cited by AI. https://lnkd.in/dPQb9iwy”
“Your AI workflow is a ticking time bomb.”
→ The post establishes authority by reframing a common AI use case (speed/scaling) as a liability trap, then positions the author as a risk-aware expert with a practical solution, appealing to leaders'
“If cereal was on LinkedIn.”
→ The post uses absurdist humor and meta-commentary to create relatability among LinkedIn users who recognize the platform's corporate tone, sparking conversation through comedic recognition rather than
“I wrote a book. It's called The Second Crop, and the subtitle is the whole argument: information, not yield, will decide the future of American agriculture.”
→ The post establishes authority through a contrarian thesis backed by market data and real-world scenarios, positioning the author as a thought leader who understands the disconnect between farming ope
“ok. this is ACTUALLY helpful for anyone looking for a holistic sel-audit of how and what to do to build their #LinkedIn presence.”
→ The post uses authentic vulnerability and relatable self-doubt ('no, I don't know him') to build trust while validating the referenced resource, which encourages others to engage by sharing their own
“2,862 public filings are due tomorrow - May 10th.”
→ The post uses specific, timely data points (filing deadlines and company count) to establish urgency and credibility, then positions the service as a solution to a real pain point, with a low-friction
“The view from my office this morning”
“LinkedIn is like a mirror.”
→ The post uses a relatable mirror metaphor to reframe algorithm interaction from reactive (blocking content) to proactive (analyzing patterns), positioning the author as someone who understands platfor
“With 2 hours of my time, I changed the long-term direction of my client.”
→ The post establishes authority through a specific, relatable villain narrative (Josh) that resonates with enterprise leaders who've experienced similar gatekeeping, while positioning the author as a p
“So very true, Russell.”
→ The post uses a relatable, quotable format that challenges conventional thinking about success by emphasizing relationships over scale. Its brevity and motivational tone encourage reflection and agree
What works
- Micro-format dominance: 38% of posts are under 30 words and average 15 engagement, 5x the overall average. McKay treats the feed like a headline service, not a blog. Each post is a single idea with a link or image, not a paragraph.
- Problem-agitation-solution format: 4% of posts use this structure but average 6 engagement (86% above the 7-post average). The format works because it moves readers from passive agreement to active concern by making the stakes personal and specific.
- Bold statement hooks: 16 posts use this pattern and average 4 engagement. Declarative sentences like 'Your AI workflow is a ticking time bomb' and 'Accuracy isn't a bonus feature' force readers to either agree or defend themselves, which drives comments.
- Contrarian claims paired with market data: Posts that use pricing or valuation as proof (like the 11x revenue for software vs. 0.92x for farming) feel objective rather than opinionated. This removes the need for readers to debate the premise and lets them focus on the implication.
- Credibility guardrails: Phrases like 'remember to not make anything up' and 'no, I don't know him' signal intellectual honesty. These admissions of uncertainty paradoxically increase trust and make readers more likely to engage with the rest of the post.
- Series signals: Posts that end with 'I'll be laying the argument out on this feed through the winter' create expectation for future content and lock in followers. This is a retention tactic that works because it gives readers a reason to keep following.
Steal this for your own LinkedIn
- Start every post with a bold statement or problem that forces the reader to take a position. Use short declarative sentences (under 10 words) so the hook is scannable. Test: Can someone understand your main claim in 3 seconds?
- Use the Amateurs vs. Pros contrast pattern to frame your argument. This structure is reusable across any topic and automatically positions the reader to choose the professional path. Example: 'Amateurs ask for X. Pros demand Y.'
- If you write a long post (350+ words), break it into short paragraphs and use dialogue or specific examples to maintain momentum. Long posts fail when they feel like lectures. They succeed when they feel like conversations.
- End with a specific next step or series signal instead of a generic ask for comments. 'Check the image' or 'I'll be laying this out through the winter' gives readers a reason to engage beyond social obligation.
- Post at 21:00 UTC on Wednesday if your audience is US-based professionals. McKay's best performance window suggests this is when people are most receptive to thought-provoking content.
- Keep your posts under 30 words or over 180 words. The middle ground (30-180 words) underperforms because it's long enough to require commitment but too short to deliver real value. Choose a format and commit to it.
Compare Tim with…
Get the full Tim McKay playbook
Hook templates, content calendar, posting cadence, and the exact frameworks they use - delivered to your inbox.
Posting patterns
McKay posts 5.5 times per week with 100% consistency over the last 90 days, treating LinkedIn like a publishing platform rather than a social network. This high frequency works because each post is short and specific, so the cognitive load on followers is low.
Wednesday at 21:00 UTC performs best. This is late evening in US time zones, which suggests McKay's audience is checking LinkedIn before bed or after work. The timing aligns with when professionals are most likely to engage with thought-provoking content rather than promotional posts.
Micro-format (under 30 words) averages 15 engagement and should be the default. Medium-length posts (80-180 words) average only 3 engagement, suggesting the middle ground is where posts lose momentum. Either go short and punchy or go long and structured (350+ words with dialogue and data). Avoid the mushy middle.
Engagement by day
Content mix
avg 2 engagements per post
avg 3 engagements per post
avg 3 engagements per post
avg 6 engagements per post
avg 3 engagements per post
McKay's format mix works because he treats each post as a single unit of value rather than a thread or narrative. 38% micro-posts deliver quick insights with links or images. 25% medium posts (80-180 words) underperform and should be avoided. 23% long posts (180-350 words) work when structured with dialogue and data. This mix reflects a creator who respects the feed's constraints and refuses to pad posts with filler. The low conversation index (14.6%) suggests his audience is more likely to click, save, or repost than to comment, which means his content is optimized for action, not debate.
