Why I'm not marketing Groundbase on LinkedIn

I'm not marketing Groundbase on LinkedIn. No posting schedule, no "sharing my journey", no engagement pods.

Nearly every piece of advice about growing a small software product ends up in the same place: build a LinkedIn presence, post three times a week, comment on your network's posts, let it compound. I've thought about it properly and decided against it. This is the reasoning, including the part I got wrong the first time I wrote it down.

Who I'm actually trying to reach

Groundbase is a CRM for one-person businesses. Solo real estate agents, therapists and other practitioners, trades and contractors, freelancers, consultants. People who are the whole business and talk to their customers by text, phone and email.

An earlier version of this post described my buyer as a technical founder, and pointed at Hacker News and indie hacker forums as the places to find them. That was wrong. A plumber or a massage therapist is not on Hacker News, and I've rewritten this post around who it's actually for.

Why that buyer isn't shopping on LinkedIn

Some of these people are on LinkedIn. A consultant may well be, and so may a realtor. But they're there to sell their own services, not to look for software. Nobody scrolls the feed hoping to find a CRM.

When someone running a business of one decides they need a CRM, they do something specific. They search for it. They ask Claude or ChatGPT. They ask someone else in their trade. They read a comparison. Being findable at that moment is worth more to me than being visible in a feed they're scrolling for other reasons.

Marketing in the wrong room is wasted effort, however much the room rewards it.

The format works against real writing

The post format that does well on LinkedIn has a rhythm everyone recognises. A hook on its own line. A short statement on its own line. A build-up, a reveal, and a call to action at the bottom, often with an emoji.

That shape exists because readers scroll fast and need whitespace to stop them. It isn't wrong for what it does. But an argument that needs four sentences in a row reads as a wall of text in a feed preview, and gets passed over.

What I have to offer is mostly explanation: why Groundbase works the way it does, what something actually costs, where it isn't the right choice. That needs paragraphs. A format that penalises paragraphs penalises the thing I'd be trying to say.

The engagement conventions aren't optional

"What do you think?" "Comment below." "Repost if you agree." "DM me the word GROUNDBASE and I'll send you my framework."

These lines are the entry fee for distribution. Posts without them reach fewer people, so nearly every post has them. I don't want to end every thought with a request for a reaction, and I'm not convinced the people who respond to that are the people Groundbase is for.

Vulnerability as a content format

The platform rewards a particular kind of confession. "I cried at my desk today, and here's what it taught me about leadership." "My company failed. Here are seven lessons."

Real difficulty is something you tell someone you trust because it's hard to say. On LinkedIn it has become a format with predictable beats: confession, reflection, moral, call to engage. Running a business alone has hard weeks, and I'd rather not turn them into material.

Rented land

LinkedIn can change its algorithm tomorrow, and whatever reach you built goes with it. Platforms reliably move the same way over time: fewer outside links shown, less free distribution, more paid.

Compare that to what I can own:

• This blog. The domain, the posts and whatever search ranking they earn are mine. If the host disappears, I move the files.
• An email list. The addresses belong to me, not to the platform.

A LinkedIn following is attention on loan from a company whose interest is keeping people inside LinkedIn. I'd rather build on something I can take with me.

The selling ritual

LinkedIn tolerates selling, but only after a preamble. "I never thought I'd be writing this post." "For the past eighteen months I've been quietly building something." Then the pitch.

The preamble doesn't make the pitch any less of a pitch. It just makes it longer. I'd rather write one plain sentence about what Groundbase does and let people decide.

Conformity gets amplified

This is the part that matters most to me.

Posts that do well on LinkedIn tend to agree with conventional wisdom, loudly. A feed that ranks by approving reactions amplifies agreement.

But most of what's worth saying about Groundbase cuts against convention. One plan with every feature in it, instead of tiers built to push people up them. Texts that go through your own Twilio account, billed by Twilio at Twilio's rates, instead of a markup on every message. A whole feature deleted rather than kept, because one way of doing something is easier to trust than two. Those are arguments, and arguments need room. They don't do well in a format built to collect agreement.

Who LinkedIn is for

I don't want to pretend it works for no one. It clearly works for:

• Enterprise sales reps prospecting senior decision-makers.
• Recruiters, and people looking for a job.
• B2B consultants whose own buyers are corporate managers.
• Executive coaches whose clients are mid-to-senior professionals.
• People building a reputation in the corporate world, such as authors and conference speakers.

For them the buyer is there, the format fits and the audience expects their voice. If you're one of them, go.

Where I'd rather spend the time

• This blog. Posts that answer what a one-person business actually searches for: what sending texts costs, when a spreadsheet stops working as a CRM, who Groundbase is and isn't for. Search traffic is slow, but a useful post keeps working for years.
• Being a good answer when someone asks an AI. Some people now ask Claude or ChatGPT which CRM to use. Clear, honest pages about what Groundbase does and doesn't do are the best way I know to be described accurately.
• Direct, personal messages to specific businesses that might benefit. Slower than broadcasting, and more human.
• The people who already use it. Every support email reaches me, and someone it works for is more convincing than anything I could post.

None of that needs a "what do you think?" at the end, or every sentence on its own line.

Pick by fit, not by default

The common mistake isn't picking the wrong channel. It's picking by default because everyone says to. I apply the same reasoning to the product, which is why Groundbase won't build social media management: do the job you're shaped for and let other tools do theirs.

If your buyer lives on LinkedIn, go there. Mine is a business of one looking for a CRM, and they're more likely to find it through a search, an AI assistant or a recommendation than through a feed. So I'm writing the blog post instead.

---

Questions about this one? Email me directly: blog-linkedin@groundbasecrm.com — I read every one.