← All posts
Marketing Psychology By Anwardeen Pawal

Rewriting a LinkedIn hook: a real before and after

One carousel opening from my work at Appbrew, rewritten with the Before-After-Bridge framework, and the reasoning behind every change.

The setup

The content: a case study carousel about a heritage gardening brand that built a mobile app. Their customers are loyal gardeners, many 55 and older, and the brand had three decades of trust built in a category where spring only comes once a year.

Before

"How a 30-year-old plant brand built a mobile app."

Accurate. Forgettable. It states the topic instead of creating tension. There's nothing unresolved, so there's no reason to swipe. This is the hook most B2B content ships with, and it's why most B2B content dies on slide one.

After

"They built 30 years of brand trust selling plants. Mobile almost made them invisible."

Same facts, completely different physics. Two lines now push against each other: three decades of trust versus almost invisible. That gap is an open loop, and open loops are uncomfortable to leave open. This is the Zeigarnik effect: unfinished things occupy the mind until they're resolved, and the only way to resolve this one is to swipe.

IMAGES: slide 1 before and after, side by side

Why BAB fits case studies

Before-After-Bridge maps perfectly onto any transformation story. The before-state creates tension (invisible on mobile). The after-state creates desire (the results). The bridge is the product, and crucially it arrives last, after the reader already cares. Most brand content leads with the bridge, which is like introducing the solution to a problem nobody has felt yet.

The rest of the swipe psychology

The hook gets people to slide two. Keeping them to slide eight takes more:

None of this rescues weak content. But strong content with a weak hook performs identically to weak content, because nobody ever finds out it was strong.

Previous post
What actually grew our subreddit →
More
All posts and case studies →
© 2026 · ANWARDEEN · HOME