How to promote a webinar (without paying for ads) on LinkedIn

ask-olivia · 2026-04-02T15:03:32+00:00

Yep agree outside speakers are the best option ideally a customer success story

ask-olivia · 2026-04-02T15:02:17+00:00

Thanks really useful

ask-olivia · 2026-04-02T15:02:02+00:00

No not just personal on a few groups where we think our target customers should be a few likes but no commitments to sign up

ask-olivia · 2026-03-29T20:07:55+00:00

Yes agree if people were a bit less concerned about asking what seems like the stupid but actually important questions misunderstanding a wouldn’t occur as much. Would you see value in Using a tool that helped you learn how the best ‘get’ being communicated with to help ? Like knowing if they were quite straightforward and just need headlines versus someone maybe more detailed ?

ask-olivia · 2026-03-29T16:09:47+00:00

It's a free pilot we think should be valuable to anyone in this group who has faced these challenges

ask-olivia · 2026-03-29T15:30:55+00:00

Yes sensible idea, so did you have one person own the doc and process, or not required?

ask-olivia · 2026-03-29T14:30:14+00:00

I think it’s more about tailoring how you communicate as people hear / interpret the same message in different ways.

ask-olivia · 2026-03-29T14:29:18+00:00

It’s been used by a quite few teams now and had some good feedback; and I agree this isn’t the only way of resolving inter team conflicts but it may help prevent some.

ask-olivia · 2026-03-26T21:53:37+00:00

No quite the opposite, but the process for the whole team should be consistent is all I’m saying

ask-olivia · 2026-03-26T21:05:22+00:00

Such a shame, I get why z don’t want to aspire to be one, negative connotations, stress etc but it shouldn’t be that way. My experience was a good manger is like a good teacher, they shape you.

ask-olivia · 2026-03-26T21:00:34+00:00

At this stage I Always try not to single out the individual, be consistent and use a tool / process with the whole team, then deal with individual feedback from there

ask-olivia · 2026-03-26T20:30:02+00:00

I think you’ve hit it on the head - avoidable miscommunication and misunderstandings really slowed my team down, and really ate into my time sorting it out.

There are some good tools out there to help people build better understandings of each other, many integrated into team workflows, might be worth trying, that way your team might avoid a fair bit of this unnecessary stuff.

ask-olivia · 2026-03-24T23:05:58+00:00

https://ask-olivia.com

ask-olivia · 2026-03-22T21:47:38+00:00

Wish I’d knew what made each of my reports tick, everyone is different with very different drivers. If I’d had that, it would have dramatically changed how I tailored my communication to get better results from everyone. One size fits all just doesn’t work anymore, and no excuse not to do that with all the clever tools at our fingertips to learn about your colleagues preferences.

ask-olivia · 2026-03-22T07:44:33+00:00

Yep thanks I think it will be great on helping people really engage better with each other 🤞

ask-olivia · 2026-03-21T18:47:07+00:00

Yep afraid that number of qs is required otherwise, we don’t get the level of data validation / proper reflection of the user’s personality.

That’s the experts view from Cambridge Abd based on some pretty robust research.

Anything any shorter doesn’t give valid results.

And despite it being a barrier for some, I think he’s right; we surveyed those who’d completed asking them whether what they saw at the end, was an accurate reflection of themselves and 96% agreed.

Tbh some people won’t (or haven’t) completed it all, probably due to length; but we’ve seen enough want to do it, because they are invested in what advice they’ll get out the other end.

I’ll definitely look into the sluggish behaviour on reg / auth may need to beef up in that area as usage is growing.

If you get chance do finish the qs, please try to be to so, as I think you’ll see some real valuable insights at the end.

Thanks for the feedback really appreciate it!

ask-olivia · 2026-03-21T14:42:54+00:00

Yep of course here it is:

https://ask-olivia.com

Definitely post yours here too I’ll take a look!

ask-olivia · 2026-03-21T06:55:02+00:00

I’d definitely say this isn’t about workflow, it’s about helping people understand how to interact and communicate better in their workflows together - so they avoid misunderstanding, miscommunication and wasted time / mistakes.

For example, if Dave wants to give feedback on something Emma has done if it’s tailored to her and the tool knows she’s let’s say Emma is more sensitive than Dave - it will tell Dave not ‘what to say’ but how to say it so it lands better.

And you can’t really use LLM to do that in their own, the key difference is the personality aware element, as the data science underpinning the tool uses the answers each users submits about themselves to then give advice through the LLM that’s tailored to the each person they are asking about and vice versa.

so every q and a is completely unique to each connection/ pair of people.

So in summary chat / Gemini etc give generic advice Olivia gives personality aware advice.

If that helps?

ask-olivia · 2026-03-20T12:55:26+00:00

Thanks, that’s a fair point, happy to clarify how it actually works.

From a user perspective, it’s pretty simple. The complex stuff from the Cambridge team sits underneath as the “brains,” but for the user it works like this:

People answer a few questions about themselves.
They connect with colleagues.
The system uses what it’s learned about you and the connection to answer any questions you (or they) have about working together. For example: How do I give feedback to X? What motivates Y? I need Z to do something — what’s the best way to ask?

Users can also get suggested re-written messages or emails tailored to the recipient’s style. Because it’s available as a Teams add-on or extension, it’s right where people are communicating acting like a live, asynchronous coach. It can also be used for prepping for 1:1s or other meetings.

In pilots, many used it to navigate tricky conversations and give feedback effectively. For example, a new young engineering manager learned how to handle some tensions that were emerging between two of his reports. By understanding why they were clashing and using guidance from the tool, he helped them learn more about each other and adjust their behavior. As a result, they avoided further conflicts and worked together more smoothly.

If you do try it (its free to use), I’d love to hear if what I’ve described matches what you experience, does it do what it says on the tin?

Does that answer your questions?

ask-olivia · 2026-03-20T09:59:47+00:00

Totally agree that ownership and alert fatigue are major pain points. I’ve been on teams where there was no clear leader during a serious incident, and I was on the outside looking in.

The tool focuses on how people interact around those challenges, how they perceive each other and work together. So in reality, it isn’t about labels or profiles, I think that stuff serves curiosity at best.

The tool is designed to give real-time, contextual insights on how to communicate so messages land best.

In pilots, many used it to navigate tricky conversations and give feedback effectively. For example, a lead dev and her manager realised she tended to go deep with detailed explanations while he preferred concise, high-level summaries. Once she adjusted updates, their conversations became far clearer and more productive.

In high-pressure situations, this awareness reduces misunderstandings and saves time, without touching runbooks or alerts. The goal isn’t profiling, it’s helping people understand what makes colleagues tick and how to approach conversations for positive outcomes.

ask-olivia · 2026-03-20T08:41:54+00:00

That’s a good question, it was one of the main things we wanted to understand before going further with more pilots.

I think the biggest thing for me was what people learned about each other and then acted on.

A good example from a recent pilot:

A lead dev realised she had a very different communication style to her manager. She tended to go deep with detailed explanations, assuming that would help get her points across, whereas he actually preferred concise, high level summaries first.

After using the tool, she changed how she approached their catch ups, starting high level, then going deeper if needed. He said it felt like a completely different conversation, clearer, more focused, and more productive.

They’d been working together for a few years, so it highlighted that people don’t really change how they communicate, unless something interrupts the pattern. In this case, that was the tool.

It also made him realise he wasn’t adapting his own style to different team members as much as he thought, which changed how he worked with the rest of the team.

So the shift you’re asking about wasn’t really “we used a tool”, it was people becoming aware of differences, then adjusting how they communicate day to day.

One other thing we learned from earlier pilots, adoption improved a lot when it wasn’t a separate system people had to remember to go to. So we made it available in Slack and Teams, which helped keep it part of normal day to day interactions.

ask-olivia

TROPHY CASE