Diagnose a Flop: A Forensic Workflow for Underperforming Posts
Every account has duds. The mistake is guessing why. This forensic workflow checks audience fit, hook strength, proof, timing, and distribution—then prescribes a fix you can ship on the next post. You’ll also learn when to resurface a post versus let it die.
Key Takeaways
- Troubleshoot in order: Audience → Hook → Proof → Timing → Distribution.
- Apply one fix at a time and retest within a week.
- Resurface only after a concrete edit.
What Is a Post Forensic?
Definition: A post forensic is a structured review of a flop to choose the most likely fix.
When to use: A post underperforms vs recent baseline.
Quick steps: run the checklist → pick one fix → repost or move on.
Pros: Stops random thrashing.
Cons: Requires discipline to change one variable.
The Flop Checklist (score 0/1)
- Audience match: Would your ICP care this week?
- Hook clarity: First line states a tension or benefit without clichés.
- Single point: One idea only; no laundry list.
- Proof present: Metric, artifact, or example is visible.
- CTA type: Conversation, not applause.
- Timing: Posted in a known good slot.
- Distribution: Commented for 10–15 minutes; replied to early comments.
If score <5: rewrite and repost at a better slot.
If score ≥5 and still weak: try a different format (case, checklist, FAQ).
Concrete Fixes (match the failure)
- Weak hook → use “belief flip” or “number shock” opening.
- No proof → add before/after or small artifact.
- Wrong format → convert to a checklist or case micro.
- Timing off → move to your 2nd‑best slot.
- Distribution weak → schedule a comment sprint and DM 2 relevant peers for feedback (no link drops).
Resurface Safely
Change one major element (hook, format, image) and wait 7–10 days before reposting. Note the difference in ER % and Saves.
Tools that help live in features. Billing & limits are at pricing.
Why This Works (avoid random thrashing)
Most “reach problems” are hook or proof problems. By scoring in order, you fix the right thing first. When you change one variable and retest in a known slot, you learn quickly without polluting your baseline.
Keep a “flop log” with post link, score, chosen fix, and the repost result. The habit builds intuition and cuts guesswork.
Worked Forensic (filled)
Post: POV about “shipping faster.”
Score: Audience (1), Hook (0), Single point (1), Proof (0), CTA (1), Timing (1), Distribution (1) → 5/7.
Fix: Rewrite hook with number‑shock; add before/after metric; repost Tue 09:45.
Result: ER % +0.6 pts; Saves % +0.2 pts. Next: test checklist format.
Triage Table (symptom → likely fix)
| Symptom | Likely cause | First fix |
|---|---|---|
| Scroll‑past | Vague first line | Number shock or belief flip |
| Low saves | Low utility | Add artifact/checklist |
| Thin replies | Format mismatch | Switch to FAQ or case |
| Spike then flat | Timing/distribution | Move to 2nd‑best slot + comment sprint |
Avoid “link drop rescue.” If a post is weak, fix the content; don’t paste links in comments to juice CTR.
Quick Fix Recipes (copy/paste)
- Hook refresh: replace first line with a number‑shock or belief‑flip; keep body intact.
- Proof add: paste a single before/after metric line after paragraph 2.
- Format swap: convert list to checklist with 5 actionable bullets.
- Visual assist: add one annotated screenshot (crop to the change).
Repost Etiquette (don’t annoy followers)
- Space reposts 7–10 days apart.
- Add “Updated:” and name the change you made.
- Thank one useful commenter; invite counter‑examples.
What Not to Change (control your test)
Keep the same time slot, hashtags, and length when you test a single change. If you shift multiple variables, you’ll never know what worked.
Examples of Hook Fixes (use as a starter pack)
- Belief flip: “We shipped less and adoption rose.”
- Number shock: “Churn fell 1.3 pts after deleting a feature.”
- Moment‑in‑time: “Yesterday we told a customer ‘no’—and kept them.”
- Tiny win: “A 10‑minute tweak lifted reply rate 12%.”
Proof Menu (pick one)
- Before/after metric (period + sample).
- Artifact (screenshot with 1‑line caption).
- Quote (from a user or teammate, with permission).
- Mini narrative (Mistake → Lesson → Change).
Distribution Without Being Spammy
- Comment for 10–15 minutes on two relevant threads; add substance.
- Reply to first five comments on your post within 30 minutes.
- DM two peers for critique, not engagement (“What’s unclear in line 1?”).
Post Mortem Template (copy)
Title, Date, Slot, Pillar, Format
Hook (score 0/1), Proof (0/1), Single point (0/1), CTA type (0/1), Timing (0/1), Distribution (0/1)
Diagnosis (1–2 lines)
Next change to test (one variable)
Repost date + slot
Result (ER %, Saves %, notable replies)
Why Forensics Beat Hunches
Most teams jump to conclusions when a post underperforms: the algorithm changed, the audience was asleep, or links were throttled. Those may play a role, but the reliable fixes usually live inside the post.
- A clear first line earns the second.
- A single point keeps readers oriented.
- One small piece of evidence makes the claim believable.
- If timing was off, a strong post often works next week in a known good slot.
Treat each flop as a short experiment. Write down a hypothesis, change one variable, and test again in seven to ten days. Over a month you’ll collect rules for your audience:
- Which hooks open more conversations
- Which formats earn saves
- Which time slots carry similar topics
- Which CTAs invite high‑signal replies
This habit reduces stress. Instead of rewriting your strategy after one slow day, you use the checklist, make a decision, and schedule a retest. Cadence continues, quality improves, and your baseline rises steadily.
Use the Flop Checklist Run it on your weakest post this week