Brands use employees’ social networks as influencers. But what do employees get out of it?
I've noticed a trend where CEOs of well-known companies are investing more in their personal brands on LinkedIn and X.
However, the level is increasing, and they want something similar from employees.
I think building your own profile is great, but not completely at the expense of the brand. It seems a bit like an invasion of privacy to me, maybe the employee has slightly different values, interests and things that they would rather share. I also don't think they will be rewarded extra for promoting the brand.
And take people who, for example, started building their brand a long time ago at their own expense, and now the company only benefits from it for free, or only as part of the employee's salary.
What is your opinion on this whole thing?
Should they be compensated? If yes, how?
Replies
BrandingStudio.ai
Coming at this from the other side: I'm a founder who has built a personal brand over years in my industry, and now it genuinely serves the company. But the keyword is "built." It was mine first, built on my own time and interests, and the company benefits from that because people trust the person behind it, not because I'm posting ads.
That's a very different thing from a company asking employees to convert their personal profiles into distribution channels. One is organic, the other is extraction.
Where I think it gets genuinely complicated is the middle ground: employees who are good at content and want to build their own profile anyway. Some companies create real value for those people by giving them interesting things to talk about, access, and visibility. That can be a fair exchange if it's explicit and voluntary.
The moment it becomes an expectation baked into the job description without corresponding compensation, it crosses a line. You're essentially asking someone to donate their audience, which they built on their own time, to someone else's marketing budget. @byalexai equity point is the right frame. If the company benefits from your reach at scale, you should share in what that reach generates.
@joao_seabra Where it usually breaks is when companies try to standardize something that only works when it’s individual. Same posting style, same messaging, same expectations across everyone. That’s when it starts feeling forced and loses the trust it was supposed to build. The people it works for are usually the ones who already have their own voice and are given room to keep it.
BrandingStudio.ai
@arun_tamang Exactly right. The standardisation kills the thing that made it valuable in the first place. Audiences follow people, not brand guidelines. The moment an employee's content starts sounding like a press release, the trust evaporates and you've lost both the authenticity and the reach you were trying to capture.
@joao_seabra Yeah, and the irony is most of the reach comes from things that aren’t predictable or repeatable in the first place. Once it turns into something structured, it starts optimizing for consistency instead of signal. That’s usually when it stops working.
@joao_seabra I agree. But you have 100% control over your own business. If I make a post that gets 1 million impressions and brings you 3 investors and 10 paying clients, I won’t get anything from you unless I have an agreement for salary or equity.
And while you’re building your own business, it’s completely normal to do activities that drive traffic to it. It’s utter madness to do the same if you’re working for someone else and have no material stake.
BrandingStudio.ai
@byalexai Completely fair point and you're right, the founder case is structurally different because the upside is yours. The employee version of that same effort with no material stake is a fundamentally different deal. The 1 million impressions bringing 3 investors example makes it concrete in a way that's hard to argue with.
minimalist phone: creating folders
@byalexai @joao_seabra There's another anomaly – when someone is popular on socials and has stated somewhere that he works for the company. I remember in a few cases when the person was popular, and people were recognising the brand just because they "saw it in the bio / profile of that popular person" – this is also a kind of promotion, but for such exposure, the person needs to be really active and somehow famous. It is very difficult to quote compensation – but maybe some affiliate link or so.
BrandingStudio.ai
@busmark_w_nika The bio effect is real and it's actually the cleanest version of this arrangement because it's passive and voluntary. Nobody asked them to put the company there, they chose to, and the brand benefits indirectly. The affiliate link idea makes sense for that case, performance-based and tied to actual results rather than a flat fee for posting. The problem is most companies want the active version, the posts and the content, not just the bio mention, and that's where the compensation conversation gets complicated fast.
I am totally against it.
Why would I want to be an employee and constantly post ads for the company I work for? Okay, yes, it’s disguised as content. Whether educational or entertaining but it’s still basically generating traffic for someone else.
And instead of using that profile to post whatever I want, I’d have to follow a specific company policy.
It’s like driving traffic to someone else’s website instead of your own.
The only situation where this would be okay is if I were paid a serious salary to do it not just a bonus, but something equivalent to a full salary. Or having an equity in the company.
Clawther
@byalexai makes sense! A personal profile should stay personal unless there is real compensation behind it.
@amraniyasser I might want to post only jokes, memes, or sports stats. But the company won’t be happy if that’s my focus and I only mention the company once every 20 posts.
minimalist phone: creating folders
@byalexai Not gonna lie, it would be a "must" for me, and I didn't even enjoy that. It would be too fake for me. But some employees will say yes just from fear of losing their jobs.
@busmark_w_nika Not only that. They restrict my right to express an opinion. Instead of posting political memes or sharing my favorite songs, I have to post things about the company. Okay, I work there, but maybe I’m not interested in writing about that. That’s a restriction of free speech.
Been on both sides of this. When I worked in content, I was expected to share company stuff on my personal LinkedIn. Never got compensated, felt weird mixing personal brand with corporate messaging.
Now as an indie maker - I only share what I genuinely built. Feels completely different.
If companies want employees as influencers, they should either pay extra or accept that personal profiles stay personal.
minimalist phone: creating folders
@virtualviki yes, but you are in a different position, you are building a personal brand for your product, but if you had employees who just do things because they are paid (and not so much passionate), they would probably be uncomfortable.
Clawther
@busmark_w_nika For me, a personal profile belongs to the employee, not the company. Building an audience takes time, energy, and consistency, so if a company wants to benefit from it, there should be something real in return.
Sharing company content from time to time makes sense, but expecting employees to constantly promote the brand on their personal accounts feels too much, especially if there is no clear compensation or benefit.
minimalist phone: creating folders
@amraniyasser and some companies are pushy lol
Personal profiles shouldn’t be treated as company assets. I’ve seen teams push this and it usually creates friction over time. If it’s being used as a distribution for the company, then it needs to be treated as something the company is leveraging, not something it owns. Compensation should reflect that. Either through a defined share of the upside tied to that distribution, or by making it an explicit part of the role with clear boundaries. Otherwise, it ends up being one-sided very quickly.
minimalist phone: creating folders
@arun_tamang I think that some companies paid the 3rd party to create that content for their employees, okay, it is a kind of investment, but still doesn't reflect compensation for an employee and his/her channel.
@busmark_w_nika Paying someone to create content is a cost on the company side, but the channel still belongs to the employee. The value comes from the trust and audience attached to that profile, not just the content itself. So even if the company invests in content, it doesn’t really balance out if they’re also relying on that existing trust for distribution.
same here - totally against it.
I even worked once in a company where I was expected by my manager to do so and I got improvement feedback if I didn't do so.
My own personal profile is mine and not the company's, it's for the employee choice what and when to share something.
minimalist phone: creating folders
@nirit_weisbrot_altony Did they offer anything on top for doing that? Or they wanted it for free? :D
I get the tension here; personal branding feels empowering until it turns into "company work" without boundaries or upside. It's smart to nurture your own voice, especially if you've invested time building it pre-company, but mandates can cross into overreach.
Companies benefit hugely, so yes, compensation makes sense for required advocacy. Think bonuses/gift cards tied to impact, training stipends, or equity bumps; not baked into base salary. Voluntary programs with recognition work best long-term.
minimalist phone: creating folders
@swati_paliwal How much is big compensation for that?
I don't believe in forcing employees to post about the company. I've seen this approach play out in multiple organizations and over time, it stops working. In one company, it actually created a toxic divide between the founders and marketing team on one side, and the rest of the team on the other.
Real advocacy has to come from a place of genuine belief. When someone shares something about the company whether it's a value, a product moment, or a personal experience that it should feel personal and worth saying. Not performative. Not a checkbox. That's the only kind of content that actually builds trust.
minimalist phone: creating folders
@ayman_elafifi1 I would wish to know companies :D
TinyCommand
We’ve actually experimented with this in the past. Some of our sales team already had strong personal presence on platforms like Instagram and TikTok. Instead of asking them to post “for the company,” we made it optional and turned it into a performance-driven model.
Each of them got a unique referral code.
They could create content in their own style, on their own terms.
For every customer that came in through their code, they earned a commission.
minimalist phone: creating folders
@priyanka_gosai1 This sounds fairer, to be honest. Unfortunately, 90% of companies expect to do it for free.
It depends on the contract and the culture of the company. I believe that when you join a company, especially during the probationary period, you start to discover certain hidden rules within the culture. These can help you determine whether you can adapt or whether the company is not a good fit for you.
Part of this “contract hidden in the culture” might be that the company prefers, for example, marketers who act as ambassadors for the organization.
So for me, it depends on the culture, the contract, and the level of freedom employees have to post. However, I believe that employees who post can add huge value to companies by acting as ambassadors. As a result, companies will probably start seeking out this type of profile more often.
It is the company’s responsibility to make these expectations clear and to reward employees who bring added value. I can imagine for sales or marketing teams compensation and rewards for every client
minimalist phone: creating folders
@bengeeklyWell, I can’t read their minds or interpret the nuances hidden behind vague, abstract wording. A contract should clearly and directly define the scope of work and the compensation. Otherwise, it’s not ethical.
By that logic, I could share confidential company information and then claim, “I was just teasing it to hook people and increase reach." The matter of demagoguery approach :D