Good client work makes the best LinkedIn material, and it's the hardest kind to write. Before the first line, you're stuck on whether you can name the client, share the number, and claim a result their team did half the work for.
Those questions push most case study posts toward a vague "helped a client triple their pipeline," or toward nothing at all. Buyers can't judge the first and never see the second.
This guide gives you a 5-part template, a completed post with evidence notes behind every claim, a version for when the client won't share numbers, and a permission message you can send today.
Jump to the free LinkedIn Case Study and Proof Kit
Start the LinkedIn case study post template with the starting point and your role
A LinkedIn case study post template needs 2 things written down before any result: where the client started, described so a similar buyer recognizes it, and what you did compared with what their team did. Write those 2 parts first, then ask the client how much of the story you can share. The finished post can still lead with the result, as long as both parts sit right under it.
Case studies earn trust when they support 1 clear position, which positioning yourself as an authority covers. The template below assumes you know which problem you want to be known for.
Record the starting point
Write 3 facts: who the client was (type and size, no name without permission), what was happening, and what it was costing them. Use their measure where you have one.
The example here is Nadia Kerr (illustrative), the independent pricing consultant from the weekly LinkedIn plan for consultants. Her client is a 70-person HR software company, also illustrative, and every number below is invented for teaching.
Starting point: the average discount on new deals was 27%, most of it approved in the last week of the quarter, and the CFO wanted margin back before the next funding round.
Separate your role from theirs
Write 1 sentence for your part and 1 for theirs. Buyers notice when a consultant claims a whole result, and the client notices faster.
Nadia's 2 sentences: "I reviewed 140 closed deals and wrote a 3-tier discount approval rule. The head of sales trained the team, ran the approvals and held reps to the rule for 2 quarters."
Agree on the permission level
| Level | What you can share | How to get it |
|---|---|---|
| Named | Company, contact, numbers and a quote | Written approval of the final post text |
| Unnamed, with numbers | Industry, size, numbers and situation | Written approval, plus the client's check that nothing identifies them |
| Situation only | Situation, method and lesson | Check your contract's confidentiality clause, and ask anyway |
Tagging the client contact with @ sends them email and app notifications, so ask before you mention anyone. A surprise tag can undo the goodwill the post was meant to show.
Here's Nadia's permission request to the client's CFO, ready to adapt:
Hi Jordan, I'd like to write a short LinkedIn post about the discount work we did together, without naming the company. The draft is attached.
Could you check that nothing in it identifies you, and tell me whether you're comfortable with the numbers I've used? I'm happy to cut anything.
Explain the work and support the result
Explain 2 or 3 decisions you made and why, then give the result with its measure, time period and source, plus 1 sentence on what else might have contributed. Keep an evidence note for every claim, so when a reader or the client asks where a number came from, the answer takes 10 seconds.
The evidence notes
| Claim in the post | Source | Permission | Limits |
|---|---|---|---|
| 70-person HR software company | Client contract | Approved, unnamed | Headcount at project start |
| 140 deals reviewed; 60% of discount granted in the final 7 days | Nadia's deal review of the CRM export | Approved | Closed deals from the 4 quarters before the project |
| Average discount fell from 27% to 16% | CRM export, 2 quarters before and after | CFO approved in writing | List prices rose 6% in the same period |
| Requests above 20% fell from 1 in 3 deals to 1 in 8 | Approval log kept by the head of sales | Approved | Counts requests, which differ from approvals |
| Win rate held at about 24% | CRM report | Approved | Small sample: 58 deals after the change |
| "Reps finally had an answer when buyers pushed" | Head of sales, on a call | Quote approved word for word | 1 person's view |
The completed post
It runs to about 1,500 characters, well inside LinkedIn's 3,000-character limit.
A 70-person software company cut its average discount from 27% to 16% in 2 quarters. Here's what changed, and the part I can't take credit for.
Where they started: most discounts were approved in the last week of the quarter, with no rule for what the company got back. Reps offered discounts early to dodge a hard conversation later.
My part: I reviewed 140 closed deals and found that 60% of the total discount went out in the final 7 days. Then I wrote a 3-tier rule.
Up to 10%, the rep decides and logs why. From 10% to 20%, a manager approves and the buyer gives something back (a 2-year term, a case study or a signature this month). Above 20%, the CFO approves in writing within 1 business day.
Their team's part: the head of sales trained every rep, ran the approvals and held the line for 2 quarters, which was the hard bit. In her words, reps "finally had an answer when buyers pushed."
The result: average discount went from 27% to 16%, requests above 20% dropped from 1 in 3 deals to 1 in 8, and the win rate held at about 24%.
Also in play: list prices rose 6% that half-year, which moved some of the discount number.
The lesson for anyone running a sales team: check when discounts get approved as well as how big they are. A late discount is usually paying for a date.
If your discount policy is one reps work around, I'm glad to compare notes. Message me with where it breaks first.
(Shared with the client's approval. They asked me to leave their name out.)
Why it holds up: the first line gives the result and flags the shared credit. Each claim traces to a row in the evidence notes, and the limitation and permission status sit in the post itself, where a skeptical buyer would look for them.
Draw a useful lesson and invite a relevant next step
The lesson is something a reader in a similar job can check in their own business this week, and the invitation matches what they might want next. A reader still learning gets a question to answer or a check to run; a reader who recognizes their own problem gets an easy reason to message you.
The invitation should feel like an offer to talk shop. "Message me with where it breaks first" gives a buyer something specific to say, and the replies it brings in are the start of conversations that can lead to discovery calls.
When you can't share a number
Here's the same project at the situation-only permission level. It still teaches, because the method, the role split and the reader's check carry it.
I worked with a software company whose sales team approved most of its discounts in the last week of the quarter.
Everyone on the team knew discounts were too big. What they lacked was a rule for when a discount needed approval, and what the company should get back for it.
So we wrote 1, 3 lines long.
Up to 10%, the rep decides. From 10% to 20%, a manager approves and the buyer gives something back. Above 20%, the CFO signs off in writing.
The head of sales did the hard part: training every rep and holding the line when the quarter got tight.
What I took away: the size of a discount gets the attention, and the timing tells you more. A discount agreed in the last week is usually paying for a signature date, and a rule can price that date properly.
If you run a sales team, pull your last 20 deals and note the week each discount was approved. I'd like to hear what you find.
Before you post: 6 checks
- Every number has a source in your evidence notes.
- The client approved the text at the permission level you chose.
- Your part and their team's part both appear.
- 1 sentence names what else might have contributed.
- The lesson gives a reader something to check this week.
- Tagging someone? Ask them first.
The blank template
Copy this into your drafts and fill the brackets. Swap the labels for your own wording once it reads naturally.
[Result or situation in 1 line, plus the part you can't take credit for]
Where they started: [client type and size], [what was happening], [what it cost]
My part: [2 or 3 decisions, with the reason for each]
Their team's part: [who implemented it, and the hard bit]
The result: [result] over [period], measured by [source]
(No numbers allowed? Describe what changed in how the team works.)
Also in play: [1 sentence on other factors]
The lesson: [what a reader can check in their own business this week]
[Invitation matched to the reader: a check to run, or a reason to message you]
The LinkedIn Case Study and Proof Kit has Nadia's post, its evidence notes and permission message, and an editable copy of this template.
Pick 1 finished project, write the starting point and the role split today, and send the client your draft with the permission message. Post whichever version they approve, and keep the evidence notes next to it; the story behind your offer, covered in the personal brand story guide, gets stronger with every documented project.