I pulled the May 2026 batch of LinkedIn Top Voices and ran the numbers. What I found surprised me: The Top Voice badge isn't really about LinkedIn anymore. It's about credentialing executives and importing celebrities from other platforms. Five numbers tell the story: → 58% of the batch are CEOs, founders, or presidents. The badge is now a C-suite credential, not a creator award. → Median follower count: 20,062. Half the badge holders have less than that. Audience size is no longer how you earn this. → The cohort has 12.7x more combined reach on Instagram than on LinkedIn itself. LinkedIn is borrowing celebrities from platforms it can't compete with. → Smallest account in the entire global batch: 1,297 followers (Toby Courtauld, CEO of a £2.5bn London real estate company). Still got the badge. → Most active poster: 131 posts a month. His engagement rate: 0.26%. Volume is anti-correlated with the very metric the badge tracks. The takeaway: if you've spent five years grinding LinkedIn growth tactics to chase a Top Voice badge, you've been chasing the wrong thing. Justin Welsh, who arguably understood LinkedIn better than anyone, lost his badge. The credential moved on. Full analysis with all the data, charts, and case studies in my (long) Substack piece: https://lnkd.in/e9qqjGTK PS: I gave up a jour férié for this, which any French person will tell you is the ultimate sacrifice. But honestly I refresh for the new Top Voice batch like other people wait for an Apple keynote. Help.
linkedin has its own rules and choices. It is not only about thought leadership content, big communities and high engagements. Joshua Kimmich is an example. 4 weeks on linkedin, two posts, 15k followers because his footbal profession and now TOP VOICE. You need luck, vitamin b or popularity. not everybody has the sames chances. And there are still Top Voices who cheated on the platform and linkedin are not acting. So the Badge is not a quality sign anymore. But I know many cool people with credibility who are TOP VOICES.
This is 100% accurate. LinkedIn are monetising the platform, and I cannot blame them. Freerides are over. Blue badges should bring value to the platform, not the creator. It's business. Justin and the other 'pay to play' LinkedIn experts are in it for themselves (fair enough too, business is business). But let's be honest. Everyone knows that behind every cheerleader of the platform is someone wanting to generate revenue thanks to their reach. Blue badges should be bringing revenue into the platform, not the member. I think this is 100% right a business move. As much as the gurus will hate it.
Speak to the pod issue? Tje fake followers? And all the other dirty tactics that supress experts and raise influencers.
Excellent analysis Jeremy Boissinot. The strongest reading of the article is that LinkedIn is refining its system of professional signals. First, it tested a more open and participatory signal with the Community Top Voice badge for Collaborative Articles. It later retired that badge when it became difficult to maintain quality standards for a recognition system that was awarded automatically rather than manually reviewed. Now, the blue Top Voice badge appears to function more as an editorial credential: less dependent on contribution volume, and more dependent on professional authority, consistency, originality, and perceived expertise. From a signaling theory perspective, this is coherent: a credential only retains value if it is difficult to obtain, difficult to imitate, and reliable enough to reduce uncertainty. If the badge becomes too accessible, it loses discriminating power. If it becomes curated, selective, and reviewable, it regains value as a marker of trust.
And some of their content is clearly AI-flavoured. I don't get why LinkedIn is behind this nonsense.
A couple years ago, I think Snoop Dogg got the blue badge in his first post. I remember bc I’d just earned mine after years of consistent sharing and a slow and steady follow build (but notably had <5k when I earned the badge). I’ve also noticed all these shifts and my own posts’ wild algo swing and don’t love any of these changes; while this remains my platform of choice, I don’t believe they incentivize those of us who were genuinely here for connection when even our regularly engaged followers don’t see our content!
Hold on. 131 posts A MONTH??
A long time ago, I made a decision that happy customers would be my metric of choice and a better indicator of influence and authority than a top voice badge. 50,000+ happy customers later, I stand by that decision more than ever.
Jeremy Boissinot my own numbers read almost like an illustration of your key findings. Last 28 days: impressions down 30%, engagement rate up 28%. Last 12 months: engagement rate up 49% on nearly double the posting volume. Reach decoupling from engagement, exactly as you describe. One thing I'd add - the operator/creator binary might be a little too clean. I'm a four-time founder and LinkedIn-only: no Instagram, TikTok, or import audience anywhere. I don't sit neatly in either box, and I suspect a real share of the 38.6% LinkedIn-only cohort don't either. Founder and creator isn't a contradiction - for me it's all part of the job.
Everybody else is reverse-engineering from anecdotes, biases, or resentment. What’s especially funny is how many people post about the who never had it, dismiss it publicly,then immediately celebrate it once they receive it. That alone tells you a lot. The most important official source is this LinkedIn Help page: LinkedIn Top Voices Official Criteria This is the key part from LinkedIn directly: * Top Voice is invite-only * Selection combines data + editorial judgment * They look at: * consistency * originality * subject matter expertise * professionalism * meaningful engagement * contribution to the community * They explicitly say prominence is only one factor, not the only factor That’s not third-party speculation; it's directly reflected in their own documentation. 👇 https://www.linkedin.com/help/linkedin/answer/a776208