Your people posting in their own voices, not the company page.
A personal profile reaches several times what a company page reaches with the same material, and your partners are silent on theirs. This agent drafts in each person's own voice and posts to their profile through the route they authorise themselves.
What the advocacy agent does
Their voice. Their profile. Their name on it.
Most firms have the reach problem backwards. Effort goes into the company page, which reaches a small fraction of the people who follow it, while the partners with genuine audiences of clients, former colleagues and referrers post roughly twice a year. The channel is not underperforming. The wrong account is being used.
The obvious fix has been tried and it does not hold. Somebody writes a post, circulates it, and asks twelve people to share it. It reads as coordinated because it is, participation falls away over a few months, and nobody formally ends the programme. The barrier was never willingness. It is the blank page, and then it is being handed words that do not sound like you.
This agent works the other way round. Voice rules are built for each person individually, from how that person already writes. Drafts come from the real work of the firm and are angled to what that individual can credibly speak to, so two people covering the same matter produce posts that read nothing alike. Each person approves their own, and posting happens through the official interface they authorised, on your own credentials rather than inside a shared platform.
It shares source material with the content agent, which covers the firm's own voice on the channels it owns. Where the asset is a recording rather than a written piece, the social video agent cuts it, and the marketing performance agent reports whether any of it produced an enquiry.
Capabilities
What it handles.
A separate voice for every person
Voice rules are built for each individual from how that person already writes and speaks, not one house style applied to everybody. A partner of thirty years and a senior associate of four do not sound alike, and a programme that makes them sound alike is the programme people quietly stop using.
Posted through the route the platform provides
Each person authorises the connection themselves through the official interface, and posting happens through that. No browser extension, no unofficial endpoint and none of the mechanisms that led to a wave of account restrictions through 2026.
Drawn from the work the firm actually does
The source is a matter you handled, a view a partner holds or something that moved in the sector this week. Each draft is angled to what that particular person can credibly speak to, which is the difference between a post and a repost.
The person sees it before it goes
Nothing appears under somebody's name without them reading it and saying yes. Direct posting removes the copying and pasting, not the judgement. Approval takes seconds and it is what keeps people willing to take part in month six.
A cadence set per person
One partner will sustain a post a fortnight and another three a week. Cadence is agreed individually rather than imposed as a campaign, because a target somebody cannot meet is how a programme ends without anybody announcing it.
Runs on your own connection
Your own application registration and your own credentials, one firm to one deployment. Your accounts are not pooled inside a shared platform, and nothing about the arrangement obliges you to keep paying somebody to retain access to your own profiles.
Who it is for
Built for firms whose people are the brand.
Founders and managing directors
You are the highest reach asset the firm owns and you post about four times a year. A personal profile reaches several times what the company page reaches with the same material, and yours is sitting idle.
Partners and senior fee earners
The audience already exists. Former colleagues, current clients, the people who refer work. They are connected to you and they hear nothing from you, which means the firm is invisible to exactly the people most likely to send it work.
Firms with a company page nobody follows
Effort goes into the page, the page reaches a fraction of what a single person does, and the conclusion drawn is that social does not work for professional services. The channel was not the problem.
Firms who tried an advocacy programme once
It launched, a few people posted, participation drifted and nobody formally called it dead. The cause is almost never commitment. It is being handed a pre-written post that does not sound like you and having nothing to say the following week.
What is included
What you get.
Voice rules built individually for each person taking part, from how they already write rather than from a house style.
A direct connection to each account, authorised by that person through the official interface the platform provides.
Drafts drawn from the real work of the firm and angled to what each person can credibly speak to.
An approval step per person, so nothing appears under a name without that person seeing it first.
A cadence agreed individually, so the people who post rarely are not pushed to a volume they will abandon.
Your own application registration and credentials, one deployment to one firm, with no pooling of accounts.
How it gets built
How it gets built.
01
Pick the people, not the whole firm
Three or four people who are willing and who have an audience worth reaching. Programmes that launch across everybody fail across everybody. Starting narrow means the ones who are keen get a version that works before anybody else is asked.
02
Capture each voice separately
An hour with each person, working through what they have written before, how they talk about their work and the things they will not say. This is the step every advocacy platform skips and the reason those programmes read as coordinated.
03
Connect the accounts properly
Each person authorises the connection themselves through the official interface, on your own application registration. One deployment to one firm. Accounts are never pooled with anybody else, and any person can withdraw their connection at any point.
04
Agree cadence and approval individually
Each person sets how often they post and how they want drafts to reach them. Approval has to take seconds on a phone, because a review step that requires sitting at a desk is the point at which participation quietly stops.
Why Delancy
Against a company page nobody follows and a programme nobody uses.
Per person, not per post
Advocacy platforms distribute one post to a list of people. That is precisely the design that makes participation collapse, because it reads as forced to the audience and feels like homework to the person. Building a voice per person is more work and it is the only version that lasts.
The official route, not the one being restricted
Through 2026 the platforms enforced hard against tools reaching them by unofficial means, and personal accounts were removed, not just apps. Connecting the way the platform intends is the difference between an asset and a liability sitting on the profiles of your partners.
Approval is not an optional setting
It is their name and their professional reputation on the post. The agent removes the blank page and the scheduling, which is where the time goes. It does not remove the moment where a person decides this is something they are content to have said.
No ongoing dependency
The agent runs on your own credentials and your own application registration, with the price agreed before build. Your accounts are not held inside a shared platform, so there is no arrangement you have to keep paying to stay connected to your own profiles.
Frequently Asked Questions
Common Questions.
No, and the distinction matters. Restrictions land on tools that reach the platforms through browser extensions and unofficial endpoints, and enforcement through 2026 went as far as removing personal profiles. This agent posts through the interface the platform publishes for exactly this purpose, which each person authorises for themselves and can withdraw at any time.
That is the failure mode of every advocacy programme and it is the specific thing this is built to avoid. Voice rules are created per person from how they already write, and each draft is angled to what that individual can credibly speak to. Two people can cover the same underlying matter and produce posts that read nothing alike, which is the point.
Yes. The agent removes the blank page, the drafting and the scheduling, which is where the time actually goes. It does not remove the person deciding whether they are happy to have said it. Approval usually takes seconds and it is the reason people are still taking part six months in.
The connection belongs to them and they revoke it, the same way they authorised it. Their profile and their audience were always theirs. That is a feature rather than a limitation, and it is worth being straightforward about it when you ask people to take part.
The content agent writes in the voice of the firm for the channels the firm owns, such as the site and the company page. This writes in the voices of individual people for their own profiles, where the reach for professional services actually is. They draw on the same underlying work, which is why firms often run both.
Pilots start from £2,500. The price is agreed before any build starts. Where the agent relies on third-party services to run, those operational costs sit with you and are made clear before build begins.
FREE ASSESSMENT
Is an AI agent the right shape for this?
Ten questions on the task, the volume and the output you need. You get a diagnosis of whether an agent fits, not a score.
Take the assessmentCheck when your senior people last posted anything.
Book a discovery call. We will look at the audiences already sitting on the profiles of your partners and what reaching them would be worth.
Book a discovery call →