But I have no, zero, interest in actually visiting unless I'm a recruiter. I don't care that someone posts a motivational video or a colleague celebrates 10 years at Innotek. All I want to do as a non-recruiter is maintain a reasonably sized network for that time in 5 years when I do want to check my network. Until then, I don't ever want to log in.
So to me it it does proide value, but how much value do I provide? I suppose my aging profile does provide some material for recruiters so that the keep spending for pro recruiter features. But I don't think they'll ever be a facebook that can have significant ad-revenue from recurring visitors.
I have no idea if this is actually the strategy, or if this is actually working, I'm just floating it as a possibility. You only go there if you're a recruiter, or thinking about getting new work, or you have been asked by somebody else to endorse, and that would be a good thing, in this scenario, since it improves the signal-to-noise ratio.
I fully understand how that can go unnoticed, because I didn’t notice for a long while. Before I was invited to help formulate national standards on enterprise architecture I rarely used LinkedIn. It’s not where developers network, not by a long shot. But I entered these multi-municipal networks, and through that work I was exposed to the greater sum of LinkedIn.
It’s not an understatement to say that it’s a platform you can’t ignore if you work with any sort of management, and project/change-management applies to this. Today it’s the only social network I have installed on my phone, precisely for this reason.
On my morning commute this morning I learned about a new AI project in our neighbouring municipality as an example of just how useful it is. I probably would have heard about it eventually at one of the yearly events the project owner and I both attend, but now I heard about it in time to enter the project with them.
This is anecdotal of course and maybe this is a Danish thing, maybe it’s even more profound in our public sector, but I think LinkedIn is rather valuable and increasingly so.
The blog post says all this integration is never going to happen, but I don't know if they have ever worked for a large corporation or not...but it takes a while to get the wheels spinning especially after an acquisition. Anyone that thinks LinkedIn was a dumb purchase by Microsoft does so at their own peril.
Given how Salesforce is squeezing every last cent out of users (new or long-time) that day can't come soon enough.
I like Salesforce (the product) and enjoy working with it more than I ever enjoyed Dynamics CRM, but their price hikes are getting too much for customers to stomach.
Is the zero axis horizontal?
But as for everything else, most people are consumers. They consume content - whether it's cat photos, videos, news, etc. Linkedin offers none of that. People just go there when they need a job. So I don't see how they can increase engagement in a platform where 99% of people in the world just want to consume.
Really? Do you think people base such impressions upon solid logic, or is it simply some sort of employer groupthink?
I like to think that potential employers will respect my decision to avoid the vacuous LinkedIn crazy town, rather than mark me down for it.
Depends who's hiring I guess. If I'm the one doing the hiring, then not being on LinkedIn certainly makes a positive impression upon me :-)
Isn't it kind of the same sort of thing as "wearing pants to a job interview" now? Just part of the expected decorum for functioning as a professional? I understand it can be a bit of a crazy town, but there's a difference between "being on there" and "putting up inspirational quotes at 15 minute intervals".
If I ever get within a sniff of being near the breadline, then of course I shouldn't rule out re-joining LinkedIn, in order to protect myself from destitution, but things are okay for me right now.
I originally left because LinkedIn triggered my "3 strikes and you're out" policy on spam and sneaky dark pattern preferences UI. Have they improved their behaviour in that area?
Oh, they exposed my password to the internet and they also stole all my Google contacts in the early days (2009?) without my permission. Nasty stuff.
I'm also worried about exposing too much personal history in terms of identity theft. The less data out there, the better (?).
I sincerely mean this without any snark or sarcasm: You've given me something to think about. Thanks!
Goes to look for pants...
Anecdotal sample of one: my last 5 positions came from real life networking (meetups, local dev communities & reputation) rather than via a LinkedIn account, which as you've no doubt surmised, I no longer have.
Fall behind in search, spend billions on Bing.
Fall behind in mobile, spend billions on Nokia.
Fall behind in social media, spend billions on LinkedIn.
Hmm, so what was that definition of insanity again?
p.s. Given what happened with the iPod / iTunes being behind isn't always a bad thing.
I don't think that's a fair comparison. When the iPod and then iTunes entered the scene, the MP3 player market was very small and immature. The product they put forth was untouchable because it didn't address one or two gripes with MP3 players of the time, it addressed almost all of them. The failed Microsoft products all entered mature markets with very strong incumbents.
When the iPod arrived on the scene it was half the size of the Creative HDD based MP3 players that here hot shit at the time and wasn't trying to look like futuristic discman. It featured a high speed interface (Firewire) so it didn't take weeks to load your music. The interface actually helped you quickly browse your gigabytes of sound files unlike everyone else whose UIs were d-pad based nightmares that made browsing more than a few hundred MP3s a hassle. It had a rechargeable battery that lasted longer than any other player of which most were still using AA as power. The most compelling alternative to the iPod was probably the iRiver H1xx series and it didn't arrive until 2 years later and still had a horribly crippled UI but equally high price.
All the incumbent tech giants including Microsoft, Oracle, Apple, and Google entered the markets they dominate when those markets were very immature and relatively new. Their products had multiple advantages over the competition, if any, and quickly captured the market before anyone realized what happened.
My point is, I think if you asked most people "Who invented the MP3 player?" they'd say Apple. That's just not the case. Refined it? Yes, obviously. But they certainly weren't first.
Long to short, execution matters. There a tons of ideas sitting in the idea gravy yard, not because they were bad ideas, but because they were executed badly.
The Search, Social Network, and Mobile OS markets were very mature when Microsoft entered market and the products they offered weren't discernably better let alone substantially better.
Regardless, my point - which might be different than your point - is first isn't always best; and that Apple's reputation as a ground-breaker can be, at times, overstated.
They have a terrible record of leading the way into new territory, and a questionable one when the growth engine is acquisition.
Azure was another copycat product.
The question here was about copying: when you are after in an area, do you aquire something or lauch a large project to catch up. That doesn't even make sense for non-copycat products.
However, the piece gets sloppy when the author starts speculating that Office 365's growth will lead to antitrust suits.
It isn't Microsoft's fault, per se. It's a hard problem.
Unless they plan on doing that, they can't pretend like they either have it or will have it.
Another reason why we need more itemization on intangibles in public filings...
(In millions) Amount Weighted Average Life
Customer-related $ 3,607 7 years
Marketing-related (trade names) $2,148 20 years
Technology-based $2,109 3 years
Contract-based $23 5 years
Fair value of intangible assets acquired $7,887 9 years
On the advertising front, I could not agree more with the article. Working in the B2B marketing space for a while, we completely cut LinkedIn ads due to poor reach of our defined target audience. Working in the fintech space, we targeted the appropriate persona, yet came away with hundreds of likes from irrelevant professions. Coupled with the price, we left almost immediately.
However, I believe that LinkedIn is expanding on a B2B play. Selling recruiting solutions. LinkedIn is calling them "Talent Solutions." In October, LinkedIn purchased Glint, based out of the bay area . Glint focuses primarily on B2B HR solutions, using surveys and AI to comprehend employee engagement and satisfaction. With LinkedIn's talent solution + Glint's HR solution, LinkedIn, and Microsoft, is making a horizontal play onto the HR landscape.
Sadly the "Jobs you might be interested in..." from linkedin are, despite knowing quite a bit about what my skills are.... almost always completely irrelevant.
ie. They have the data... they are mind blowingly incompetent at using it.
I think there is some potential to make LinkedIn work, but it has to start with a thoughtful redesign. Of course, the right way would be that users themselves communicate rather than having the design do it for you. But at this point the platform has dug itself in too deep of a ditch.
For people who actually do a real job, not so much.
I recently thought the same when facebook started advertising (to me at least) on silly mobile game (the ads those games show)
Now unfortunately this does work both ways: if you hate Facebook, seeing a Facebook ad will make you more and more irritated with Facebook. But if you think Coca-Cola is good yet don't have strong preference Coke vs Pepsi, seeing Coke ads everywhere will make you think more highly of Coke rather than Pepsi. This is why Coke brands the most ridiculous things, like wall decor, decorative plates, toy trucks, even Christmas. People will gladly hang their ads on the wall and be constantly exposed to Coke advertising.
Facebook is banking on people who don't hate Facebook seeing the ads, knowing that people who do hate Facebook are a lost cause anyway... or are being targeted by a different ad campaign to win them back.
"Not Facebook" includes other social media like reddit and Twitter and Youtube and LinkedIn etc, but also news sources like New York Times and BBC and Washington Post etc, and other OpenID login providers like Google and Github etc, and other messaging services like iMessage and Slack etc, and other sources of business information like Yelp and TripAdvisor and Foursquare etc. Every time you visit one of these "not Facebook" sites, Facebook loses.
So Facebook reminds you that Facebook exists so you'll check Facebook first and might as well log into that site and app with Facebook and as long as you're here why not message your friends, oh by the way did you see this cool business near you and there's an event you just have to go to.
If your customer acquisition cost (CAC)is less than the lifetime value of the customer it's an obvious calculation.
If you pay $15 for a user but they make you $100 ... do it!