"congratulations! You were one of our first 500,000 members to register in Iceland."
Iceland - population of 300,000.
See also: the way they play with the "how many people have clicked on your profile in that last XYZ days" to always make it seem like you've got a lot of people clicking.
Misleading doesn't necessarily mean lying.
Now I'm wondering what I need to do to market myself there...
People who use LinkedIn actively will get way more views since they will be adding connections and viewing other people's pages more (LinkedIn emails people your contact info if you view their page).
At first, being top 5% made me feel popular. But considering the pool includes users who created an account 3 years ago and haven't touched it since, I'm not so sure.
LinkedIn is basically a contact list for me. I've always found the site cluttered and a bit clumsy, not something I want to use. Though, I do get some amusement out of seeing people predictably check my profile after meeting for the first time.
Things like the newish endorsement feature actually bother me. It's all very gamey, counters and "XP bars" everywhere begging your effort to make them increment.
I certainly understand such carrots to induce more people to make more connections, have more engagement with the site and ideally drop $240-900/yr. for premium accounts.
Personally, I'd be more inclined to do that if I thought connections, endorsements, profile views and whatnot were actually meaningful.
As it is, the only thing that seems to demonstrate any real effort/connection are recommendations which are given no more priority in the activity feed than endorsements and appear towards the bottom of profiles.
However LinkedIn is still pretty good at letting you get what you want out of it. I've not yet spoken to anyone who doesn't share my/your view of "these skill endorsements are hilariously dumb", and consequently we've disabled them - no longer are they seen on my profile, nor do I get emails about people endorsing me.
Number of profile views isn't meaningful, but who viewed your profile can be - I'm one of the ones dropping $500/yr on my account, I'd say 60% of my reasoning is for the InMails, 20% is seeing exactly who viewed my profile, 20% is that whether it's logical or not, people who don't know you do look at the little premium badge on your profile and think very slightly differently of you.
Return the favor! Does amorphid know organic cat grooming?
The fact that we always want to know who "peaked" at our profiles (I'm sure half of your secretly wanted to know at some point of your life who looked at your facebook profile right?) leads people to upgrade.
A funny thing happened to me a few months ago, I was browsing linkedin and landed on a old client's profile and I was wondering what was going on with him and his projects.
A few hours later I got an email from him saying that he got a notification that I was viewing his profile and that made him wondered what is going on with me (and our company). That interaction made me think that this single feature is genius, it helps reconnect with people (some will argue that it might be creepy).
They piqued your interest in who peeked at your profile -- it worked, your interest has peaked.
I actually do my best to minimize my appearance in search. No job descriptions besides titles, no skills, no visible endorsements, no recommendations. I basically use LinkedIn to keep track of ex-colleagues, but that does not stop recruiters from still finding and contacting me.
I can imagine their marketing department trying very hard to make sure they find some kind of positively-sounding (but ultimately not very interesting) stat about every single account so they can justify sending that email to everyone.
It's 1 out of 20. Is that significant or not? Depends on your perspective. But it certainly is not objectively insignificant.
> And I noticed from their letter that LinkedIn has 200M members. 5% of 200M is 10M.
And if there were 1B linkedin users, it would be even more. But 5% is still 1 out of 20. Again, if you find that impressive or not is up to you, but it is a very clear, nonmisrepresented percentage.
In any case I find the campaign to be extremely effective. Making 20M people feel special is impressive.
P.S. Looks like at least two versions were sent out, one with 5% and another with 1% that I got. Were there other?
From a marketing standpoint it worked, since now people are talking about it.
This was clearly an ego boost, though not something you tweet about or post on Facebook (the taboo of online dating + sounding like a major douche).
OkCupid has been doing stuff like this with data for a really long time and they deserve some credit as well.
I do not do a lot of analytics (ie close to nil). Is it really that hard to have a counter for the number of visits to each person's profile?
If they're doing it right, they're storing everything about the person viewing a page, and everything about the person whose page they are viewing, every time a page view happens. That way they can run analysis on the pages themselves as well as the page viewers' activities.
The reason it's impressive is that they have 200M users doing X number of page views per day, over the course of an entire year.
Let's say the average user does 1 pageview per day. 200M x 1 x 365 = 73B events.
Now they're sorting those 73B events by the pages viewed so they can sort out which pages got the most views.
It's not rocket science, but it's pretty cool IMO :)
1 pageview per user per day might be way off, but seems reasonable.
Talk about a skeumorphism better left behind...