In 2003, the Internet was in a phase of transition. The dot-com bubble had long since burst and people were looking for more useful ways to put the Internet to work. Since just building a good website no longer meant success, networking became increasingly important. In the view of the “who you know not what you know” mentality, LinkedIn was born.
We were given the idea that we could connect with former co-workers, bosses and friends, and then by providing career information about one another, we’d have the best possible way to acquire recommendations that we could use to further our paths.
Sadly, it has never come to fruition in the way that it should have. LinkedIn, to this day, has a number of problems that 70 million users and $103 million in funding haven’t been able to fight off. These problems, coupled with a somewhat rising global economic outlook have set LinkedIn into a death spiral that doesn’t seem to be ending anytime soon.
The Problems
2003-era features in a 2010 Internet
It wasn’t long ago that LinkedIn finally overhauled its internal messaging system. The service that is supposedly so important was getting a pretty large upgrade. That “upgrade” amounted to nothing more than bringing LinkedIn into 2005…5 years too late.
In short, if LinkedIn is going to market itself as a pace-setting site, then it needs to at least be toward the front of the pack instead of bringing up the rear in terms of features and capabilities.
Non-weighted Recommendations
LinkedIn seems to think that Internet users aren’t lazy. The fact is, we are. In viewing recommendations on LinkedIn, every one is given the same weight, whether it’s from Steve Jobs or your friend Bob. Anyone viewing your profile would have to do more digging in order to figure out which one is more important.
Recommendations, which are the basis of the entire site, need to hold value. Lacking a scale by which the importance of a recommendation can be measured is a huge oversight on the part of the site. Today, social influence scales are taking off in a way that LinkedIn should have been able to capitalize on years ago. In short, LinkedIn should not have to prove that it is the Klout of careers. It does.
Lack of Use is a Downward Spiral
Our own @ChadCat wrote about the downward spiral of LinkedIn not long ago. He, like many of us, continues to find little value in the site. Of course, we all go on the connections bender once in a while, but nothing ever seems to come of it.
That lack of interaction, the lack of results, is the elephant in the LinkedIn room. Nobody wants to talk about how it simply doesn’t do what it’s intended to do, for most of its users. If in time, we continue to fade away from the site, there will be less critical mass to LinkedIn, something that is propping it up. Less interaction and use means less critical mass and a slowing trend that the site will be hard pressed to turn around.
How To Fix It
First off, it should go without saying (but this is blogging, and if I don’t say it someone will call me an idiot after saying it themselves) that LinkedIn needs a serious amount of cosmetic surgery. We’re not just talking a facelift; the site needs a ground-up restoration. Ugly is not acceptable, and for a company that claims to be profitable they can afford a real design team.
It simply must be able to compete with what else is out and available on the Internet. People are finding considerably more value in Facebook and Twitter connections than they are with LinkedIn, and that’s a fact that the site can’t afford to ignore any longer.
So what comes after the reconstruction? Here are some ideas:
Dump the Integration
LinkedIn has become an aggregator. People feed information into it and don’t bother doing much on the site itself. Looking at my main LinkedIn page is akin to going to Twitter and seeing the updates of my friends. There’s little else that happens.
LinkedIn needs to think backwards of where it is presently. It needs to connect to Twitter and Facebook so that you can push your information to those networks if you want, rather than telling everyone with whom you’re connected that you just got your second Starbucks of the day.
Hire a Face
If you know about LinkedIn, it’s because you just happened to. It’s not likely that you know anyone who has ever turned a connection into a job. LinkedIn has done an abysmal job of marketing itself, and the lack of function is partially to blame for that. The “buzz” wore off nearly as fast as it came on.
If LinkedIn is to do its job, it needs to bring some people on board who are amazing at developing buzz and relationships. Get the buzz going, then show your newly-buzzed users why your site is important to them.
Show Examples
It’s entirely possible that everything that we’ve written here is wrong. Maybe there are people who have gotten loads of jobs because of the site. If that’s true, though, why don’t we know about it? LinkedIn needs to show its users what happens when you’re well connected. As of now, that hasn’t even been started.
The site has promise, it has users, and it has cash. It has everything that any web company could ever want, except our attention. If it does that, the site should be able to reclaim its former shine.















I got my present job as SEO Manager of http://www.Groupon.com from a message through LinkedIn. And I continue to get interesting nibbles from interesting companies and agencies. I agree that LinkedIn is pretty old school and that it could innovate some new features beyond aggregation of other sites to reclaim leadership. But its not like there’s a better professional networking site out there. At least its not monster.com, whose features inspires no consumer loyalty and from which I’ve never received a single nibble.
Hey Jill –
Thanks for the feedback. It’s really appreciated. Great point about Monster. It’s right up there with HotJobs, in my book.
By the by, I love Groupon. Thanks for doing what you guys do!
Brad,
I do agree there is room for improvement at LI but I disagree with what you are insinuating. Particularly when your article relies primarily on anecdotal observations and your subjective opinion.
Specifically, your article implies that LI is going out of business any day now; this is misleading and does your readers a disservice. I doubt that is going to happen just yet since according to you they are profitable. Moreover, the fact is that with a business model that is both ad-supported and subscription-based LI’s traffic continues to rise: http://www.quantcast.com/linkedin.com (NOTE: unique users are directly observed not inferred via QC panel).
Anyway, if you were expecting a job through it then you are probably reaching. It looks like you have just 50 connections so that might explain your experience. Formy part, LI has been very useful to me over the years for business development and career development/networking purposes.
Domenico Tassone
Chicago, IL
A few counterpoints to your own:
1 – I only connect to people on LinkedIn with whom I’ve worked directly. Judging the the categories from which we have to choose when making a connection, that is using the site as it is intended.
2 – I’ve never suggested, nor have I implied that LI is going out of business. I simply suggest that the model is broken and needs drastic improvement to meet its potential.
3 – I’m not expecting a job through LI. I have one. More specifically, I have a few, but I have one that I do daily that I rely on to pay the bills. I’m quite happy with it.
4 – I have 50 connections because people that I’ve worked with don’t tend to use LinkedIn. The vast majority of my connections have been made since I started at TNW.
5 – I never do a disservice. I might propose an alternative viewpoint, or even a point of discussion, but I will never write things that are detrimental to a business. It’s not who I am, it’s not what I believe in.
As an aside, Quantcast does an abysmal job of measuring traffic. Though it’s beneficial to your point, the numbers reflected on Quantcast are likely considerably lower than real world traffic for the site.
While Quantcast does have to make estimates about most sites, it has a pixel on LinkedIn.com, which means the numbers – and more importantly, the trends – are accurate.
LinkedIn is not supposed to be Facebook. I don’t want to have to check it every hour or even every week. Its job is to be there when you need it, representing you professionally in the realms you have chosen. I think it has deviated somewhat from its initial intended use, but any recruiter worth their salt uses it daily, and anybody hiring – especially in tech – checks their candidates’ profiles on it.
I don’t think it’s going anywhere, and I don’t think anyone else is positioned to take over its unique niche.
It’s cool that Jill got her current position through LinkedIn. But…the best thing someone in that situation can say is that “it’s not like there’s a better professional networking site out there”? To me, saying “it could be worse” is hardly an endorsement. LinkedIn adds obvious features long after they are needed, and has never (yet) done anything innovative. The potential upside is large, but the execution is sorely lacking.
Yeah Domenico. You made a couple of observations I was going to point out.
But Brad… LinkedIn is not just about getting a job. It is so much more than a glorified online resume.
And I find it interesting that you don’t share your LinkedIn profile with your readers, we had to go find it. Twitter and Facebook are there, the connections and post and share and like are all there, yet you have no Links to LinkedIn. And you wonder why you get no traction from the site.
Let’s make a deal. I’ll show you some stuff about LinkedIn, you help me building a stronger blog following. Or let’s talk facebook or music, or something that interests us both.
Let’s see what happens. In 6 weeks, post a follow up blog. It’s on the house :)
Lori Ruff
The LinkedIn Diva
@loriruff
I don’t share my profile, as I stated in a comment above, because I’ve not worked with the majority of people who read this site. I use the site as it is apparently intended and as such I don’t see results from it. The rest of my contact information is blatantly public. If people want to work with me, then I’m happy to oblige in most circumstances. We can connect and give each other recommendations after the fact.
I’m certain that there are many people who connect all over the place, regardless of work history. In fact, I’m often invited to connect by people that I’ve never heard of, met or worked with on a regular occasion. That might work for some, for me, it’s the antithesis of how the site is designed and therefore the model is broken.
Lori, I’m certain that you do well for yourself as the LinkedIn Diva. However, your approach to things and my own are on two completely different scales. You follow 46,000+ people on Twitter and it appears that you build connections that way. To me, it’s a waste to follow that many people. It doesn’t build a network, it builds a soapbox.
While I’m glad that you have found value in LI (as I said, I might be entirely wrong), it appears that you have done so in a manner that is opposite of how the site was intended to be used. Now, consider how much more value you could have from the site if LI implemented even a couple of the things that I mentioned here.
As for helping you build a blog following? I offer professional consulting services. I’m certain that you can find information regarding that on my publicly-listed profiles. ;)
First, I love the wink!
And true – I don’t use every site as originally intended. I follow the people who follow me because I want to be part of the conversation, not just spout off to people who follow me. It’s not opposite, just a shift.
Consider Obama and Clinton during the election. Obama followed everyone who followed him, Clinton follow no one. It was all a one sided conversation. And who won the election? Not that I believe that Obama watched everything going on, but the perception is there… “He cared enough to follow me too!” is more powerful than “I’m following him on Twitter.”
I found value on LinkedIn for business development when I had only 185 connections. I met my current partner on LinkedIn and over the last four years have taught thousands of people how to find value on LinkedIn.
I am glad to have a healthy dialog with you and look forward to continuing the conversation… after all, that’s what I love most about social media: the conversation!
Recently a good few colleagues and me have changed jobs, funnily enough, 3 out of 5 where initiated through LinkedIn!
And mine in a way, as we both got the job, he got approached via LinkedIn, and recommended me for the selection process too!
In fact, at least in the UK, more and more recruiters are using it to approach candidates who might not be as actively looking for jobs as people without job.
So I see it picking up rather than dying…
That’s awesome, Eloi. I’m really glad to hear that people are finding value in it.
It’s been a bittersweet thing, for me. I see so much potential, but I see it being wasted.
LinkedIn kind of feels like the equivalent of getting together,standing in a circle and holding everyone else’s hand.
There needs to be more if it was going to be successful, but doesn’t seem as if much value comes from using it at all in these parts.
I kept nodding as I read this post. LI is this obligatory “work thing”. So true about the occasional ‘LI benders’. Its more of a game than a tool.
We have a networking site within our local market – http://smallerindiana.com/ that is doing very well. Perhaps partnering up with some smaller vendors that are getting things right would be beneficial?
Rubbish. Linkedin more is more valuable than fbook to me. Sensationalist article,
Really, Frank? I’d venture to say that the vast majority of the 70 million are more in line with my experiences than your own.
Sorry, but I consider that a sensationalist comment to my article.
I suppose it’s all a matter of personal experience, no?
Brad – I think you hit the nail on the head. I even posted a follow-up article about my opinion of LinkedIn. Read it at http://www.sapphiresolutionsltd.com/blog/2010/09/06/linkedin-has-checked-out/
Do I think LinkedIn is fading into a abyss, no, do I think they are suffering from the “looking over their shoulder, loss of identity factor” yes.
Loss is that the integration of twitter and the likes has diluted “the trusted network / referral” model and confused their positioning/ brand.
Design wise for me is ok, another factor I hear about is the “paywall” and inmail cost & limitations as well as competition sharking your connections (they should make the ability to hide your connections) .
Have I gotten viable business, valued resources from linkedin, You bet your sweet bippies I have, because I use likedin as it was intended.
So in the end, I think that LinkedIn should be who they are & not loose sight of why people are there in the first place, its not Facebook, nor twitter, nor a aggregation of all your social sites, blogs and what not.
Brad,
I couldn’t agree more with you here. I used to praise LI and try to sell it to everyone I know, but that was in 2005… I tried to continue with my LI ways and promote the service knowing what I’m preaching is plain rubbish. Their intentions are still great, I love the idea, it’s just that the deliver fails miserably.
I used to love the Q&A features but in the last couple of years it’s turned to Spam and More Spam. The quality has just fallen off and continues to go downhill. You have to work extremely hard to get some valuable benefit from LinkedIn. I still use it, but find I’m wasting more and more time with it.
You may have convinced me to move on and join the FB crowd…
If LinkedIn stays who they are, they will inevitably fade away, if not sooner than later. When they do, it wont be because of Facebook, Twitter and the like. It will be because people who use Facebook, Twitter and the like, see how easy and thoughtless it is to use, and find LinkedIn way to cumbersome to tolerate.
LinkedIn could keep their identity and maintain their specialty (exchange information, ideas and opportunities), while still providing a better user interface and better user interaction.
Look how easy it is just to post to this article. Why can’t a majority of the user experience on LinkedIn be this easy? Answer – it could be, with a commitment to development and change.
Really, my ideas for the perfect LinkedIn experience would not change the viability of the service they offer.
Maybe a better idea, is to use my ideas of how to make LinkedIn better, and create a new site, in direct competition with LinkedIn, but not in competition at all with Facebook, Twitter or MySpace.
I think I will use “Similar to LinkedIn, Only way Better!” as a slogan.
Although I agree the site could use a makeover design wise I completely disagree that LI has no value. I get a lot of job offers through LI as well and I use it daily to find email addresses/telephone numbers of people I need to connect with. So while you are right about a couple of things your article is a bit of a sour story dude.
I can’t see Linkedin going anywhere fast but I do agree that the functionality of the site is underwhelming. Take Groups for example, which devolve very little control to Group Managers resulting in a very vanilla experience across Groups – perhaps that’s intentional. Linkedin seems to be positioning itself as an advertising or eDM platform without really adding the functionality for engagement that would incentivise brands to build their communities with the Group. The upgraded Group packages (which are expensive) are focused on advertising packages and don’t include anything special in terms of Group customisation, content and functionality. The recent addition of Promotions is a step in the right direction (I have set up sub-groups for the spammers in the Groups that I’ve created for clients) but there are many many more opportunities to improve the networking, content and engagement features within Linkedin between individuals and within Groups.
One of the issues that we seem to be facing, and why Linked In has remained so popular, is that most of the users are not at the forefront of the web, and are still stuck in 2005.
We see examples of people saying “I want a site which users can professionally connect with one another, I want it to be the same as Linked In”.
That’s not to say that Linked In is an awesome site at the forefront, but it fits the needs and expectations of users that aren’t quite cutting edge
I don’t think anyone thinks LinkedIn services are of no value. However, as a company, LInkedIn is loosing value. When a company advertises it is a place to “exchange information, ideas and opportunities” it needs to provide a platform where it is easy to do so. Too many people, find it way too easy to exchange information and ideas on platforms like Facebook, MySpace and Twitter. While these platforms have some of their own shortfalls, they are way more popular, which gives their company more value.
As it is right now, LinkedIn has way too much overhead, and way too little to offer the people on their platform.
While it is true LinkedIn has big name partners, those partners will start dropping like flies if they see membership rates declining. These partners will start to see they are getting way less bang for their buck, by staying with LinkedIn.
LinkedIn has had nothing of note since June of 2009. If they have, they aren’t displaying it on their web site (http://press.linkedin.com/history). So either someone is not updating the site, or they simply overlooked it. Either way, it is a sign of poor management, which is usually a sign of economic hardship!
I should have said “Either way, it is a sign of poor management, which can be a sign of economic hardship!” instead of “Either way, it is a sign of poor management, which is usually a sign of economic hardship!”
Contrary to the blog title, LinkedIn seems to be doing just fine – many other sites wish they had a positive revenue stream…
On recommendations – if you as a profile owner are going to leave non-useful recommendations visible on your profile, you’re misusing the site and failing to make your case. I don’t need to see 200 of them, but a dozen key ones – that would be helpful.
As a means to reach trusted friends of trusted friends – it has no competition.
Now – does it train users well – absolutely not. I launched “The LinkedIn Personal Trainer” book and web site back in 2007 specifically because of that…
One of the biggest revelations to users is that they can search and reach out to friends of friends – and that is what the system was built around! It doesn’t matter if the contact is for sales, partnership or a job – that’s what it does well.
It’s not an email site, struggles with the overall communication platform, and is just getting started with good group features. But as a means to tap into others little black books – it has no rival.
steve
–
Steven Tylock
The LinkedIn Personal Trainer
http://www.linkedinpersonaltrainer.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevetylock
Agree. I have yet to find an alternative for LinkedIn, actually.
I met Reid Hoffman at an event in NY about a year ago and suggested that LinkedIn needed to buy Guru.com and integrate its post/hire/bid/escrow/rate system into the LinkedIn network in order to leverage LinkedIn’s large user base and benefit from the micro-transactions.
It would set them apart from the rest of the social networks and would create a giant in the freelance world – just as everyone is essentially becoming a freelancer – in one way or another.
He looked at me with a smug look on his face as if I had three heads and said “we’re already profitable, is Facebook?” and turned his back on me and walked away.
Now we are hearing the death rattle of the great LinkedIn and reading the first of what I am sure will be it’s many obituaries. When you are building businesses you want to avoid letting hubris blind you. You need all the vision you can muster.
I don’t know of any alternative for LinkedIn as of right now either. However, as a social networking platform, it is lagging way behind the curve in features and ability.
It wouldn’t take long for another company to develop a simple Facebook application, to accomplish everything LinkedIn does, and more.
Neither would it take much to build an entire platform, based on the latest version of WordPress, as a direct competitor to LinkedIn. The WordPress platform would be a whole lot easier to use, and networking to other people would be even easier.
If either of these were to happen, LinkedIn simply could not compete. As much as anyone wants to say they would stay loyal to LinkedIn, when the business leaves, users will follow and the LinkedIn is LinkedOut.
I for one, am not saying there is an alternative to LinkedIn currently. I’m simply saying, as I believe Brad McCarty is saying, LinkedIn has fallen way behind the technological curve and will struggle to catch up, if they don’t do something about it quickly.
Brad – Your starting premise is flawed. LinekIn says their mission is to connect the world’s professionals to make them more productive and successful. They are primarily about helping you in your current job, not getting you another job. LIke many of the other commentators, I joined LinkedIn to build a network for business development and networking with business partners. It has been great for that. I think your focus on LinekIn for job hunting is legitimate, but not the primary reason LinkedIn was created.
Personally, I haven’t gotten much value out of LI at all. I, too, haven’t really needed it for finding a job, but it’s proven far less effective than FB as a means of keeping in touch with current and past co-workers.
I’ve used FB and even MySpace to find past co-workers to collaborate on new stuff, get advice, ask questions, or simply say ‘hi’. Never used LI for any of that.
btw, check out this small app for Facebook: http://servletsuite.com/fbdir
Lets you create a LinkedIn-style directory from your friends public info
agree with you Brad- they need a majot overhaul..evn though they hv linked twitter but its still nt 2way!
till FB turned up myspace and orkut were having fun and profitable(they mite still be)..thrz no alternative to LI and hence its still there- but not for long…
and thanks to ur post i finally got to knw someone got a job thru linkedin!
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Let me give you a view from a different market: I live in Argentina.
We see a very strong growth in LinkedIn, with more people registering and a lot of Groups usage.
On the other hand, there are very few paying subscribers, and advertising cannot be targeted to the country (ridiculous, isn’t it?), so I do not think LI is making any money here.
As a curious fact (aligned with there disinterest) we contacted them to publish an eBook on how to start in LI (sort of LI for Dummies)… And they showed no interest. We did it anyway because we see a lot of value there!
Hi Brad,
Thanks for your very insightful post. We had similar feelings about Linked In and it’s usefulness which led us to creating an alternative called Worky.com. Worky is a platform for people and companies to promote themselves, connect with people and share opportunities. We’ve been testing the concept in Ireland and are just about to launch internationally – we’d love any feedback or comments you or your readers have…we’re at http://www.worky.com. We’re more like FB than LI in that you don’t have to know people to connect with them and we’re trying to remove the barriers for communication…we’re a little way off LI’s numbers of members..but we’ll get there ;)
Hopefully LI is not checking out.
I kinda like LIs conservative nature. Facebook is a bit too wild west and Twitter a bit too full of “had a great meeting with a great client” nothings.
Having said that LI is tending to become merely an aggregator of my online tweets and blogs – not the most exciting offerring. I know some folk love “Answers” but I really don’t get it.
I suspect the Web 2 type world is all getting a bit overhyped (IMO) – I’ve rambled on about it here (also clickable from my LI profile :-)
http://objectiveassoc.wordpress.com/2010/10/05/look-out-the-web-2-0-bubble-is-about-to-burst/