Before LinkedIn, I'd take business cards or exchange emails with contact information. I'd try to remember to enter it into my addressbook, or file it somewhere I can find it later. Good luck searching it, and if you do find someone and they've moved to a new job, the contact info you have might be totally out of date anyway.
It isn't just a hyped up resume. A great Github profile, blog or Twitter account does little to replace LinkedIn's functionality. If you're looking at it as just a way to be found by recruiters, you're doing it wrong. It's about keeping in touch with a broad network of professional contacts. Not people I talk to every day, but people I like, respect, and know I can reach out to if I need help (and vice versa). Despite all the annoying things they do, I find it extremely useful.
(All my LinkedIn contacts are people I know personaly. When I need to contact them I use my address book where I store their personal email address, and mobile phone # which aren't on LinkedIn. If I need to contact someone I don't know, I don't think about going through LinkedIn; maybe I should.)
> Our mission is simple: connect the world's professionals to make them more productive and successful. When you join LinkedIn, you get access to people, jobs, news, updates, and insights that help you be great at what you do.
LinkedIn targets all professionals, not just those that are tech savvy. Most people visit only a handful of websites in a given day; if Linkedin can become a 'good enough' destination for professional news, it has a good chance of becoming part of that handful of websites, if it isn't already. There's some good insight on that here: https://www.quora.com/LinkedIn-Acquisition-of-Pulse-March-20...
Linkedin as a company isn't just about one thing, like adding professional connections for example, much like Apple as a company isn't just about one thing, like making iPhones. As a company, their goal is to build product(s) that align with their mission, and if the stock market is to be trusted as a proxy of how well they're doing that, it appears they're doing pretty well: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=LNKD+Basic+Chart&t=1y
If you're an SEO, for example, you need to keep up with Google algorithm updates. If you're a doctor, you need to keep up with new drugs and treatments. If you work in marketing, it's important to keep up with your competitors.
I'm not so interested in LinkedIn's news products, but my former employer used them very effectively. Spending all day refreshing Hacker News certainly won't help you be productive, but checking the front page once or twice a day can help you stay abreast of the tech startup industry.
The key is discipline.
But I really wish my doctors don't count on comments on LinkedIn to keep up with "new drugs and treatments"! I hope they're subscribed to professional journals or go to conferences, etc.
The larger point being, every professional community has its specialized hubs. If LinkedIn strategy is to become the universal professional hub for all... well then that's a "frighteningly ambitious" idea.
I can't see them pulling it off but who knows -- and thanks for pointing it out.
One important thing to understand is that LinkedIn isn't just populated by tech folks. LinkedIn is a professional social networking platform that caters to all professions. Your Github / twitter feed might be relevant in the tech industry, but that isn't even an item to think about in most other industries.
LinkedIn is one of the only "social" companies that has demonstrated growth in profitability. They are obviously doing something right. They are making money and demonstrating growth. Where are they going wrong?
It's good for them that LinkedIn is making money. But that revenue comes from recruiters, and is only possible if non-recruiters (ordinary folks) get some value out of the system. If normal people don't get any value out of LinkedIn, they will leave (or become dormant) and the revenue from recruiters will dry up. I'm just wondering what that value might be.
I already see many ghost profiles, people who haven't updated their profile in a while or who create a different profile every time they change companies.
I wouldn't bet the farm on LinkedIn. Although for 90M I would (since the farm is worth much less).
I think that's a very good analogy which applies to a lot more than MBAs. In my experience, the site is incredibly popular with people who work by way networking and recommendations.
If I had to guess...
I expect that right now some large number of LinkedIn users only engage with the site when they have an active job search going - not often.
The majority of LinkedIn revenue [1] comes from services sold to recruiters [2]. Recruiters want lots of current, accurate information about potential hires. If people aren't engaging with the site regularly, LinkedIn doesn't have that.
Now, I expect that most people who use Pulse use it daily, several times a day in my case.
By grabbing Pulse, LinkedIn gets a direct line to the 30M people who use the app and all sorts of information about their habits.
They'll now have an attractive, useful app from which to launch engagement with the site in order to improve the core "talent soltutions" product, drive content into their communities and drive better targeted advertising [3] (their second largest source of revenue) [1] back to those users via Pulse.
1:http://www.ere.net/2013/02/07/as-revenue-soars-linkedin-anno...
More than anything, I just hope LinkedIn doesn't shut Pulse down. It would be a huge loss to many of Pulse's loyal users.
http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/whoToFollow?strategy=post...
I've been using groups a lot recently and if you post the right stuff it sparks a good discussion. Also sends a fair bit of traffic to my blog.
Agree that the site is unresponsive, badly designed and considering their valuation it seems baffling the state it is in.
We have xing over here, which seems to be the local rip-off - and it's useless crap. I don't like FB or most things online with a 'social' label, and these sites seem to be 'FB without games'. I don't get the appeal. I don't understand the target group (ignoring recruiters).
Now that email "[email protected]" has an amount of spam that shames my other (spam friendly) email ID I've been using for 3 years.
All the offers I've received via LinkedIn are well, below below standard. I've received better (a lot) offers from job portals. Or directly dropping your resume at companies' portals still works the best.
I really do not see where LinkedIn fits in my life and I, sure as hell, don't see where LinkedIn fits in with Pulse and Rapportive and elk.
Their business model seems to be to source candidates to recruiters. This may be good for recruiters, but for candidates? I'm not so sure. It's certainly better to have an overall strong online presence (Twitter / Github (if relevant) / personal blog) than contacts on LinkedIn that don't mean anything.
Groups are full of spam.
The website is incredibly unresponsive.
They bought the excellent IndexTank technology and team a while ago, and promptly shut it down (the tech was open sourced though, which is more than can be said for a lot of acquisitions).
It seems they only keep on living because people are somewhat afraid to delete their profile; but everything inside LinkedIn feels dead.
And now Pulse. Who would go to LinkedIn for news??
Pulse says "The company shares (...) our belief in the power of knowledge and elevated discussion".
Elevated discussion? On LinkedIn? Come on!