The first time it happened, I thought it was just an error caused by my chunky fingers hitting the wrong keys or clicking my mouse with too little respect for the useful creature. But, as it has continued, and LinkedIn has been impervious to requests for an explanation of whether what’s happening is intentional or not, I have moved up the emotional scale from mildly irritated to pretty angry. I even considered a New Year’s resolution of dumping LinkedIn.
What would you think if you got this message in your inbox?
Like me, you might be complimented that people are searching for you for business, for pleasure or for anything. And you’d certainly be curious about who these clever searchers might be. So, just as I did, you would click the box. Right? And here is what you would get.
That’s funny. I distinctly remember that LinkedIn told me (in the opening personal email from “Notification. No reply”) that I had appeared in three searches this week. Did the other two searchers get lost?
Only a week or so later, Liz, at LinkedIn Sales Solutions, tells me my 90-day fan club, albeit over an overlapping period, grew by 400 percent.
WOW. I really want to see who those folks are.
The only problem is that to see these 13 people, I have to sign up for a 30-day “Free” trial to Sales Navigator Professional with a negative option paid subscription after the 30 days if you don`t notify
them you want to quit. And to get the free trial, I have to give LinkedIn my credit card and lots of other data. Why? Helpfully, there is a very smoothly written explanation promising “a seamless subscription experience.” But, despite these assurances, when even the CIA and NSA can’t adequately protect their data, can LinkedIn?
The playwright Tom Stoppard has one of his characters say famously, “There is an art to the building up of suspense.” LinkedIn seems to have mastered the art, taking the curious (or not taking him) to find who is really interested in his profile.
And if that weren’t enough, here’s what came next.
I know I flunked math at school but, despite a serious effort, I couldn’t figure out where the 267 number came from.
It’s obvious that like many of Silicon Valley’s progeny, growth in number of “subscribers,” paying for the premium service vs. taking it free, is the key KPI. That would help explain the rather over-the-top switch-selling which so annoys not only me, but lots of people who value the LinkedIn service — but not the hassle.
“Get them to sign up” is a standard digital mantra. And as LinkedIn is now owned by Microsoft, its bean counters are no doubt focusing on this and the data that each sign-up brings. Writing for Forbes, Grant Feller said of LinkedIn: “It knows where people work, their skills, ambitions, who they went to school with and what interests groups people share. LinkedIn knows about people better than Microsoft does.”
It is now virtually impossible to get a sense of whether this strategy is paying off. After Microsoft paid a cool $26.2 billion in late 2016 for the essentially profitless company with its tanking stock price, its figures are no longer available. At the time, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella was quoted as calling the deal the centerpiece of its “cloud services and software” strategy. And it also makes Microsoft a major player in the increasingly competitive social network Olympics. But does this justify such a hard sell?
The question is: Should we all be LinkedIn or Out? That’s something to consider for your next New Year’s resolutions.