Last month LinkedIn revealed the company’s new iOS app. This prompted some in the marketing industry to suggest that LinkedIn is mimicking Facebook too closely. Aesthetics aside, these commentators might have a valid point.
A swathe of publishing corporate tools have created a powerful new marketing channel for businesses to utilise. Customers, advocates and prospects are now immediately reachable. Our personal network is suddenly worth even more to the businesses we work for.
Naturally, these developments are accompanied by negatives. Personal over-sharing, bland discussions and unsuitable content are but a few examples. David Gilson’s recent post LinkedIn is a rancid nest of spam outlines this argument even better.
What can be done? Should LinkedIn limit how much can be shared each month?
This sounds like a bold proposal, but consider the consequences for a minute. Time is an extremely valuable commodity, however sharing content is the reverse. Automation makes it even easier to relay as many updates as we wish from personal and company brands.
More doesn’t equal better. That’s the philosophy we follow for our clients — for example, LinkedIn updates should be thought-provoking and staggered gradually over time.
If everyone followed this mantra, the outcome might be surprisingly positive. Posting limits could curb mundanities, unsolicited advertising and poorly targeted articles. We’d all be forced to think more about what we post, rather than partaking in the ‘me too’ culture that is becoming fairly synonymous with LinkedIn.
Unsurprisingly, and somewhat ironically considering where this post is published, the rule for social networks is generally the more content, the larger the revenue for the platform operator. Facebook has succeeded because of how extensive the platform is. LinkedIn needs to follow a similar strategy to continue growing.
Despite this, the company should tread carefully with how regularly its users are encouraged to post content and the quality of updates.