The New York Times calls it boring by design. It isn't far wrong, but today LinkedIn, the social networking site for professionals, seems to have come of age after being valued at $1bn.
It has never had the attention of Facebook, MySpace or even Bebo (which was sold for $850m to AOL, less than LinkedIn is now valued at).
I signed up for LinkedIn, as you do, but have never done a thing with it. Much less than I ever did with MySpace and nowhere near the time I wasted on Facebook (by wasted I mean invested, I mean that never-ending movie quiz is bound to come in handy).
The valuation has come after LinkedIn raised $53m in capital, primarily from Bain Capital Ventures, the Boston-based private equity firm.
It is valued at $1bn in the same way that Microsoft's stake in Facebook valued that social media behemoth at $15bn, but it is still quite a leap on its previous valuation of more than the $580m.
Is it really worth that? Well, it claims to have 23m members and to already be making a profit. Unlike its rivals, which are struggling to attract enough advertising, LinkedIn gets only around $25m of its $100m revenues from ads, the rest comes from premium subscription services and services to recruiters. That's right, it makes you pay to contact other users on the site, which is probably another reason why I never went very far down the LinkedIn road. In that way, its revenue model has almost more in common with a dating site.
The $1bn figure is also far outstrips rival Plaxo, which was sold to cable and broadband company Comcast for between $145m and $175m last month.
Many of the people I know who use it also use Facebook, but seem to spend more time on there than on LinkedIn, which is much more focused and targeted, and guarantees you will never get any vampire or Texas Hold'em invites.
Almost underlining its status as a business network was the story last week that a court ordered a former recruitment firm employee to hand over business contacts he made on LinkedIn as he was using his online network to approach clients. You couldn't imagine that happening with Facebook or maybe you could considering many of us Facebook at work.LinkedIn should be the perfect social networking site for business and for this industry, but despite its valuation it seems to lack much buzz. Maybe that's the thing? It has been quietly getting on with itself, building its network of users globally and allowing them to make connections. I mean, it is after all a business tool that has been built to allow business-to-business networking and the average age of the people on LinkedIn is 41.
Apparently by this age the need for photos of drunken antics on your profile and organising chaotic parties are over.
So ask yourself this question: are you still filling your Facebook profile with pictures of the entertaining exploits of you and your friends? If the answer is yes you are probably in the right place. If it is no then it is probably time to move on.
If you are still in two minds listen to Reid Hoffman, LinkedIn's founder and chairman was an early investor in Facebook.
While he doesn't want to put the boot into the opposition he likes to point out that most members of Facebook who are older than 30 use it for entertainment, like playing Scrabulous.
"Scrabulous is not work, and it does not enable you to be an effective professional," he said.
Clearly he has (not) been to our office.
LInkedIn isn't meant to be Facebook - why would we need two? Both fulfil the function of allowing me to keep in touch with people I don't call or email regularly (or at all) but with whom I don't want to lose touch. I have some cross over between the two but they are quite distinct. I had a beer with my Creative Director from 1994 the other week. We'd never have got in touch again were it not for LinkedIn (and I'd not have woken up with a headache). It's the same with ex-clients. We want to know where to find each other should we need to. LinkedIn is an electronic Rolodex. It's just not as attractively designed. www.linkedin.com/.../b16
LinkedIn is really useful to manage contacts and build them up over time. Clearly it doesn't have the buzz of Facebook and nor should it - that's like saying your workplace should have a similar to buzz to going out with your mates to the pub.
I agree with Andrew & Graham. Facebook, MySpace & and the others are Social Networking sites. Places to be in touch with old & existing friends and in some cases making new friends. Yes, they have the networking idea behind them also - for example, I often have people contacting me through someone in my list. These people know me in some context and it's up for me to decide whether or not to choose them as friends. While I am not a keen avid fan of MySpace (this may change as things are changing for MySpace) I do have all my friends, new & old in Facebook but it is not a real networking or business tool.
LinkedIn is exactly that - it doesnt have all the buzz & gadgets that the others have as it isn't there for that. It is a place to put your professional profile, CV, business ideas etc... - not a profile saying "I like long walks on the beach" if you get my drift. I think LinkedIn has been silent in its upbrining but is proving to be a very good tool for networking, employement and finding people either for business or for employement.
Worth 1billion???? No idea, with the ad revenue it has and constant growth, I guess maybe it does... But we simply can not compare the other social networks with LinkedIn!
Good for someone to raise the conversation though as all we talk about in here much of the time is FB, MySpace, Google etc...
The idea that is purely about your career is I guess makes it appealing to a certain group of people....although not to me. That probably says something (feel free to keep it to yourself if you know what it is).
hey Gordon, I am huge fan of LinkedIn and fwiw think it should outlast Facebook, which (like all entertainment options) is more subject to fads. 1 billion may prove cheap, if you think about the value of the information they hold -- 23 million CVs of hi-value digi-savvy people just as a starter.
Agree with what the guys above have said, especially the value as an electronic Rolodex. I get lovely blast from the past emails on LinkedIn all the time from old workmates. Especially good for an expat like me, as I feel in touch with who is working where, etc. Dare I say there is also a gossip factor if you pay attention to who your connections are connecting to, i.e., new clients or recruiters...
(disclosure: LinkedIn are a client of the global agency I now work for, but I have been a user from way back and loved their concept from the start)
The difference between LinkedIn and Facebook is that it should fare better in the novelty stakes. Like my free email provider (Yahoo - since 1996), there's not much that will spur me to move to another service - I'll probably stay with LinkedIn for support with my working life e.g my career, professional networking, supplier searches and business leads.
But when it comes to lifestyle 'support', I'm the equivalent of a credit card tart - I'll stick with it and move on when it no longer proves fun.
BUT - Twitter is interesting because it's a bit of nomad service for many. One day I use it to talk about 30 Days of Night (Aphex Twin 'Windowlicker' video meets Blade, if you're interested) and then the next day I use it to chat about digital industry news and events. Perhaps this latter appeal is only because it's mostly frequented by early tech adopters.
But is anyone actually a paying subscriber?
LinkedIn won't say how many members pay for the premium service. Personally, I use the non-subscription bits - they're useful in the job and are sufficient for keeping in touch with people. I think, like FT.com, there is a decent argument for having a subscription service as well as an ad-funded model.
One of the things I like about LinkedIn and hate about Facebook/MySpace/Bebo is the number of muppets on them. LinkedIn has few and the others have many.
Gordon Macmillan
Blogging for:
Member since: 03 Jun 2008
Last login: 20 Nov 2009
Total Posts: 1,616
