BillBelew.com
Belew SpeaksBrainstormingLinkedInNetworking

What Do You Want to Ask LinkedIn?1182

Jonnner private msg quote post Address this user
@Belew

Thank you for engaging with us before this LinkedIn meeting. I appreciate it. Your "report" is also appreciated.

Perhaps I missed something.

Do you now understand what LinkedIn's objective was in arranging the meeting that you attended? Do you have any idea what LinkedIn will do with the results?
Post 26 • IP   flag post
Belew private msg quote post Address this user
@Jonnner

They were clear in that they had no overarching objective.

The goal was to get some publishers together and see what happens.

They aim to do more of these kind of meetings in other locations. But they have no immediate plan to do so.
Post 27 • IP   flag post
Steve private msg quote post Address this user
@Belew Did they explain why they had restricted follower reach a few months back.
Post 28 • IP   flag post
Belew private msg quote post Address this user
I asked abt that. They said they weren't aware of it. Their consensus was because the number of publishers increased dramatically and suddenly the reach became diluted.
Post 29 • IP   flag post
Rev private msg quote post Address this user
Reach doesn't "dilute" on it's own. Either there is an algorithm that sets the reach at a specific number, percentage, etc. or reach expands with the number of available users as the membership grows.

I'm surprised they didn't have a more involved plan -- or at least intentions -- for outcomes and future direction. Perhaps they did but weren't open to sharing?

"Let's hold a get-together and see what happens!" doesn't seem like a 21st. century operating plan to me. Am I missing something?
Post 30 • IP   flag post


Belew private msg quote post Address this user
These were front end kids....not back end.

They were guessing too.
Post 31 • IP   flag post
Jonnner private msg quote post Address this user
@Belew

I infer that LinkedIn wanted to listen to "Publishers". I assume that there is a Publisher centric plan at LinkedIn.

But the way you describe their answers could be interpreted as they were planning on giving out no information and did not think through how to manage the interactions.

I agree with @Rev's last paragraph.
Post 32 • IP   flag post
Belew private msg quote post Address this user
@Jonnner I don't think they really thought it through.

It really was a "Let's try this and see how it goes."

Nothing wrong with that I suppose.

I did NOT have the big LinkedIn Corporation is behind this let's do everything right sense.

It was low-key ... interactive = not very substantive.

Experimental. It had a small business-like feeling to it.
Post 33 • IP   flag post
Rev private msg quote post Address this user
@Belew

Questions I have, then:

1 - Do you feel it was worth the time commitment on your part?

2 - Do you feel this may lead to something good/better?

3 - Did the process/value impart a positive feeling about LI?

While these are subjective questions at best, I respect your opinion significantly more than I have knowledge of LI's procedures/position so I will gladly listen to your take on this.
Post 34 • IP   flag post
Belew private msg quote post Address this user
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rev
@Belew

Questions I have, then:

1 - Do you feel it was worth the time commitment on your part?

Yes...it was worth it. I met some ppl inside LinkedIn. I saw LinkedIn in a different light.

2 - Do you feel this may lead to something good/better?

I am pretty sure that if/when their idea matures and they meet again, I'll be invited back. Dialog is good.

3 - Did the process/value impart a positive feeling about LI?

Yes. I have been motivated to publish again on LinkedIn....though I may change my strategy somewhat.

While these are subjective questions at best, I respect your opinion significantly more than I have knowledge of LI's procedures/position so I will gladly listen to your take on this.
Post 35 • IP   flag post
bdaoust private msg quote post Address this user
@Belew

It sounds like they missed the mark by not having someone that could answer the hard questions. Kinda the Accenture style model, get the questions then maybe do something about them or toss the baby out with the bathwater. Tongue in cheek!
Post 36 • IP   flag post
Belew private msg quote post Address this user
Perhaps ...

I think it was genuine experimenting. No agenda.

What will happen if we put a bunch of our publishers in one room.

I think they saw it as a service ... not a town hall setting.
Post 37 • IP   flag post
Jonnner private msg quote post Address this user
@Belew

Perhaps they had an objective that was satisfied by the one-on-one interactions that their employees had with the 30 guests. Might I ask, what did they ask you? Were any of the other guests treated like important clients?
Post 38 • IP   flag post
Belew private msg quote post Address this user
@Jonnner

nobody seemed to be treated specially as far as I could tell.

They mostly asked, "What do you write about?" And probed me on content marketing. What is that? She did seem genuinely interested or at least a good conversationalist.

They didn't even ask me what I thought of their platform.

But I told them anyway. 8-)
Post 39 • IP   flag post
26766 39 14
destitute