Statistics For LinkedIn Articles And Posts Are Back! (Sort of…)

Last week I noticed that some of the statistics for published articles and post on LinkedIn had come back.

In addition to the total views, likes and comments, you can now see the top nine each of:

  • Which companies your viewers are from
  • The titles for viewers
  • The geographic areas your visitors are from
  • And how they found your article or post

But there are a couple of asterisks.

I am skeptical about some of the statistics. If one person comes back multiple times to comment, reply to comments, or re-read the comments thread, they appear to be counted as a “view” each time they return. I have had this happen recently on multiple articles: LinkedIn tells me that people from “XYZ company” viewed my article 17 times. It turns out XYZ company is a consultancy with one consultant.

And although this hasn’t happened to me, numerous people have reported view counts that go down instead of up. 400 views of an article as of yesterday, but only registering 380 this morning, that type of thing.

Another example can be seen in the screen cap I used for this post. The article was a general interest personal development one I shared, written by one of my connections. It had over 1600 views at that point. Now what are the odds that four of the top five companies for a general interest article would be pharma companies? Or that “Laboratory Scientist” would be the title of more viewers – by a mile – than any other?

Another oddity is in the “biggest audience” metric in the column at top right. More views from Boston than anywhere else. But how many more? I don’t know as there is no number. But LinkedIn will show me how many came from the second through ninth geographic areas. I wonder if LinkedIn was in a hurry when they decided to reinstate these stats?

And there are still no statistics on who shared your post – oddly the number of times your post or article was shared shows on the post itself, but is omitted from the statistics.

Question: If sharing isn’t that important, why does LinkedIn make a big deal of it in their social selling index? Then again, this wouldn’t be the first time LinkedIn has sent mixed signals.

So…good to see statistics back, but like many aspects of the new User Interface, still a few bugs to be ironed out, and a bit of work required on that whole sharing thing.

I Reached Out To 2000 Of My LinkedIn Connections: I Now Have An “A” Network And A “B” Network.

Last year I realized that my connection network was made up of a lot of people I had connected with but didn’t know aside from reading their profiles. So I started a program of reaching out to my connections, sending individual personalized messages one at a time (I refuse to use that automated mass messaging crap) and inviting them to a 15 minute phone or Skype call to find out more about each other.  Over time I sent these messages to 2000 of my connections and wound up having several hundred conversations.

The result is I now have an “A” network and a “B” network.

Over half the people I asked for introductory phone or Skype conversations never responded. But it’s not just in this instance: I have sent messages to connections telling them I wanted to refer business to them and got no response. Which also raises the interesting question: If you don’t wish to interact with your connections, why are you connected with them in the first place? 

So I now have an “A” network – the connections I have spoken with and that I understand better based on the conversations I had with them – and a “B” network, those connections I have never had a real person to person conversation with. For example, I have dozens of connections that design websites. Four or five of them I have had conversations with. Now I really understand them better, what their specialties are, and who makes a good fit for them. I trade messages with them, they are a resource in their specialties when I need them. And guess who gets referrals?  I subconsciously “work” on behalf of my “A” network. Don’t get me wrong, I value my “B” network. But it is my “B” network. Maybe they will become “A’s” one day.  

Connecting with someone should be the start of a professional relationship, but for many LinkedIn members it seems to be the end.  

 

For Better LinkedIn InMail Results Embrace Your Inner Mad Scientist

Many InMail users get stuck in a rut. Their response rate is stuck at three percent or six percent or sixteen percent, but it’s stuck at that number.  So I will ask them what they have tried doing differently. And invariably I get the response, “huh? What do you mean?”

That is because they don’t do anything differently. They send out the same message over and over. They think they have arrived at some ceiling response rate and this is as good as it’s ever going to get.  They don’t think about why their response rate is what it is.

They should be experimenting.  

They should take each sentence and look at it both on it’s own and in its fit with the rest of the message. They should ask “what is this sentence accomplishing?”

Is it too fat?  Too many words? For example: “In essence the core of your problem is not enough money for new initiatives” can become “Your problem is not enough money for new initiatives” or even “You need more money for new initiatives.” A more direct statement in half the words.

Or a sentence may be too thin, lack backup, read awkwardly, or not fit with the rest of the message.  

I found in one message that it made a difference if I referred to the recipient by name at the start of a sentence versus the end of the sentence.

The call to action may be too weak, or conversely, too unrealistic given the message.

And results should be tracked. Nothing is worse than going, “we did well back in January.  Now, which message was that?”

I have five core building blocks  in my InMail programs and one of them is constant experimentation.

So shake things up a little. You might be surprised.   

 

I Reached Out To 2000 Of My LinkedIn Connections: Here’s What I Learned About Networking

Background

A couple of years ago I had 1500 LinkedIn Connections. Then I started using LinkedIn Publisher and writing articles about using LinkedIn every week. And I started receiving connection invitations. Lots of them. Even accepting well less than half of them, I was adding fifty connections a week. Last year I realized that my connection network was made up of a lot of people I had connected with but didn’t know aside from reading their profiles. So I started a program of reaching out to my connections, sending individual personalized messages one at a time (I refuse to use that automated mass messaging crap) and inviting them to a 15 minute phone or Skype call to find out more about each other.  Over time I sent these messages to 2000 of my connections and wound up having several hundred conversations. Here is some of what I learned.

Networking is undervalued, under practiced and misunderstood

Most LinkedIn members these days seem to have at least five hundred  connections, but never seem to do anything with them once they are connected.  Their networks are more like collections of people than a network of connections. The calls I made and the conversations I had allowed me to get to know these connections better. And that information was what I needed in order to be able to properly recognize opportunities to introduce them to other people in my network. A LinkedIn profile can only tell you so much. When you talk to someone, you can really find what makes them tick and where their real interests are.

Networking sets you apart

LinkedIn is a networking tool, but almost no one networks on LinkedIn. I had people that were kind of boggled that I was doing this. I had people with fifteen hundred or two thousand connections saying “No one has ever asked me to talk with them. Everyone just wants to send messages.”

You need a plan, you can’t just call people for no reason

I am really confident that if someone comes to me and starts to say, “Bruce, do you know someone who can…?” that I will have some good people that I can refer them to. People that aren’t just profiles and a photo but someone I have talked to.

And in return, I think many of them know enough about my specialties that they could recognize opportunities and point people in my direction.

I didn’t do this whole exercise to pitch people. Most of my clients come to me to learn how to use Sales Navigator more effectively. Most of my connections don’t have Sales Navigator and are not prospects for my business. However, each of those connections might know one hundred people who do have Sales Navigator.  

This is the power of networking. I don’t look at my connections as possible prospects, I look at them as possible sales channels. They know hundreds of people that I don’t, and they are in a position to recommend or introduce me to those people. And I am in a position to do the same for them.

There are no guarantees, and you have to be okay with that

Networking is a transaction where nothing may result. Or nothing may result for a long time. And the two people on both sides of this transaction have to be okay with that. No promises. I usually wind up making several introductions or referrals  on LinkedIn every week. And I tend to get several referrals and introductions through my connections every week. But there are no expectations and no guarantees and that’s fine. I trust it to work.

Was this a lot of work? Yes. Several hours every week. Big enough that I had to set aside time every week to do it. Was it worth it? Absolutely. I didn’t spend that time, I invested it.

I will have a couple articles with more about what I learned sometime on the next few weeks.

 

Some First Aid For LinkedIn Desktop User Interface Problems



There are a lot of bugs in the new desktop User Interface, and while it is fun to speculate with our tin foil hats on…

  • did Microsoft push LinkedIn to roll out the new User Interface before it was ready?
  • did LinkedIn underestimate the complexity of the new User Interface?
  • did all the good LinkedIn engineers cash out their stock options and leave the rookies to do the coding?
  • maybe it was gamma rays
  • no wait, aliens!

…the causes of all the bugs and problems with the new User Interface don’t matter. Dealing with them does. I am getting half a dozen “have you seen this?” or “is this happening to you?” messages every day.

A lot of these problems are fixable or can be worked around.  

There are three reasons you may be experiencing problems with the new LinkedIn Desktop User Interface:

LinkedIn may have changed the way something works or removed a feature

Well, there isn’t anything you can do about this except confirm that the the feature has changed or disappeared. Most (unofficial) LinkedIn trainers or consultants can usually set you straight on whether a feature is gone or drastically changed. They will often be able to show you a workaround or alternative method of accomplishing what you want.

Note that LinkedIn has also backtracked on some changes to the new User Interface and re-incorporated some features that looked like they were gone for good.

You may be experiencing what I like to call a “transient”

That’s a bug or problem with the User Interface that is affecting only you in your current session on LinkedIn. In particular, these types of bugs manifest themselves as missing information or missing features on your pages. And these happen a lot.

Solution: Log off LinkedIn. Clear your browser cache and log back in. Sometimes it is necessary to reboot your computer. I use Google Chrome and I find that once I reach 300Mb of history and assorted junk in my browser cache, anomalies start showing up on LinkedIn. I was working with a client last week and he kept getting the “it’s not you, it’s us, try again” message when he wanted to do a LinkedIn search. It turned out he had 700Mb of odds and ends in his browser cache. Cleaning the browser cache fixed the problem.

You have a problem or problems specific to your Browser

There seem to be a lot of issues with different browsers. I am not a browser or operating system expert, but it is apparent that some of the bugs and oddities users are experiencing are caused by the new LinkedIn User Interface not working not integrated perfectly with their browser.

Solution: try doing the same thing you are having a problem with but using a different browser. If you use Internet Explorer, try Chrome. If you use Safari, try Firefox.

These suggestions are workarounds, ideas to keep you functional until LinkedIn stomps all the bugs out, which may take a while.  If you have solutions that have worked for you, please include them in the comments section.

LinkedIn Notifications: Updated

I published an article on all the changes to LinkedIn Notifications four weeks ago. Two weeks after I published the article, LinkedIn made one more change…a big one. So I took down the “old” article, and have rewritten it here, adding the new information (thanks to all who read, shared, commented and liked that article).

First of all, there are two terms that need to be understood: articles and posts. An “article” is written by clicking on “Write an article” at the top of your homepage feed. This takes you to LinkedIn publisher. Articles tend to be longer form content and LinkedIn publisher has more options for formatting and presenting your content. A “post” is short form content written after clicking “Share a post, article or update” at the top of the homepage feed. As often seems to be the case with LinkedIn, this can get semantically weird. For example if you take this article of mine that you are reading and share it, my shared article becomes your post.

Here are the types of notifications you will now receive:

Birthdays

Work Anniversaries

LinkedIn parses these out piecemeal over the course of the month, as for most us, dumping all fifty or five hundred people who have an anniversary this month in one notification would be overwhelming.

Job Changes

Job Recommendations

These are the jobs you may be interested in, based on LinkedIn’s algos.

Activity on your articles

These are Likes and Comments on your article. And a word about Likes. Likes are wonky in the new format. You are given less information (just the name, headline, and a photo) than we used to receive.

In these “activity on your articles” notifications, you are also offered the link to see who’s viewed your article, which brings up the new but not improved statistics for your article.

Activity on your posts

Likes and comments on your posts. And again, you are offered the link to see who’s viewed your post which takes you to the new hokey unusable statistics.

Activity on your post comments

This includes: People who liked your comment

People who liked your reply to someone else’s comment

Someone liked a comment that mentions you

People who also replied to a comment you replied to

Posts you were mentioned in

This includes: Someone mentioned you in a post

Someone mentioned you in a comment on a post

Someone liked a post that mentioned you (this is brutal. Makes for a lot of notifications)

Activity on posts you were mentioned in

This includes: Someone mentioned you in a comment or reply on a post

Someone liked a comment that mentioned you

Who my connections are following

There seems to be a bit of misdirection here, as the only notifications I seem to get so far are new people who are following me. Once a day I receive a list of any new followers I have. What’s alarming about this is that this is the only place in the new User Interface where there is any reference to my followers at all. I have approximately seven hundred followers. I know who the four are that followed me yesterday and the two from the day before. The rest of my followers? No way of knowing.

Who viewed your profile

 

Notifications that seem gone or are “to be determined”

New endorsements from your connections

A low level priority it seems. I see these occasionally.

Someone you follow has published an article

Rare. At least for me. I have had the new User Interface for about ten weeks now and have received one notification for a connection who has published an article. And I have a lot of connections who post every week. So out of several thousand possible notifications for this type of event I have received…one.

Shares

You receive no notifications when people share your post – unless the sharer mentions you. I think people who share my posts are the single most important engagement opportunity on LinkedIn. Either this is a mistake LinkedIn will rectify, or LinkedIn doesn’t think sharing is important anymore. In which case they need to change the Social Selling Index, as sharing is a critical part of the SSI.

 

Three takeaways from all of changes to Notifications

1) Notifications are now highly configurable. Hurray.

You now have the ability to turn any of the eleven types of notifications on or off. At the top right of any notification is a tool wheel (some people have three little horizontal lines with circles in them – equalizers? sliders? hamburgers gone bad?). Clicking on the tool wheel allows you to turn this type of notification on or off.

Here’s what the list of notification I have turned off looks like:

2) Mentions are insidious

This is the biggy. Mentions/tagging now rule the roost. Mentioning someone in a post, or in a comment on a post, or someone liking a post or a comment that mentions you, generates a notification, and these notifications seem to supersede all others.

A lot of LinkedIn users are already sick and tired of the mention feature, as it has already become the new way to Spam people on LinkedIn.

3) Notifications are still not there yet.

LinkedIn has consolidated some types of notifications into once a day types. This is good. LinkedIn will also consolidate your likes and comments for a particular post into one notification (as in “Bob Smith and twelve others liked or commented on your post”). This is also good.

There appears to be a hierarchy of notifications. Mentions are on top, along with likes and comments on your posts. Notifications for new posts by people you are connected with or follow are on the bottom and get lost. This is bad

Two practical suggestions for managing Notifications

Think twice before commenting or replying to comments on other people’s posts, especially posts that you can see already have a lot of likes or comments. Further activity on these posts will generate a lot of notifications. I am not saying you shouldn’t engage this way of course, just be sure you really do want to wade into a busy discussion. Your actions will have consequences that may wind up irritating you.

Hide notifications that you are not interested in seeing. In my case, I dumped birthdays, work anniversaries and jobs you may be interested in.

In closing, what LinkedIn has done with Notifications is good. Not perfect, but moving in the right direction.

Like quite a few aspects of the new User Interface, notifications have been cleaned up and made to look more presentable, which is good for the occasional user. And the ability to turn off any combination of the eleven different types of notifications is a welcome addition. However, issues such as not being notified about people who have shared your content and connections who have published articles remain. And while this is not notifications specific, it is notifications related: for us power users, we would like to have more control over what we see in our home page feed (I will have a bit of fun with this idea Thursday).

Notifications are still a work in progress – for example LinkedIn hasn’t decided between the tool wheel and the equalizer. So maybe I will see you for another update in four weeks.

This article originally appeared on my blog, www.practicalsmm.com

What Does It Mean When Someone “Views” Your Post On LinkedIn?

Fifteen months ago I wrote an article trying to define what a “view” actually was on LinkedIn. In a twist of LinkedIn irony, it became the most viewed article I have written and still receives over one thousand views a week. And while many of the points I raised in that post still appear valid, there have been a lot of changes with LinkedIn, so this is an update to that original post.  

So what does it mean when someone “views” your post on LinkedIn?

Well that depends, because a “post” is not simply a post anymore on LinkedIn. LinkedIn has separated published content into “articles” and “posts” and views appear to be counted differently for  each one.

Article or  post? A critical distinction

From the top of your Homepage, when you click on “Write an article” you are taken to LinkedIn Publisher. This is intended for long form content. These articles stay associated with your profile in “Your activity” page under “articles”.  

But at the top of your Homepage when you “Share an article, photo or update”,  you are creating a post. For posts you write from scratch, you are allowed limited verbiage, and the post gets dumped into our homepage feeds. These stay associated with your profile in the “Your activity” page under “posts”.  

How are views different for posts and articles?

I wrote an article a few weeks ago. A couple of friends shared it (note that under the new post/article definitions that at this point my article served as the basis for their posts). One told me he had gotten 400 views on his post and the other had gotten 2,000. Meanwhile, my original article had received 200 views at that point. It was obvious that post and article views were being counted differently. But how is this happening and what does it mean?

 So what is an article view?

I think LinkedIn counts article views by recognizing the URL for your article is open on a reader’s device.

You need to click on and open the article to have it counted as a view. Note that a view is not the same thing as a “read”. Someone could open your article, read the first line and lose interest, or get interrupted at the office, or decide the article wasn’t for them, or stop reading for any number of reasons.  

The good news? All your article views are “legitimate.” Someone had to take a specific action to open your article.

Over the past couple of weeks LinkedIn has started using the word “clicks” in some places instead of “views” for articles. For my post last week in my “Bruce’s Activity” page, I see “1,095 clicks of your article” instead of 1,095 views. But on my homepage it still says “1,095 views of your article”, and on my profile page it still says “1,095 views of your post in the feed.”  I assume the homepage and profile page will be updated and that clicks will be the new and more accurate terminology.  

And what is a post view?

On January 31, this explanation appeared in the help section on LinkedIn:

When you share an update, a “view” is counted when the update is loaded on the viewer’s screen. Viewers do not necessarily need to click or read the update to count as a view, but rather have the update loaded on their Homepage.

This also would imply that if you open your homepage and page a down a few times, you have just “viewed” twenty or thirty posts. This would go a long way to explaining how posts seem to get so many more views than articles.

But…basing post views purely on appearances in the homepage feed would seem to favor people with huge LinkedIn networks, so there must be other factors at play – most likely with a heaping helping of LinkedIn algorithms.

I think the best way of thinking of article views versus post views is

An article view seems to suggest intent (to read my article), while a post view seems to suggest opportunity (someone could have seen my post).

Note that the counting mechanism for views and clicks may not necessarily be solid yet

Over the past couple of months under the new desktop User Interface, some LinkedIn writers have seen view counts go backwards in their articles, such as seeing 400 hundred views as of last night, but only 380 this morning. I can only assume this is a bug. You can withdraw a like or a delete a comment, but how would one go about “un-viewing” a post?

And in a different vein, a recent article of mine got it’s highest number of views – nine – from a company which was a one person consultancy.  

So what do views really mean?

Lots of views are an ego boost. But note that with the new User Interface LinkedIn has stopped showing us how many views someone else’s post or article has received, so LinkedIn obviously doesn’t want us focusing on views as end to itself.

Let’s say you publish one article or post and it gets 500 views and thirty comments. Then you publish a second one and it gets 1000 views and five comments. Which was the more successful post? The first one. More people found that one compelling enough to comment on.

Views are nice, but engagement with your posts or articles can lead to conversations that can lead to connections that can lead to networking and other  business opportunities.   

 

Rule Number One For Getting More Out Of LinkedIn InMail

Use them.

This is pretty obvious when you think about it, but bear with me for a moment so I can provide some context.

As someone who spends a lot of his day involved with InMail, I have found four broad categories of InMail users on LinkedIn.

The tiniest category of InMail users are the ones who use it all the time and are  successful with it.

The next smallest category are the people who use InMail and have a little success with it. Their attitude seems to be that “what the heck, we get twenty of these things each month in our premium subscription, we might as well use them.” Their attitude is that any responses they get to their InMail is a bonus, a windfall.  

Then there is the “fire, fail, and forget about it” crowd. These folks have tried using InMail, failed miserably, given up, and just ignore the InMails they receive from LinkedIn each month.

And lastly, the biggest group are InMail users who never use InMail at all. They either don’t understand how to use it, or they haven’t figured out where it fits with their other outreach efforts, or both.

So the vast majority of InMail “users” aren’t users at all. They have either given up or never tried.

And that is the biggest mistake InMail users make: they don’t use their  allotted InMails every month. And as the celebrated philosopher Wayne Gretzky once said:

              “You miss one hundred percent of the shots you don’t take.”

How will you ever get better with no practice? You get sharp at using InMail by actually using InMail. By experimenting and seeing what works and what doesn’t. I have one InMail message I have been using for over two years. I have probably made a couple hundred tweaks and changes to it as I constantly experiment, trying to find the optimal wording.  

To a lot of LinkedIn users, InMail is a dirty word and practically interchangeable with the word “Spam”. But that’s because most InMails are just embarrassingly  bad sales pitches. LinkedIn users will take a message they wouldn’t dream of sending via email and think nothing of sending it via InMail. Then they are mystified when they get no response.

A badly written InMail is spam.

A well written InMail is one where I stop and go, “That’s interesting.” I may respond, I may not. But it wasn’t spam. 

If you are a premium Linkedin subscriber, you have paid for these InMails. Get out there and use them. But use your brains. Try different wordings and calls to action. Experiment, experiment, experiment. If you are a Sales Navigator user, you get 20 InMails a month (and some plans get more). Going from zero to just a measly five percent response rate will bring you one extra conversation with a prospect every month for each sales rep on your team with a Sales Navigator subscription.

So take some shots. You may not score as often as Wayne Gretzky, but that’s better than watching from the bench.   

 

Here’s Why You Don’t Like The New LinkedIn User Interface

It wasn’t built for you, that’s why.

Virtually everyone who has been complaining about the new LinkedIn User Interface is missing the point. The new interface is not for me, it’s not for you, and for that matter, it’s not for anyone who will read this article.

The new User Interface is there for the occasional user. And when I say “occasional,” I mean the person who checks their Linkedin account every few months, or even less often than that.

LinkedIn wants more engagement, more people to show up. A nice clean interface, easy to use, without too many confusing bells and whistles, where a user can go “Ooo, now this looks easier to use.”

We interrupt this article to include some arcane math that illustrates the LinkedIn dilemma:

When LinkedIn reported their results for the quarter ending Sept 30, 2016, they reported 467M users, of whom 106M logged in at least once a month.  That translates to 77.3% of all LinkedIn users logging in less than once a month.

That number is “officially” out of date as LinkedIn no longer reports results, so I use 75% and still feel it is valid for the simple reason that if the number of users logging in more often than once a month was improving, I don’t think LinkedIn would keep it a secret.

So we have the occasional users, less than once a month, and the regular users, once a month or more often.  Now let me introduce LinkedIn power users.

I have read in numerous places that 40 million LinkedIn users use it every day. I have searched all over but can find no provenance for this statistic. That being said, this number “feels” right. I did some work eight or nine months ago to come up with a guesstimate of daily users and based on comparisons of Facebook and Twitter’s monthly user to daily user ratios, I came up with a figure for LinkedIn of “somewhere south of 50M”, so I am comfortable with the 40M figure. Note that the 40M number represents around 8% of LinkedIn users. One in twelve.

Finally, let’s talk Premium Subscriptions. In the last quarter of reported results LinkedIn reported $162M in paid subscriptions. This number would be based on Business Plus and Sales Navigator (Recruiter and Lynda are both part of the Talent Solutions Group and their sales are not included in the $162M number). Let’s be charitable and say that a subscription to one of Business Premium or Sales navigator subs costs, oh, $162 a quarter. Therefore, around one million LinkedIn users have premium subs.

All this math comes down to this fundamental statement: LinkedIn sees upside in getting the 360M occasional users to show up more often, and LinkedIn thinks that upside will be much greater than any possible downside in pissing off the 1M who have premium subscriptions and the 39M “free LinkedIn” power users.

In the end, many LinkedIn power users don’t like the new interface, but the new interface wasn’t designed with power users in mind. It was designed for people who may not even, at this point, know there is a new interface, but will find out in a few months when they next check in.

So here’s my question for you today: Does LinkedIn risk losing the faithful? While many people are to – put it mildly – unhappy, how many will follow through on their threat to leave? If you are in sales, recruiting, consulting or a similar profession, who else has the huge searchable database you absolutely have to have?  

Why You Should Think Twice About Using Automated Tools On LinkedIn

One of the odd side effects of the social selling movement is the seemingly endless stream of messages and interactions required. This has given rise to automated tools on LinkedIn – apps and browser extensions that will do a lot of this work for you. And I can understand the temptation. But doesn’t anyone else find the whole idea of “automating your social selling” a little contradictory?

Here are reasons why you should think twice about automating your LinkedIn interactions.  

Many of these apps and extensions violate the User Agreement.

Specifically section 8.2 (the points that follow are a subset of the forty-five or so  bullet points in this section).  

8.2. Don’ts. You agree that you will not:

  • Use manual or automated software, devices, scripts robots, other means or processes to access, “scrape,” “crawl” or “spider” the Services or any related data or information
  • Use bots or other automated methods to access the Services, add or download contacts, send or redirect messages;
  • Send spam or other unwelcomed communications to others;
  • Scrape or copy profiles and information of others through any means (including crawlers, browser plugins and add-ons, and any other technology or manual work);

As the sole arbiter as to whether you have overstepped the lines, LinkedIn is judge, jury and executioner.  And good luck explaining yourself to Microsoft, the company that just paid twenty-six billion dollars for that data they just caught you scraping.

Note that while getting caught may be a low probability event, the consequences –  excommunication – can be nasty. Think of crossing the street with your eyes closed. All the cars will probably stop. Would you bet your life on “probably” ?

Anybody who recommends products like these are not looking out for your best interests.

Automated messages have to be generic

This is the easy way to tell when someone is using automated messaging with you. In order to cover all the possibilities with all the people the message will go to, the message has to be generic and bland. It doesn’t sound authentic. In attempting not to alienate anyone, it doesn’t appeal to anyone either.

And being boring at scale isn’t something you should aspire to.  

It can be sorta, kinda, well…fraudulent

You set up your browser extension to look at LinkedIn profiles. What you are doing is giving the other person the impression that you found something interesting in their activity so you had to go and look at their profile.

Merriam Webster defines fraud as  “deceit, trickery; specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value”.  

That would be you committing fraud. Great way to start a relationship with a connection, isn’t it?

Let me close with a hypothetical situation and a final thought:

Here’s a partial list of abilities I have seen one company advertise:

  • You can set up their browser extension to search and view profiles one after another (in the hopes that the people will think you are interested in them and invite you to connect).  
  • And speaking of connecting, you can set up a search and the browser extension sends connection invites to everyone in the search results.   
  • Then the browser extension accepts invitations to connect for you
  • And then the browser extension sends a welcome message to the new connection
  • And then it takes the three popular social selling trigger events – birthdays, work anniversaries and new jobs – and sends messages to all of those connections.
  • And then the browser extension will “like” your connections’ posts and add generic comments like “This is a really good post!”  

So you could set up this software to look at a certain type of person’s profile, automatically accept their invitation to connect when they bite at your profile view, automatically send them a “welcome to my LinkedIn network” message, congratulate them on any birthdays, job changes or work anniversaries, and then start liking and commenting on their posts. Four months later, you have this lovely, completely automated relationship with this connection, whose real  existence you are blissfully unaware of.  

It seems to me that your browser extension is the one with the connection, not you.