Using The 80/20 Rule Of LinkedIn Participation To Your Advantage

Here’s a simple way to get more responses from more people on LinkedIn.

In LinkedIn’s last publicly announced quarterly results almost exactly a year ago, one statistic released was that seventy-eight percent of LinkedIn users show up less than once a month. LinkedIn consistently posted similar engagement percentages in previous quarters too, and as Microsoft surely would have informed the world if this number had improved, I assume it hasn’t changed much.  

The other twenty-two percent of LinkedIn users show up at least once a month. So who should you be trying to contact? Correct. The 100 million members that 22% represents.  

Sending a message or invite to connect to someone in the other 78%  is a questionable strategy. When is the next time they will show up on LinkedIn and see your message? Thanksgiving? New Years? Spring 2019?

So in theory, paying attention to the 22% is a good idea. But what about in practice?

Premium account badge

A little gold premium account badge on a LinkedIn profile means that person has (surprise) a premium account. The assumption being that someone who has a premium account actually comes around LinkedIn on a regular basis to use that account and get their money’s worth. But there is one thing that you still won’t know: you can’t tell whether someone is paying for their premium account or whether their company is. An individual covering their own costs seems more likely to show up more often. A possible indicator, but a mediocre one.  

Completed profiles

A complete profile tells you that the user realized the importance of LinkedIn…at one time. The problem being you don’t know if that time is now.

Lots of connections

Now we are getting somewhere. Someone with more connections typically means someone who “gets” networking, and they will check in on LinkedIn more often. Not completely reliable as an indicator, but I like the odds of getting a response from someone with two thousand connections over someone with two hundred.


This is the “aha” indicator. You can spot someone’s activity right on their profile. And because activity is date stamped, you can get a pretty good idea of what the minimum baseline of activity is for that person (because some activity you won’t see, like searches, or reading posts). Recent activity is the one indicator I use every time in considering whether to approach a person on Linkedin.

Activity with you

This may sound odd, but let me explain. People engage with you in one or more of five ways –  like, comment, share, profile view or follow. I added this one because most people don’t take advantage of the situation when someone shows an interest in them or something they have written. When someone tells me that they got twenty likes on their post, I will ask them what they did with all those likes, and often the answer is “nothing.” Well, why not? If I get twenty likes, I am all over those twenty profiles seeing if these are people I want to know better.

The ideal situation is when the LinkedIn user shows two or three of these indicators.

There no guarantees you will get a response after identifying one of these more frequent users, but at least you can put the odds in your favor.

Land Of The Canned: LinkedIn Messages That Are Wearing Thin

One of the great incongruities with the idea of social selling is the volume of messages that people wind up sending. Instead of cold calling a hundred people  once, it becomes a hundred people to monitor, share content with, comment on and send messages to.

To be social you need lots of engagement.

But lots of engagement sounds like a lot of work.

Enter the mass messaging.

Which sounds great. Come up with a message and send it to a hundred people.

But there are two problems with the mass messaging approach: zero customization and zero personalization. I receive messages all the time offering to help me…with my LinkedIn skills…or publish content on LinkedIn…or generate sales leads. It is apparent that these people didn’t bother looking at my profile, and that I was just one of a large number of people sent this same message.

Let me see if I can put this politely:

Actually reading the profile of someone you want to send a message to may seem like a lot of work, but there is a lot to be said for not looking like an idiot.

Not that polite? Sorry.

You wind up receiving messages like this: “I see you looked at my profile and based on your fascinating background I think we should connect.“ (this was an actual message a friend received a few weeks ago).

So what you have are irrelevant messages apparently being sent to a large number of recipients who didn’t request them. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what we call spam. So while people sending these messages may think they are being brilliant social sellers, they are actually closer to pond scum.

The worst part with this type of  messaging is the apparent contempt of the sender for the recipient. That’s what really grinds me the most. Your assumption that I will be flattered and stupid enough to fall for it.

The solution? Customization and personalization. For each person. And each message. The operative word is “person.”

And the people that send me those sad little boilerplate messages? I always respond courteously and thank them for my interest, point out that reading my profile would have saved them the effort, and wish them success in their next job.

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.