Why Are Introductions So Hard To Get On LinkedIn?

It’s actually pretty simple.

When you ask for an introduction on LinkedIn, you are asking one of your connections to introduce you to one of his or her connections.

But if you are like most LinkedIn users, you have a decent sized network of connections where you really only know maybe 20% of those people well. The other 80% are people you met at a trade show one time, or they are someone that you worked with three jobs ago, or you connected with them for any number of reasons, but the reality is that you never really developed a relationship with that person.

So when you go to ask a connection to perform an introduction, there is an 80% chance that that connection is someone who doesn’t really know you that well. And they aren’t that comfortable providing the introduction. To them you represent risk: someone who may make him or her look bad. Of course you are not going to make them look bad, but as your connection doesn’t know you that well, they don’t know that.

Even worse, if you do find someone in the 20% you know well that seems willing to provide an introduction, there’s an 80% chance that they don’t know the target person you want to be introduced to that well themselves! The same thing holds true for them as it does for you: they only know 20% of their connections reasonably well. The possible introduction you wanted falls flat because your connection has no credibility with the target person.

So you started off all excited because you discovered a pathway through a connection to someone you really want to meet. But the odds of this working out in the end are only 20% (that you know your connection that well) of 20% (that they know your target that well).

That’s a measly 4% success rate. Heck, that’s barely better than a cold call.

So what can you do about it? Lots actually. Because understanding the “why” sets you on the path to figuring out the “how” to work around the limitations, and even use these limitations to your advantage.

Most people focus on the 80% failure rate and just give up. They should be figuring out what makes up the 20% and how to find them.

What Works For Me: Using Research To Turbocharge LinkedIn Outreach

When I want to reach out to someone on LinkedIn, finding them is just the start.

I do a lot of research on the person and their company and then I write the message.

I start by reviewing their LinkedIn profile. This is where most people start their research. It is also where most people end their research. That’s why a lot of outreach messages seem to revolve around where people went to school or who they used to work for.

Their profile is a nice start, but that’s not good enough for me. My goal is to mention something in my message that makes them stop in their tracks.

So I also….

  • review their LinkedIn activity
  • research people that seem to be their peers at their company
  • check both their company website and the company page on LinkedIn
  • Have a look at how this info stacks up for their competitors

You would be surprised at the information you can pick up doing this. My goal is to send them something like, “in doing my research, you appear to be investing 20% more on R&D than your competitors.”

If I do this well, when the person reads my message, three things come across:

  • I have not just sent them some cookie cutter crap with their name swapped in at the top like most people do.
  • I have really put some effort into this.
  • I am different from everyone else out there.

Is this time consuming? Yes, but not as much as you think it would. I know what to look for and I have done an awful lot of these messages. And with a much higher success rate, it is absolutely worth it. If I do it well the recipient of the message above is obsessed with wanting to know just how the heck I figured out they were spending more on R&D.

Let’s face it. If I really want this person to become a customer of mine, someone I want to have an ongoing successful business relationship with, why wouldn’t I invest the time to show them some respect up front?

Of course, a lot more goes into an outreach message than just upfront research, and sometimes my research efforts don’t yield anything of value, but the ability to add a wow statement that sets me apart is worth the effort.

 

Lies, Damn Lies, and Social Selling Statistics

Today, the wonderful world of sales and social selling statistics. This article updates research, articles and posts I have written on this topic. 

Part 1: Lies

How many of you have seen this list?

Hands up everyone who has actually seen it and liked it, commented on how pithy these statistics are, or shared it with their network. I have found references to this graphic on Google going back to 2013. 

Well, sorry to say, but these “facts” come from the department of made up statistics.

If you google the “National Sales Executives Association” the one thing you won’t find is any reference to such an organization existing or ever having existed.

These statistics appear to have just been made up, but we believe them because we want to. We want to believe that these stats show that perseverance is critical to success and will be rewarded.   

A lot of social media statistics and social selling statistics are shared with very little reference as to where they came from or how they were generated. So let me suggest that if someone quotes a statistic that may contribute to you making a business decision, that you do a little investigative work before making that decision.  

I saw someone publish the graphic above last week on LinkedIn. 

Part 2: Damn Lies

How many times have you seen someone use the following to support some claim they are making about LinkedIn: 

“LinkedIn is 277% More Effective for Lead Generation Than Facebook & Twitter”

Sometimes it comes with this graphic: 

I kept seeing this statistic pop up from time to time, so I did some research and came up with what can best be called an investigative tribute.

Here’s where it came from: Hubspot gathered data from 5,198 businesses and it turns out that traffic from LinkedIn to the companies’ websites turned into leads more often.

The 277 stat was released by Hubspot on January 30th 2012. That’s right, this statistic will celebrate its eighth birthday this Thursday.

LinkedIn, Facebook and Twitter are very different animals than they were eight years ago. Eight years ago LinkedIn had “Answers” and “Signal” and “Polls”. Eight years ago, the idea of LinkedIn Influencers like Bill Gates was a gleam in someone’s eye, still nine months away from being announced on Oct 2, 2012. With the changes in the three companies studied, and new players rising like Instagram, you have to be pretty sceptical that this statistic is still valid.

Let me put it another way. If I wanted to use the 277 statistic honestly, I would probably have to say:  

“In a Hubspot study conducted over eight years ago, LinkedIn was 277% more effective for lead generation than Facebook & Twitter”

Doesn’t sound quite so compelling anymore, does it?

The lesson here is not to beat on LinkedIn’s effectiveness now or seven years ago, or Hubspot’s research then or now. They aren’t the culprits here. It’s people who find a statistic and don’t bother to check it’s origins, and then it’s the rest of us who swallow these things whole without question and let the writers get away with it.

The day I edited this article (Monday Jan 27th, 2020) I searched LinkedIn for content containing “LinkedIn is 277%”. The search results listed multiple people posts revolving around this statistic as proof of how great LinkedIn is. 

(there is a link to the original Hubspot press release  below)

 

Part 3…and social selling statistics.

Here’s a statistic that I saw last January:

“40% of LinkedIn users log on every day.”

And I thought to myself, “Uh-oh.”

The last time LinkedIn published user figures was the third quarter of 2016, their last before becoming part of Microsoft. And the figure they published was:

“106M – or 22.7% – of LinkedIn members log in once a month or more often.” 

So in under thirty months we have gone from just under 23% a month to 40% every day? I was immediately suspicious. So I did some digging for the source of this marvellous statistic. 

And I’ll be, the source turned out to be LinkedIn! Apparently, LinkedIn put out an ebook in January 2019, and one of the stats in the e-book stated that 40% of members were logging in every day. So I found the ebook and downloaded it. And there it was. I checked the source and it was from a company called Omnicore which made me suspicious all over again. 

Because I would have thought that if LinkedIn was going to use a statistic on LinkedIn user engagement that the source of that user engagement statistic would be…LinkedIn. 

I looked up the article on Omnicore and couldn’t find the 40% statistic. I InMailed the author asking about it. The author kindly responded and said he had just taken it down “because the source where we got this statistic was no longer valid.” (Hat tip to MarkWilliams who had discovered the statistic independently in December 2018 and got Omnicore to fix it.)

I InMailed the author of the LinkedIn ebook and told him that he probably shouldn’t be stating something that people may base business decisions on – advertising on LinkedIn would be a good example – if it couldn’t be backed up. To his credit, he immediately pulled the stat. 

But by then, people had latched onto the stat. Now there are articles out there on the web stating that 40% of LinkedIn users check in every day. There was even one from Hubspot just last week (I sent a message to the author but as of Monday morning Jan 27 I had not received a reply and the 40% daily claim was still there).

Maybe I should write them and suggest they just change the attribution to the National Sales Executives Association. 

Postscript: The next day (Jan 28) I published this article on LinkedIn and I noticed that the Hubspot article had been corrected and the 40% daily stat taken down. As of this writing I have not heard back from the authour. 

Sources: here’s the original story on Hubspot

.http://blog.hubspot.com/blog/tabid/6307/bid/30030/LinkedIn-277-More-Effective-for-Lead-Generation-Than-Facebook-Twitter-New-Data.aspx

The Hubspot article from last week claiming – in the first sentence no less – that 40% of LinkedIn members visit the platform every day;

https://blog.hubspot.com/marketing/linkedin-thought-leadership