Given the ridiculous fees and obstacles created by LinkedIn over the past 3 years; Would an alternative site that was designed to be more open (with recruiting in mind) be something that the larger talent acquisition community would support? I would love to hear what other think on this topic.
Exactly. And given that we (recruiters) are 80%+ of their revenue stream don't you think that they might want to make it a bit more cost and user friendly to us? Or maybe they suffer from the same pride that Monster.com had a few years ago?
I think that as a profession we owe it to ourselves to explore alternatives and not simply give into a standard that we had little influence in shaping.
Yes Paul! great point: "the latter does not come across as self-serving and users love that"
this is key to everything..it's about the community, not those who seek to profit from it.
Not that we can't profit from a community, but we have to bring value to it first.
LinkedIn has been accepted for some time now by its general users as a de facto form of recruiting and reference checking forum. Yes it's also used for networking, but a a very small percentage (under 10%) of users actually close themselves off from job related contact. Interesting.
In 2006 I was asked by LinkedIn to participate in a study (not survey) that was designed to "discover" ways to generate revenue. It was fairly clear to most of us in the study that LinkedIn had already settled on network access for recruiters as the centerpiece of their revenue efforts. Knowing this fact makes the claim that LinkedIn is not just as self-serving as a site built by talent experts seem somewhat contradictory.
One final thought. We the community are what makes LinkedIn a success. Almost every service that we now pay for was at one time free. Why do we tolerate it on this social network when we never would on another? Ask yourself this; If Facebook started charging you to re-connect with old friends, or for storing your photos, would you pay? I seriously doubt it.
It's time for a new and better option.
Hi Jason, you make some good points ... Facebook would have failed if it did not prove itself first -Hotmail was worth 400 million to Microsoft only after it gained acceptance and I think the founder could have received more. It's still free ... Microsoft gained registered users millions .... Any Online Entrepreneur who does not first build acceptance then implement revenue stream will generally fail and sometimes "free" has more value that can't be measured with today's metrics of How many active registered users do you have ...
I think with so many users plugged into LinkedIn - they are in a dictatorial mode they need to continually improve the service to maintain relevance ... It could be argued like with the gas we need to drive to and from work - we may not have a choice... hmmmm ... then again ...
If you can do what Facebook did to Myspace or what Google did to other search engines that existed, first mover advantage is usually tough to beat.
Having said that, I understand they do have to make money and in social media its not that easy to monetize. They have made changes that are slowly encroaching on groups and other services.
Sure, there needs to be alternatives in the space.
What did LinkedIn think they were creating if not a venue for jobseekers and recruiters? Why else would anyone post their professional summary/virtual resume online?
Facebook didn't do anything to MySpace, MS listened too much to their users and didn't evolve qucikly enough. Now, what Facebook might do to LinkedIn is another story.
And as we have seen in the news recently, the big duke-out might be between FB and Google, two companies seemingly in different spaces... technical evolution continues to blur the lines of what space each belongs in...