Pulse Joins the LinkedIn Family • Hacker News Board

Re: Pulse Joins the LinkedIn Family

#21

Post by goronbjorn » Thu, Apr 11, 2013, 11:12 PM UTC

bambax wrote: post #14

I don't understand LinkedIn (anymore). Their business model seems to be to source candidates to recruiters. This may be good for recruiters, but for candidates? I'm not so sure. It's certainly better to have an overall strong online presence (Twitter / Github (if relevant) / personal blog) than contacts on LinkedIn that don't mean anything. Groups are full of spam. The website is incredibly unresponsive. They bought…

From: http://www.linkedin.com/about-us

> Our mission is simple: connect the world's professionals to make them more productive and successful. When you join LinkedIn, you get access to people, jobs, news, updates, and insights that help you be great at what you do.

LinkedIn targets all professionals, not just those that are tech savvy. Most people visit only a handful of websites in a given day; if Linkedin can become a 'good enough' destination for professional news, it has a good chance of becoming part of that handful of websites, if it isn't already. There's some good insight on that here: https://www.quora.com/LinkedIn-Acquisition-of-Pulse-March-20...

Linkedin as a company isn't just about one thing, like adding professional connections for example, much like Apple as a company isn't just about one thing, like making iPhones. As a company, their goal is to build product(s) that align with their mission, and if the stock market is to be trusted as a proxy of how well they're doing that, it appears they're doing pretty well: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=LNKD+Basic+Chart&t=1y

Re: Pulse Joins the LinkedIn Family

#22

Post by ChuckMcM » Thu, Apr 11, 2013, 11:13 PM UTC

akavi wrote: post #10

SurfScore wrote: post #9

I love Pulse. They built a great app and I'm really happy for them, so this isn't a critique, but were they really worth 90M? I get that most of it was in stock, but damn. I guess it was more of a team/userbase acquisition, similar to the Dropbox/Mailbox deal. Either way, congrats guys!

Isn't stock == cash when the acquiring company is public?

No. Typically that stock comes with a constraint. When the company I helped start was acquired in 1999 there was an 18 month 'hold' on selling stock resulting from the transaction.

The math did not work out in my favor :-)

Re: Pulse Joins the LinkedIn Family

#23

Post by bitsweet » Thu, Apr 11, 2013, 11:13 PM UTC

bambax wrote: post #14

I don't understand LinkedIn (anymore). Their business model seems to be to source candidates to recruiters. This may be good for recruiters, but for candidates? I'm not so sure. It's certainly better to have an overall strong online presence (Twitter / Github (if relevant) / personal blog) than contacts on LinkedIn that don't mean anything. Groups are full of spam. The website is incredibly unresponsive. They bought…

Spoken like an engineer! I have similar sentiment but surprised to learn how much LinkedIn is valued by those outside of software. It's like the GitHub for MBAs when it comes to professional networking/reputation

Re: Pulse Joins the LinkedIn Family

#24

Post by muratmutlu » Thu, Apr 11, 2013, 11:16 PM UTC

aashaykumar92 wrote: post #17

bambax wrote: post #14

I don't understand LinkedIn (anymore). Their business model seems to be to source candidates to recruiters. This may be good for recruiters, but for candidates? I'm not so sure. It's certainly better to have an overall strong online presence (Twitter / Github (if relevant) / personal blog) than contacts on LinkedIn that don't mean anything. Groups are full of spam. The website is incredibly unresponsive. They bought…

Yeah that quote drives me crazy. LinkedIn already has those news stories at the top of our home pages--I have shared a couple but I have never seen anyone engage in mine nor others' posts. Unless LinkedIn plans to create a forum for news while utilizing Pulse, I don't get that statement from Pulse. But again, they'd be losing to already-popular forums. More than anything, I just hope LinkedIn doesn't shut Pulse down.…

The top posts seem to have a lot of comments (600+) and likes

http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/whoToFollow?strategy=post...

I've been using groups a lot recently and if you post the right stuff it sparks a good discussion. Also sends a fair bit of traffic to my blog.

Agree that the site is unresponsive, badly designed and considering their valuation it seems baffling the state it is in.

Re: Pulse Joins the LinkedIn Family

#25

Post by muratmutlu » Thu, Apr 11, 2013, 11:16 PM UTC

aashaykumar92 wrote: post #17

bambax wrote: post #14

I don't understand LinkedIn (anymore). Their business model seems to be to source candidates to recruiters. This may be good for recruiters, but for candidates? I'm not so sure. It's certainly better to have an overall strong online presence (Twitter / Github (if relevant) / personal blog) than contacts on LinkedIn that don't mean anything. Groups are full of spam. The website is incredibly unresponsive. They bought…

Yeah that quote drives me crazy. LinkedIn already has those news stories at the top of our home pages--I have shared a couple but I have never seen anyone engage in mine nor others' posts. Unless LinkedIn plans to create a forum for news while utilizing Pulse, I don't get that statement from Pulse. But again, they'd be losing to already-popular forums. More than anything, I just hope LinkedIn doesn't shut Pulse down.…

The top posts seem to have a lot of comments (600+) and likes

http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/whoToFollow?strategy=post...

I've been using groups a lot recently and if you post the right stuff it sparks a good discussion. Also sends a fair bit of traffic to my blog.

Agree that the site is unresponsive, badly designed and considering their valuation it seems baffling the state it is in.

Re: Pulse Joins the LinkedIn Family

#26

Post by bambax » Thu, Apr 11, 2013, 11:39 PM UTC

goronbjorn wrote: post #21

bambax wrote: post #14

I don't understand LinkedIn (anymore). Their business model seems to be to source candidates to recruiters. This may be good for recruiters, but for candidates? I'm not so sure. It's certainly better to have an overall strong online presence (Twitter / Github (if relevant) / personal blog) than contacts on LinkedIn that don't mean anything. Groups are full of spam. The website is incredibly unresponsive. They bought…

From: http://www.linkedin.com/about-us > Our mission is simple: connect the world's professionals to make them more productive and successful. When you join LinkedIn, you get access to people, jobs, news, updates, and insights that help you be great at what you do. LinkedIn targets all professionals, not just those that are tech savvy. Most people visit only a handful of websites in a given day; if Linkedin can becom…

There's a contradiction in terms. The more access I have to "news", the less productive I am. My productivity is positively correlated to the amount of silence I get.

Re: Pulse Joins the LinkedIn Family

#27

Post by incision » Thu, Apr 11, 2013, 11:42 PM UTC

bitsweet wrote: post #23

bambax wrote: post #14

I don't understand LinkedIn (anymore). Their business model seems to be to source candidates to recruiters. This may be good for recruiters, but for candidates? I'm not so sure. It's certainly better to have an overall strong online presence (Twitter / Github (if relevant) / personal blog) than contacts on LinkedIn that don't mean anything. Groups are full of spam. The website is incredibly unresponsive. They bought…

Spoken like an engineer! I have similar sentiment but surprised to learn how much LinkedIn is valued by those outside of software. It's like the GitHub for MBAs when it comes to professional networking/reputation

>It's like the GitHub for MBAs when it comes to professional networking/reputation.

I think that's a very good analogy which applies to a lot more than MBAs. In my experience, the site is incredibly popular with people who work by way networking and recommendations.

Re: Pulse Joins the LinkedIn Family

#28

Post by bambax » Thu, Apr 11, 2013, 11:50 PM UTC

blantonl wrote: post #20

bambax wrote: post #14

I don't understand LinkedIn (anymore). Their business model seems to be to source candidates to recruiters. This may be good for recruiters, but for candidates? I'm not so sure. It's certainly better to have an overall strong online presence (Twitter / Github (if relevant) / personal blog) than contacts on LinkedIn that don't mean anything. Groups are full of spam. The website is incredibly unresponsive. They bought…

It's certainly better to have an overall strong online presence (Twitter / Github (if relevant) / personal blog) than contacts on LinkedIn that don't mean anything. One important thing to understand is that LinkedIn isn't just populated by tech folks. LinkedIn is a professional social networking platform that caters to all professions. Your Github / twitter feed might be relevant in the tech industry, but that isn't…

I shouldn't have mentioned Github! ;-) Twitter has nothing to do with tech folksiness. The two most prominent Twitter users are Justin Bieber and Lady Gaga.

It's good for them that LinkedIn is making money. But that revenue comes from recruiters, and is only possible if non-recruiters (ordinary folks) get some value out of the system. If normal people don't get any value out of LinkedIn, they will leave (or become dormant) and the revenue from recruiters will dry up. I'm just wondering what that value might be.

I already see many ghost profiles, people who haven't updated their profile in a while or who create a different profile every time they change companies.

I wouldn't bet the farm on LinkedIn. Although for 90M I would (since the farm is worth much less).

Re: Pulse Joins the LinkedIn Family

#29

Post by incision » Fri, Apr 12, 2013, 12:16 AM UTC

bambax wrote: post #14

I don't understand LinkedIn (anymore). Their business model seems to be to source candidates to recruiters. This may be good for recruiters, but for candidates? I'm not so sure. It's certainly better to have an overall strong online presence (Twitter / Github (if relevant) / personal blog) than contacts on LinkedIn that don't mean anything. Groups are full of spam. The website is incredibly unresponsive. They bought…

>And now Pulse. Who would go to LinkedIn for news??

If I had to guess...

I expect that right now some large number of LinkedIn users only engage with the site when they have an active job search going - not often.

The majority of LinkedIn revenue [1] comes from services sold to recruiters [2]. Recruiters want lots of current, accurate information about potential hires. If people aren't engaging with the site regularly, LinkedIn doesn't have that.

Now, I expect that most people who use Pulse use it daily, several times a day in my case.

By grabbing Pulse, LinkedIn gets a direct line to the 30M people who use the app and all sorts of information about their habits.

They'll now have an attractive, useful app from which to launch engagement with the site in order to improve the core "talent soltutions" product, drive content into their communities and drive better targeted advertising [3] (their second largest source of revenue) [1] back to those users via Pulse.

1:http://www.ere.net/2013/02/07/as-revenue-soars-linkedin-anno...

2: http://business.linkedin.com/talent-solutions

3: http://marketing.linkedin.com/

Re: Pulse Joins the LinkedIn Family

#30

Post by wallywax » Fri, Apr 12, 2013, 12:21 AM UTC

bambax wrote: post #14

I don't understand LinkedIn (anymore). Their business model seems to be to source candidates to recruiters. This may be good for recruiters, but for candidates? I'm not so sure. It's certainly better to have an overall strong online presence (Twitter / Github (if relevant) / personal blog) than contacts on LinkedIn that don't mean anything. Groups are full of spam. The website is incredibly unresponsive. They bought…

The "LinkedIn is useless" meme that seems popular here really baffles me, to be honest. Yes, there are many LinkedIn features that I don't get value from (including the news feed and endorsements). But I've found it invaluable for the one core feature it was built on: keeping in touch with your professional contacts. I'm not going to add all my former co-workers, the interesting people I talk to at conferences and counterparts at other companies on Facebook. I don't care what their kids are doing, or where they went on vacation. But I do want to know if they move to some other interesting job, find out if they're hiring or, most importantly, reach them in the future if I would like their advice or help. With my LinkedIn network, if I ever want to reach someone at Company X, whether it be to talk about a job opportunity or to tell them their API is broken, all I have to do is search that company name. Up comes a list of people at that company, and how connected I am to them. If I don't know anyone who currently works there, I probably know someone who does, and can get an introduction.

Before LinkedIn, I'd take business cards or exchange emails with contact information. I'd try to remember to enter it into my addressbook, or file it somewhere I can find it later. Good luck searching it, and if you do find someone and they've moved to a new job, the contact info you have might be totally out of date anyway.

It isn't just a hyped up resume. A great Github profile, blog or Twitter account does little to replace LinkedIn's functionality. If you're looking at it as just a way to be found by recruiters, you're doing it wrong. It's about keeping in touch with a broad network of professional contacts. Not people I talk to every day, but people I like, respect, and know I can reach out to if I need help (and vice versa). Despite all the annoying things they do, I find it extremely useful.