LinkedIn giveth and LinkedIn taketh away.
As of January 1, 2015, all LinkedIn members (free and premium accounts) can now see the last names and full profiles of the people in their extended network–which includes first, second, and now third degree. Thanks, LinkedIn.
Also, as of January 1, all members now have a limited number of searches they can perform each month–and at this point the number of searches we are limited to is not being disclosed by LinkedIn. What? You have to be kidding, LinkedIn!
LinkedIn Giveth
Seeing the last names of our extended network will be helpful for all of us. However, for people who are still ramping up their LinkedIn connection base, this will be especially helpful, because one of the basic tenets on LinkedIn is more first-degree people leads to more seconds and thirds. Thus, it’s important to continually add connections consistently and strategically.
If you’d like help formulating your connections strategy, be sure to read my article “The LinkedIn Connections Conundrum: Who Should Be in Your Network?”
LinkedIn Taketh Away
Regarding the number of searches you can do in any calendar month, LinkedIn refers to this as your “commercial use limit.” They suggest, “If you reach the commercial use limit, your activity on LinkedIn indicates that you’re likely using LinkedIn for commercial use, like hiring or prospecting.”
I have spent a bunch of time this month researching this change (so you wouldn’t have to). I’ve been trying to get a clearer picture of what it means. All I found was rampant speculation regarding the number of searches you get, what counts as a search, etc. And the only official statements from LinkedIn are their original announcement and a little bit of information they subsequently shared in the LinkedIn Help Center.
Also, only one person has contacted me to tell me he was warned that he was running out of searches. LinkedIn apparently starts warning you when you have used 70% of your allotted number of searches. Then they remind you again in 5% increments (25% left, 20% left, 15% left, etc.), until you see this final notice that you’ve reached your limit for the month. However, their website says, “After you’ve reached the limit, you’ll continue to be able to search but will see a limited number of results.”
The person who contacted me did ultimately reach his limit for the month. Of course, he could have upgraded his account as LinkedIn suggested in each of the warnings–which, of course, is LinkedIn’s goal. Personally, I haven’t received a warning, but I have the Sales Plus premium upgrade, so I’m probably allotted more searches than people who have a free account.
To understand why I upgraded, read “Why I’ve Finally Upgraded to a Premium LinkedIn Account.”
Is this really a big deal?
For those of us who have capitalized on the power of the LinkedIn search for prospecting or hiring, it certainly is a big deal. We do lots of searches, and we don’t want to pay for a more expensive account so we can continue to do our jobs.
For the people who don’t do a lot of searching, it’s probably no big deal. But anyone who isn’t taking full advantage of the search function is undoubtedly leaving a lot of money on the table–a topic I will address another day.
My most recent LinkedIn user survey shows 81% of the respondents use the free account. These users are already limited in a number of ways, including fewer saved searches and InMails, fewer people in search results, and more limited access to Who’s Viewed Your Profile. Now that LinkedIn is also limiting the number of searches users can make, some day free account users may have to get out their credit card and upgrade to a premium account if they want to achieve their business goals.
LinkedIn giveth and LinkedIn taketh away. I’ll leave it up to you to decide how you feel about these latest developments.
When LinkedIn reduces their cost for a premium account they will sign up many many more people. It will be a matter of time before a competitor will launch a product that will shake things up. I would join LinkedIn Premium but it is simply overpriced.
I think it is mostly ‘taketh away’ and capitalizing on the fact that the recruiter community is basically now fully dependent on Linkedin to do their jobs.
I would like to see another resource/tool where we recruiters can afford to access resumes AND contact information in an affordable manner. Basically we are limited to Monster, CareerBuilder and DICE for job boards and their costs are prohibitive for single users like myself. Now Linkedin is charging similar rates to the job boards where you actually have full access the the contact information. I’m not pleased with the new changes at Linkedin.
Yes, I do a great deal of social recruiting but let’s face it having the contact information is what it is all about. I use Indeed for resume searches but I’m dependent on my message reaching the candidate and motivating them to reach back out to me. I use Leadferret but would prefer the insanely expensive Salesforce.com I tweet, do facebook postings, use the company ATS, blog on my web site, etc… Now Linkedin is limiting access UGH.
You know, originally I was against using Facebook due to them giving out personal information to companies for advertisement, but I think I’m willing to give FB a try now. There’s no way I’m paying over $500 a year to use a website, especially when it hasn’t even netted me a good job. This is insane.
This is purely a business move.
I mean, didn’t you worry when your job activities became dependant on an external, commercial organisation?
What, they created a tool that you fully see the value in, use on a daily basis – and you want it for free?
My only concern is the pricing strategy – the lowest price is a ridiculous £60 p/m. All I personally need, is to be able to search everything – the rest I can do myself.
Spotify charge £5/£10 for a huge amount of musical content, but their pricing is geared towards consumers.
Linked-In, WE provide them with the “resource” on a crowdsourced level – and they feel the divine right to apply commercial level pricing to everyone.
But then maybe the same %age who would pay £5/£10, would also pay £60 – or at least not enough to make it an unprofitable one
I read this and had one thought: They suggest, “If you reach the commercial use limit, your activity on LinkedIn indicates that you’re likely using LinkedIn for commercial use, like hiring or prospecting.”
Most non-HR people are on LinkedIn because Corporate America has changed the hiring process and HR people, gurus, etc. have driven candidates the way Buffalo were once chased over ledges and cliffs. It’s considered a must to be on LI and have a ‘presence’. So what if hiring and prospecting are being done? Isn’t that where the traffic comes from? It may be time to let LI fade in the distance?