3 ms·

Really? I mean, linkedin has a legit monetisation strategy just as a socially connected CV platform for recruiters to find people - and charging recruiters for

by Ntrails 11y ago

Really? I mean, linkedin has a legit monetisation strategy just as a socially connected CV platform for recruiters to find people - and charging recruiters for tools to use it effectively. That seems far far stronger than what I know of twitter. Facebook - well what I really want to know is more detailed metrics like median time spent on it per user, interactions per user, etc etc. I'd be fascinated to know if the trends are downwards.

Grishnakh 11y ago
Agreed. Facebook's entire monetization strategy seems to be just showing ads to people who waste their time there looking at stupid videos and posting stupid comments to them. That's pretty easily defeated with an ad-blocker. LinkedIn's strategy is, as you said, a socially-connected CV platform so that recruiters can find people and hook them up with jobs, and make a big commission in the process, so LinkedIn charges recruiters a hefty fee for access to people. Ad-blockers aren't going to have any effect here: the recruiters still have to pay to send messages to people. It seems like a much more sound business strategy, as long as professionals still need jobs and there's recruiters looking to place them in jobs. It might not have the mass appeal of the inanity of Facebook or Twitter (since only a fraction of the population is of the demographic that would find it worthwhile to use LinkedIn; someone working as a barista or a Walmart cashier would not), but it certainly isn't subject to the same fickleness that those two are. All it'll take is some other inane social media platform to rise up for people to share dumb videos on and for FB/Twitter to do something dumb to piss off people, and suddenly they could become the next MySpace. LinkedIn's position is much stronger, as long as they don't screw it up trying to achieve the popularity of those other two.
- LoSboccacc 11y ago
  Doesn't facebook get a share from facebook app profits?

by Ntrails 11y ago

Grishnakh 11y ago

Agreed. Facebook's entire monetization strategy seems to be just showing ads to people who waste their time there looking at stupid videos and posting stupid comments to them. That's pretty easily defeated with an ad-blocker. LinkedIn's strategy is, as you said, a socially-connected CV platform so that recruiters can find people and hook them up with jobs, and make a big commission in the process, so LinkedIn charges recruiters a hefty fee for access to people. Ad-blockers aren't going to have any effect here: the recruiters still have to pay to send messages to people. It seems like a much more sound business strategy, as long as professionals still need jobs and there's recruiters looking to place them in jobs. It might not have the mass appeal of the inanity of Facebook or Twitter (since only a fraction of the population is of the demographic that would find it worthwhile to use LinkedIn; someone working as a barista or a Walmart cashier would not), but it certainly isn't subject to the same fickleness that those two are. All it'll take is some other inane social media platform to rise up for people to share dumb videos on and for FB/Twitter to do something dumb to piss off people, and suddenly they could become the next MySpace. LinkedIn's position is much stronger, as long as they don't screw it up trying to achieve the popularity of those other two.

LoSboccacc 11y ago
Doesn't facebook get a share from facebook app profits?