3 ms·

I didn't get that either. What would a "proper" business network look like? Everyone connects with other companies' presences through their own company's presen

I didn't get that either. What would a "proper" business network look like? Everyone connects with other companies' presences through their own company's presence? Similarly, the advice offered by the article was vague pablum. One example: >The company needs to simplify its number of revenue streams and make sure that they work in concert with its user engagement and growth strategy, rather than in conflict. Sure. How? Kind of like saying "the company needs to increase revenue by making more money".

ryanelkins 11y ago
The revenue thing is addressing a conflict in LinkedIn's approach. The value in the platform is the users but their monetization of that platform tends to drive off users (due to being spammy). So they are saying they need to find a monetization system that encourages user growth rather than detracts from it. You may not agree with that, but that's their logic. It's not quite as tautological as you make it seem.
- unclebucknasty 11y ago
  I understand what the article was saying and I don't disagree. In fact, I'm saying it's obvious. Your explanation effectively repeated it, using equally vague terms. And that was my point. The author says that LinkedIn needs to find a completely different revenue model in midstream that works for them and that its users love. Do you think there's really a revelation in there? Do you think that's never occurred to LinkedIn (or anyone who's paying attention)? Making vague and obvious statements as a commentator is also easy. For the article to have value, it should have offered some concrete examples of how these problems could be solved.