Perhaps a reader can comment and set me straight if I am mistaken, but it appears that Linkedin no longer allows group moderators to see group members’ email addresses. I created the “Houston Energy Traders” group about 18 months ago to help get connected to people I wouldn’t otherwise find on Linkedin and I’ve kept it up over time because I liked being able to have an email address to use if I had a business inquiry or simply wanted to directly contact them otherwise. I’ve known and acknowledged all along that having that functionality was something of an end-run around Linkedin’s stated business model – that you’re free to connect with people you already know but need to subscribe to get in touch with the people you don’t – but I think moves like this are going to kill Linkedin’s growth.
And yes, I’ve noticed that I can still “send a message” to anyone in the group, singularly or collectively, but many people I know still only log in to Linkedin very irregularly and most turn off automatic notifications from the site and it’s only safe to assume that’s the way that most users use the site. It’s just not quite as effective if I have someone I want to reach out to and ask a timely question.
OF COURSE Linkedin needs a business model that brings in revenue, but I don’t think they’re ever going to get there by making people subscribe. It’s the exact same problem that all social media sites have – Twitter and Facebook, too – that the services are immensely popular when they’re free, but only when they’re free. And unlikely cable TV and satellite radio, where the old “subscribe and avoid commercials” appeal might have worked in the past, social networks need other users to be effective and are most effective when they’re constantly growing. My satisfaction from watching the Sorpranos is only tangentially related to whether or not my friends watch it – I’m still going to enjoy the show itself and discussing it with them is only a second-order benefit.
Social networks, not so much, because no matter how much I am wiling to pay, there’s no utility without another user who’s willing to participate, too, and he might not want to pay. So social networking services stay mostly free and as a result don’t make money. Linkedin is running into that problem, I’m sure, and there’s no doubt that they would force everyone to subscribe and communicate only through their site if they could.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think that Linkedin has done anything wrong. It only makes sense to try and force people to use your service as intended and there actually probably is a privacy element that was lacking with the old system. All I am saying is that the old system was working and provided me a benefit (direct email access to other people in my industry) in return for setting up a group and keeping people engaged on the site. Now I have less incentive to keep up with managing that group and Linkedin is probably going to suffer decreased activity in the aggregate as people like me slowly fade away and become less engaged.
I certainly don’t envy them, because they’re in a tight spot.
