LinkedIn shoots up

I can’t say I’ve been a huge fan of business networking site LinkedIn since its emergence as the leader in the field of Facebook for professionals. For me it was nothing more than a CV-uploading service, which in the past year has been particularly useful for those looking for new or alternative employment since the jobs market took a turn for the worse. Hence it was (and still is) crawling with recruitment consulants – not the most appetising of prospects. Barring that there was nothing very sticky about the site. That was until the groups area of the site started to explode. Now I’m nearly hooked – not Twitter-hooked, but at least to the point to clicking on to it most days. This is now largely because I have formed a new group, entitled Green Shoots in Construction?, which is tracking whether economic optimism for the industry is well founded.

By allowing users to create, join, manage and take part in such activity LinkedIn has done itself a big favour. Rather than a pretty flat experience of finding people, connecting with them and communicating on a one-to-one level (why not just pick up the phone?) the site has stumbled into what the web is good at: allowing people to organise themselves, connect as groups and share. So far it’s early days for my effort at bringing users together (just reached 50 members in a week for my group), but it highlights a few points, which may or may not prove true as my future LinkedIn experiences develop:

• Temporary is OK – People can get a bit hung up about the longevity or success of such mini ventures. Clearly the name of my group is not one that will last much longer than discussion on economic conditions is active. That’s fine – at that point I’ll close it and start another. Right now though it feels a topic that is particularly apposite and relevant – the amount of comments so far in the group hopefully back this up.
• Groups must be active – I’m asking a question for the title of my group. Hopefully this should spark some interest, and action. Rather than equating a group with a brand, which was obviously an option, I went for the temporary but hopefully more intriguing option.
• Pick a niche – While preparing to market a Building webinar on Building Information Modelling that took place last week a few of our team started scouting around on a few sites to find people that may be interested in watching it. A quick search in LinkedIn and the results are pretty remarkable – 90 groups come up under the term, most of which seem relevant to the topic area. The most popular groups have between 1,700 and 3,000 members.

My rosier picture of LinkedIn is by no means conclusive. After all I, and I’m sure the lion’s share of LinkedIn members join loads of group and then subsequently do precisely nothing in them. You click to join, receive the regular emails, then delete them. But at least a few hold you attention.

The other question mark I have is more fundamental to being part of such social networking. One wonders quite what you actually achieve being part of these groups. From my perspective as a media provider it’s obvious – it’s a way of marketing our content, getting people to watch or take part in our print, live or online activities. Beyond that for actual practitioners? You can find information and ask questions, which is clearly helpful. Or market yourself or your company. But can more significant change or actions be inspired by such groups? It’s a major challenge for all of us involved in promoting and participating such activities. Converting goodwill and positive spirit into something that provides real results.

Related posts:

1. Forum – not fun More growing pains on the Building forum. Having decided as...
2. Faber Maunsell hits YouTube ...
3. Web 2.0 and the built environment More from the AOP conference that I attended on Wednesday,...
4. Forum fun ...