I signed up for both in 2005. I haven't used FB since. I still use LinkedIn.
FB is a liability to your career, LinkedIn is not. LinkedIn captures the social network that matters to business. FB captures the social network that matters to pyramid schemes.
This is true, FB's volume potential is higher than LI.
But it is also true that those people who are interested in their "business social network" are accustomed to paying for services that create business value, sometimes paying handsomely. Those people interested in their social network are less accustomed to paying for "social services", and may be less able to put a value on the service (telecommunication services excepted).
It's not clear either that someone couldn't implement a LinkedIn clone on Facebook's API. FB isn't ignoring the corporate space, for example their "networks" feature is tied to a corporate email address anyone who is a member of a company network, you can trust that their identity is real. LinkedIn is even trying to get in on FB's turf, with its status updates.
On the other hand, advertisers tend to want to advertise to the people interested in their "social social network". Advertising to job seekers is inherently limited.
Agreed, but you're less likely to find falsified information on a LinkedIn page. The people on LinkedIn in are more likely to be real. That has considerably more tangible value IMO.
If you mean name, gender and ___location, then yes, those are less likely to be falsified. Everything else - everything that actually matters such as job titles, job descriptions, recommendations - is just as unreliable.
I personally know many people who lie on their profiles. One of my former startup partners lists herself as a CEO, except we were never structured that way, and she was never the top in command. People inflate their resumes all the time - if they have a one-man consulting company, they are the Lead Architect, if they received options as part of their incentives package, they are a Founder, etc.
Just look at all the recommendations. Literally everyone is Bill Gates and Mother Theresa rolled into one. I have yet to see a recommendation that simply says, hey - this guy is a competent programmer. Everyone is "world-class", "exceptionally talented", etc.
In contrast, none of my friends falsify personal information on Facebook. The incentive simply isn't there.
Can you explain what about Facebook is inherently dangerous to a career? Perhaps what some people put in their profiles would be damaging, but even that depends on what their field is, and how controlling and employee image focused their employer is.
Serious question: what do you do on linked in? What business value do you get?
I know several recruiters and speakers who use LinkedIn with great success. But outside of those two fields, most of the people I talk to use linkedin as a glorified rollodex and nothing more. I would be really interested in examples of what you have used it for.
It's more than a glorified rolodex, really. With LinkedIn you get much more of a "push" approach to business networking, whereas the rolodex and telephone model is much more "pull" based.
I can examine the profile of someone I've worked with before and know before I contact them if they know someone with whom I'd be interested in connecting. I can get notification that they are changing jobs, looking for work, or trying to find someone with a specialization, and they can notify other people at the same time. The rolodex and telephone model make this much harder, and so normally suchnotification happens far later, when you call to otherwise just keep in touch, unless the matter is otherwise extremely urgent.
It also serves as nice electronic substitute for resume and references. There's nothing for you to lose, and it allows you to update both in real time, avoiding the need to submit a new resume and list of references to potential employers whenever you want to add something new.
I know that at the last couple of places I've worked, part of the recruitment process was looking over my LinkedIn profile -- around the time I was being considered, I got notification that someone from the place I was applying had viewed my profile. I don't know whether it helped in my case, but I can't imagine they would even bother if it was always a waste of time.
Virtual business cards / online rolodex. When you're running a company your business contacts are super important. So every time that I get a business card in some context I look the people up on LinkedIn, then I can also see more about their background, and I don't have to worry about losing their card or adding them to my address book.
Incidentally, I didn't get LinkedIn before starting a business either. I'd even canceled my original account because I found the deluge of people that I saw at work every day adding me as a contact rather silly. Now, though, I use LinkedIn (or its European competitor, Xing) several times a week.
I have a LI account, but I don't use it effectively, so I can't speak from personal experience (which speaks to your point)
But I do believe businesses like Angstro could build a valuable business off LI (they could build it off FB too, but the value is much less obvious). This is, of course, an in theory statement, not an in practice one. Presumably LI could add Angstro like features themselves?
I've picked up a couple of consulting gigs through providing decent answers im the Answers section.
If I have a few moments spare at the end of the day, I'll look through open questions and answer them. Sometimes they are interesting questions that I would like to think through myself; sometimes they land directly in my area of expertise. But it's a win-win you help someone, and at the same time advertise that you are a reasonable, helpful guy who knows at least something about an area.
By comparison, I find Facebook completely pointless.
I've used it to look up customers, and people who work at various ISPs I was dealing with. I've also used it for the post-conference lookup to solidify connections that were made in person.
It's main utility to most people comes in the job hunting phase, but I've found it useful for building and maintaining weak ties with lots of people.
Both in job hunting and filling positions. It goes both ways. Rather than trying to capture everything social it has focused on just capturing the career network and doing it well. If I'm on LinkedIn it's for a reason: Jobs.
If I'm on Facebook it could be any number of reasons all of which probing raises privacy concerns.
Depends, like I said. I've used it both in job hunting and filling positions that are open. In the case where I was job hunting I did searches on the people who interviewed me either before (if I happened to know who I was meeting with) or after the interviews.
I even searched for people I didn't interview with, but were listed as having worked for the same company with similar job titles. It's a good way gauge the caliber of the people they've hired to work there.
It's true that it's unlikely, but LinkedIn has been able to do something that Facebook hasn't - monetize. Search had been around for a long time, but Google is who made it really profitable. So, there is a chance that this is more like Google and Yahoo circa 2000 where it was underdog Google and flashy Yahoo.
Granted, being able to monetize doesn't matter to your users, but if you keep running through your VC, you eventually can't keep up development at the same pace.
Facebook makes money. They seem to have roughly the attitude that Google did around 2000. I.e. they're making some money, could make more if that was their main focus, but their main focus in the short term is to evolve the site.
Not to say that FB is going to be as big as Google. Outliers on that scale may only appear every couple decades. But they have a similar hackerly vibe.
Let's do an interesting exercise. Facebook has 100 million users. Let's suppose 10% of that user base would be willing to pay a $1.99 to have a premium account (like unlimited number of photo albuns, customizable look&feel etc). That would mean almost $20m dollars monthly revenue, much much larger than their burn-rate. College students don't pay for SMS? Why some of them wouldn't then pay this small amount to Facebook?
Sure, this is a very rough estimation based on old subscription-based business model. A product in a free market operates much differently than if you charge US$ $.01. But it only shows that Facebook has many ways to become successfully profitable. They are only being cautious.
Online Newspaper X has over 20m online readers. Most of them have at some point subscribed to print publications @ $200+ per year. If it was a membership site at just $2 per month, wouldn't they be able to keep some readers? 10%? 5%?.
You're not telling me someone making $80k per year would replace the newspaper she reads every day to to save a few cents a read?
Wouldn't people pay to use google? What if it was just $0.50 a month? or $0.01 per search?
The concept that if people use a site, it's worth money, has not proved itself.
If we are going to look at profitable online communities then look at MMORPGs. It may be outside the realm of facebook and linkedin but there is plenty of profitability to be had beyond myspace clones or even websites.
World of Warcraft takes in 12.99 - 14.99 per user per month and has approximately 10 million active subscribers. Plus additional profits whenever an expansion comes out.
Yes, I agree! We can debate the conversion rates. My whole point is that simply asking whether Facebook will be ever profitable is a simplistic question. They can become profitable already. The question is that there are probably much better ways to monetize their site and typical audience than requiring subscription.
Like PG mentioned, when Google came along, the best way to monetize search engines was to become a "media" portal and pollute browsers with ads and pop-ups.
