LinkedIn

LinkedIn Groups Stink

Posted by Mike McLaughlin on Jul 26, 2012, in Thoughts , tagged with ,

I don’t suppose this post really needs any further words. The headline says it all. But since I don’t like to be purely black-and-white, let’s go deeper.

In two words: Not Good.

Did you know that a Google search for the phrase “LinkedIn groups stink” yields ZERO results? I was shocked. It’s the only time in memory that a reasonable (to me) exact-phrase search gave me nothing.

My interactions with LinkedIn Groups at this point typically involve:

  • Checking out a group a friend or client is part of that seems relevant
  • Signing up, then reading the first e-mail digest I receive from the group
  • Reading the second e-mail digest
  • Deleting subsequent, unopened e-mail digests from the group until a few weeks pass and I finally drop out

If you’ve ever been part of a group you know that the active ones are dominated by self-promoters, purposeful instigators trying to be provocative, and job postings. The flipside of active groups are those that are de-facto broadcast tools without any real conversation or interactivity. It’s a bit of a lose-lose proposition.

I’m not saying that groups are NEVER helpful or NEVER have useful information, but that the hit rate is so low as to be essentially zero.

I looked for arguments supporting groups to see what I’m missing. One that triggered a positive reaction was this post about using statistics to vet groups before you join them. The premise is that you can’t just “hang out here and there” for groups to work, which is potentially reasonable if not necessarily ideal for most people. I want groups to be useful with as little effort as possible on my part, and I imagine most people feel the same way.

So, for now, I’ll remain a skeptic when it comes to LinkedIn Groups, with the very real possibility of becoming a deserter over the next few months.

Is Social Media All About the Numbers?

Posted by Mike McLaughlin on Dec 17, 2010, in Thoughts , tagged with , , ,

As he took down a mole poblano chicken drumstick over lunch, I posed the following question to Anu:

If Twitter let us hide the number of people who follow Naissance, would you want to do it?

The genesis of the question was a social media project for a client and the discussions we’ve had around measuring the success of such efforts.  I thought about the Naissance Twitter account and LinkedIn profile, and that people encountering them probably:

  1. Focus immediately on the number of followers we have, and
  2. Make some sort of judgment based on that number

What if the 19 was 1,900?

At first I felt frustration.  Yes, we have 19 followers, but we’re a new company and have never made an explicit ask/push to get people to pay attention to our social media presence.  How dare anyone judge the Naissance book by its cover!  This “reasoning” led to my question for Anu.

Then, of course, I realized that people DO judge books by their covers.  At least in part.  That’s the real world.

So since social media “ROI” is a fantasy for most firms, the easiest proxy for how well social media efforts are going is the number of friends/followers you have.  And so the real world for social media means promotion is as important as content.  Maybe more. Getting people over the initial hurdle of engaging you is the first and most important challenge.

As unappealing as it may sound, being shamelessly self-promoting is probably a good idea.

How Wholesalers Can Improve Prospecting e-Mails

Posted by Mike McLaughlin on Nov 11, 2010, in Thoughts , tagged with , , ,

Over the last few months we’ve been collecting e-mails from asset managers to financial advisors.  Most interesting to me are the prospecting e-mails sent by wholesalers.  Why? Because they can be so much better.

These e-mails represent wholesalers’ attempts to get that all-important first meeting with an advisor.  And they almost always have the same two elements:

  • A (usually) short introduction to specific products and/or the firm as a whole
  • A meeting request, typically framed in drive-by fashion (i.e., “I’ll be in the office next Tuesday…”)

I take no issue with either.  The intro and meeting request are necessary.  The problem is that these messages bring nothing else to the table.  Specifically, the e-mails lack a personal element that shows the wholesaler’s done some research and has genuine interest in the advisor.  Without this personal touch, every introductory wholesaler e-mail looks generic.

So how can wholesalers do a better job fostering a connection with advisors via e-mail?  Here are four simple ways:

  • Check LinkedIn. Roughly 40% of advisors are on LinkedIn today.  A brief look at a LinkedIn profile gives insight into schools, interests, common connections, previous employers, and more.  These details can be used to add a personal touch that is more likely to resonate with advisors.  (And, of course, there’s the indispensable Google search.)
  • Cite People the Advisor Knows. Referrals are the best introduction.  But even without a direct referral, wholesalers can indirectly use existing relationships to open doors with new advisors.  The drive-by meeting request has more meaning with specificity:  “I’ll be in the office next Tuesday to meet with your colleague Mike McLaughlin…”.
  • Work with Assistants. Wholesalers can make things very easy for the advisor by offering to schedule a meeting via his/her assistant.  Assistant’s names are frequently readily available; for example, the personal Web sites for Merrill Lynch advisors always include assistants’ names and phone numbers.  And using a familiar first name – “I can coordinate with Bridget” – again adds a personal touch.
  • Avoid Requests from Internals. In some instances internal wholesalers will send initial e-mails on behalf of their external partners.  This signals to the advisor that the external wholesaler is too important to ask himself.  Not good.  To get an introductory meeting, a personal request from the external is a must.

Desirable advisor targets get solicitations for meetings every day.  Investing extra time and effort to send a personalized e-mail can make a difference.

Why Naissance Isn’t on Facebook (For Now)

Posted by Mike McLaughlin on Sep 25, 2010, in Thoughts , tagged with , , ,

It’s somehow become generally accepted that every business needs a Facebook page.  So, in preparing for the Naissance launch, Googling for arguments why a company shouldn’t be on Facebook seemed like a fun exercise.

After 20 minutes I gave up.  I couldn’t find someone who says “here are 3 good reasons why your company doesn’t need to be on Facebook.”  And yet we arrived at that conclusion.  Here’s why:

  • We’re neither big nor retail. Coca Cola has hundreds of millions of customers, many of whom are actually on Facebook.  They need a page.  We’re a small company with a focused group of businesses as clients.  And from what I can tell, most of the people we meet with haven’t taken the Facebook plunge.
  • We know, already use, and prefer other tools. LinkedIn has become indispensible to us for business networking.  So we’re there (here and here).  Twitter is easy and has been fun for two years.  So we’re there, too.  But neither Anu nor I have found a reason to register for Facebook yet.
  • We need a better reason than “repetition”. We think a Facebook presence should bring something different to the table.  Something that people can’t get on a blog, a Web site, or via LinkedIn or Twitter.  Unfortunately, we don’t know what that should be for Naissance.  And judging by the pages of many companies, we’re not the only ones struggling for an answer.

We only have so many things to say.  And so contrary to the prevailing wisdom, we can live without a Facebook page for now.  We suspect many other companies can, too.