[wslh]

I prefer to start sending messages via LinkedIn InMail to pass spam filters. That's their main advantage. Another positive thing about LinkedIn is adding context: the recipient is aware that the distance between him and you is short.

[reidrac]

That's interesting. To me looks like almost 100% of the time LinkedIn messages are misdirected and too close to be spam that I almost never bother to reply if I'm not genuinely interested.

When I get a proper email directly to my inbox, it immediately gets my attention and it's likely to get a reply.

[wslh]

99% of the messages and invitations I receive from e-mail and LinkedIn users are by people who want to connect without studying what I do. They don't follow the basics.

BUT, the messages I send try to be laser focused and I have a good success rate of conversions (~20%)

[reidrac]

I guess LinkedIn messages are easier for lazy/busy people that need to contact lots of people.

If I get a direct email that is definitely not based on a template means that that person a) found my mail and b) spent some time on the process, so I usually reply as courtesy.

I applaud your approach, although I think it's difficult to get noticed in a noisy channel and LinkedIn messages are overused.

[orenbarzilai]

99% of the messages I get in linkedin are spam, and their messages interface sucks. linkedin is the lowest thing in my list.

[wslh]

Well, we had critical success with it. For example, in a few days there will be a joint press release between a top virtualization company and my company. This was achieved through LinkedIn InMail.

[wslh]

Strange downvote....