[morganb180]

Hey Guys, I wrote the post.

Here's my take, after researching them for so long. LinkedIn is definitely aggressive with their growth tactics. From the endorsements product, which has some questionable value, to the gimmicks like the "You're in the top 1% of profile views" emails, they definitely push the limits on growth and driving sustainable engagement. There's definitely an argument to be made that they cross the line too often for many people's tastes.

But what I think the most important takeaway from their success is that even after a decade they are constantly pushing the growth envelope. They are launching new products, new tests, new features, many focused on creating repeat visits and new growth, all the time. It doesn't stop.

To innovate on the growth engine for a decade straight? That's impressive. Sure they get things wrong, but they don't stop trying. Even as a public company. Even with 225 million users they keep trying new things.

I think that's a great lesson for companies to learn from, regardless of how hard you decide to personally push tactics for growth. So many companies lament their lack of growth, but what did they really try? What have they shipped that is actually focused on driving growth? PR, AdWords and a referral program does not make for a sustainable startup growth engine. I think the focus on the need to grow and the constant iteration and learning is something that has certainly given me a new perspective on how to think about startup growth.

[damian2000]

Now their tactics look more like desperation rather than well thought out methods to maintain growth. Its mainly the spam combined with blatent selling out to advertisers & recruiters that I have an issue with.

[morganb180]

It's a valid point. The entire early growth team is gone and onto other ventures. It's probably very likely that the new growth team is facing increasing pressure to continue to grow, which can lead to overly aggressive tactics.

I also think the product is in the middle of a massive pivot from referral network to network+content destination and that transition isn't quite done yet. It will be interesting to see what the next few years hold for them.

[boomzilla]

I noticed that Linkedin has been trying to push content too with the influencers' posts and Pulse recommended articles. I am skeptical that they'll be able to get a lot of traction with that kind of content though.

I am just curious why they have not pushed Q&A as another engagement channel, something similar to Quora. As most people in Linkedin use real identity, the Q&A should be relatively high quality with little spam. Thinking about it, maybe Linkedin should buy Quora or Stackoverflow :)

[taurath]

Nice try, Quora or Stackoverflow competitor!

[gwintrob]

Thanks for writing, Morgan. It's thorough and I appreciate all the citations.

You point out that LinkedIn was able to prevent spam in the beginning through trusted referrals. I definitely receive unsolicited messages and see some clearly fake group members. Did you find any more recent examples where the company cracked down on spam even if it sacrificed growth?

[morganb180]

I didn't, and to be honest, after going through 10+ years of interviews and articles to find the growth nuggets, I wasn't exactly looking for them.

One thing, that I mentioned in the follow up comment, is that much of the early growth was built by Josh Elman, Reid, Keith Rabois, and then later Adam Nash and Elliot Shmukler. All of those people are now gone.

As LinkedIn looks to continue its growth, it will be interesting to see how the company responds to a massive talent turnover on the growth team, and whether they can 1) keep it going, and 2) balance growth with user experience and value so that it doesn't continue to alienate users.