Linkedin vs. FaceBook - It’s All About The “FREE” - Jim Kukral

Linkedin vs. FaceBook - It’s All About The “FREE”

Author: Jim Kukral Category: Internet Strategy, Linkedin, Online Marketing

Tuesday
Jun 12, 2007

According to CNN money, Linkedin.com says it will own business networking.

In the future, everyone will likely maintain two online profiles. So said LinkedIn CEO Dan Nye in an extended lunchtime interview last week here in Fortuneâ€™s conference room/pool hall. We had opened the conversation with THE question of the moment: in a Facebook world, whatâ€™s the future for LinkedIn â€” or for that matter any other â€œverticalâ€ social network?

Stealing some of his material from LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman on the matter, Nye said people will build one profile for their personal life and another for their professional life. The argument, self serving as it is, makes a certain amount of sense. Not good to have a prospective employer stumble on to those photos of you freshman year in Delta Kappa Epsilon.

I might agree, if only they were actually priced affordably. They’re not. That’s the only reason I don’t shell out for a Linkedin.com account every month… It’s just too expensive. What kind of strategy is that?

What would I pay? $5/month, tops. Yeah, I know it’s free to a certain extent, but free is of course relative. I cannot use the system fully for “free”. $19.95 for “basic” access is too much. “$200/month” for pro, are you kidding me?

With all the other choices out there of connecting virtually, why would I pay?

Is there room for Linkedin and Facebook? Yeah, I think so. But I’m telling you this, the winner will be the one who prices it right.

Share:

Comments

Steve Duncan

June 12th, 2007 at 11:56 am

There is actually another plan called the Personal Plus plan, that is $60/year, or $5/month. It is at the bottom of each page. It’s not listed with the other plans, however.

As a business subscriber (my company pays for it) I’ve noticed that there is no way to downgrade without contacting customer service.

Linkedin - A beta service for a production price.

Steve

Steven

June 15th, 2007 at 7:20 pm

I have a LinkedIn free account and I don’t see nearly enough value in the service to pay the monthly fee.

Jason

July 15th, 2007 at 11:29 pm

Totally agree~ It’s just too expensive, espeically when considering their actual cost to provide such service. Although as a side benefit, high price could prevent from abuse of your personal data.

Mike

July 5th, 2008 at 6:14 pm

Jim, I couldn’t agree more. I have a profile on both sites (like most people - i suspect). However, I can’t bring myself to pony up that $19.99 a month for the extra features on LinkedIn.

I was thinking that I would probably subscribe if it were like $50 annually. At this point, I just can’t justify spending the extra dough.

I keep waiting for someone to give me a legit reason to spend it… if someone can convince me - i’ll do it.

Till then, it’s facebook for me.

Mikes last blog post..$60

Still a LinkedIn Fan, however...

August 5th, 2008 at 1:06 pm

Interesting, the link at the bottom of the page (when you want to look at who viewed your profile) still says:

To see all XX people, upgrade your account (starting at $60.00/year).

However, when you click on the link for the $60 a year, you go to the rates page, which clearly shows $19.95 per month as the lowest rate ($199.50 for the year if you pay in advance).

I asked LinkedIn.com about the $60 annual rate, still advertised on the site, and this is response I got:

———————————
Thank you for contacting LinkedIn Customer Support. The message you see is wrong. We are aware of this issue and we are in the process of fixing it.

The lowest premium subscription we currently offer is the Business subscription at $19.95/mo ($199.50/yr). The extended feature still applies to this and higher subscriptions

An overall view of our premium subscriptions is available here:
http://www.linkedin.com/static?key=business_info_more
——————————————

…hmm can you say bait and switch?

Hamza Benamar

August 26th, 2008 at 3:13 pm

I frankly do not see the value proposition to pay $20/month. Linkedin does a lousy job selling the added value through premium subscriptions. They are probably targeting a marginal minority of folks, the ones who can expense a linkedin membership: recruiters only?
I went through the same treasure hunt for the $60 subscription as I was willing to pay the price of a Mocha at Starbuchs in Switzerland on a monthly basis to contribute to the linkedin infrastructure. $20 a month? I don’t see the need for a $240 annual expense. For that price, we are talking about 10-12 good subscriptions to the Economist, Times, Foreign Affairs, etc.
I had written Linkedin months ago asking them to consider a different set of customers from a pricing perspective. I do not think they got it right yet.