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 Fortune’s conference room/pool hall. We had opened the conversation with THE question of the moment: in a Facebook world, what’s the future for LinkedIn — or for that matter any other “vertical†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.
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
I have a LinkedIn free account and I don't see nearly enough value in the service to pay the monthly fee.
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.
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
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?
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.
Maybe the replacement of the Linkedin.com CEO will lead to some improvements.
http://www.cioinsight.com/c/a/Latest-News/LinkedI…
Seems the cost of having a workable Linkedin membership has gone through the roof.
http://www.linkedin.com/static?key=business_info_…
3 InMails for $25 a month?
INSANE! the price of Linkedin has soared over the last few years. I dont mind paying $20 a month or even $25 but for 3 MESSAGES!!! Who cares about the number of profiles per search you can see. $25 / mo 3 MESSAGES!!! Why would anyone pay for that?
Just join 50 groups and then you can send mails to whomever is in the groups for FREEE!!!!
Funny, 33 weeks ago I was thinking the same thing and was looking for a forum to launch my complaints. NO ONE has commented since.
Yes, I was thinking of upgrading. Holy Freaking Shyte – $25 for 3 intros a month? Are they smoking crack?
I agree, the group method is good, as long as people use the groups (many don't).
I can't afford $19.95 a month. I was going to use Linkedin to help with my job search. I definitely don't understand the criteria that they use to determine who is in your network or not. During a job search, to stay just within your network is a death wish in this economy. Linkedin could be making a ton of money if they priced their services correctly. I definitely need a professional profile out there. I just need to find the right place. Today, Linkedin is not it.