When Facebook introduced sponsored posts, people got upset. Understandably so. Businesses started their Facebook pages with the understanding that their followers would see their posts, then Facebook announced that only a certain percentage (a small percentage) of a page’s followers would see those posts. If you wanted all of your followers to see them, then you had to pay. It seemed unfair.
Now, LinkedIn is following the Facebook lead and introducing Sponsored Updates. This actually makes sense.
LinkedIn has a different business model than Facebook. Always has.
For instance, LinkedIn has always operated on the introduction policy. In order to acquire new friends, you have to go through an introductory process. When you update a page, only your followers see it. It was founded on this insular platform-building concept. In that environment, being able to pay to reach a larger audience actually makes sense because LinkedIn doesn’t have to take something away from you in order to charge you for it later.
I’m not trying to encourage you to use the service, but it’s available if you want to try it out. I just wanted to compare it to Facebook’s sponsored posts. It just seems to make more sense for LinkedIn.
Agree or disagree?