by Steve on February 8, 2010
Today I got an email purely because a local training guru noticed I’d looked at her profile. I often look at random profiles just to look at profiles. I might pick up some interesting language, or a photo idea, or some other tidbit. I’m sure I came across her looking for local 2nd-level-connection marketing folks. Anyway she sent an email and now I’ve got more of a connection to someone interesting. Cool!
Then it hit me – the first thing I do when I log into Linkedin, and I suspect I’m not alone, is to look at who’s been looking at my profile. Call me vain, but I’m curious. Anyway, when I look at a profile I show up in someone else’s ‘Who’s Viewed My Profile’ list, and that is a form of advertising. Now, most people I see in my WVMP list are coy, and I see a list of items like ‘Someone in the Executive Leadership function in the Public Relations and Communications industry from Greater Chicago Area’ – sort of interesting, but ultimately not very useful. I’ve always had my Profile Views setting (it’s under Privacy Settings) set to show my name and headline, and boy am I glad.
You need to look at more profiles, and let people know who you are.
I imagine that if I was job hunting, I’d be looking at the profile of every HR person I could reach!
by Steve on January 31, 2010
A few days ago I wrote a tweet about whether it was fair to follow companies that don’t allow their employees access to Twitter. It got one response, and I’m not sure I was very clear. On second thought, I don’t think I phrased the question well. The question isn’t really whether it’s fair to follow companies, but whether it’s good for the Twittersphere.
Here’s what I’m thinking about: The success of Twittering from a business perspective depends on there being a large audience of followers ready to read & act on tweets. If there is no audience, there is no reaction. However, many companies block access to Twitter (and Facebook, and Linkedin, and etc.) to most of their employees, even as they ramp up social media marketing plans. This seems hypocritical (or at least short sighted) to me.
In a B2C world it’s not necessarily a problem, but in a B2B world it is. At the office I’m a customer for, say, trade show logistics, or business analysis. At home I’m not. So am I going to follow these people at the expense of valuable personal time in short supply, if I can access Twitter only from home?
There seems to be an assumption that while they’ve done the prudent thing in blocking access, all of their customers aren’t as sharp and will leave things wide open.
I wonder if many decades ago companies were ramping up their telemarketing campaigns even as they enforced policies limiting phone access to their employees? Or before that, direct mail campaigns back when people didn’t get their own mail?
So, should we follow companies that limit Twitter access to their own employees?
