02 September 2009 / LinkedIn 0 ReTweets

Your LinkedIn Contact Settings: Are You False Advertising?

What are Your LinkedIn Contact Settings?

An old friend recently sent me a question about the meaning of one’s Contact Settings on LinkedIn. I should say it is more of a frustration and a LinkedIn complaint than a question, but here it is:

“Why do people bother writing that they are open to “business opportunities” on LinkedIn – if they never return or even look at InMail, etc? As a tool, LinkedIn seems to only be useful if the people you’re trying to reach are willing to be reached (despite what their profiles might say). It’s getting a tad frustrating trying to use to help our business – only to hit wall after wall.”

This brings up an excellent point: are you aware of what your LinkedIn Contact Settings are saying about you? Do you remember what sorts of communication you said you were interested in receiving? Are you potentially broadcasting false advertising about yourself, which in turn is helping you (and potentially your company) lose some social media credibility?

If you don’t know what I am talking about, select “View your profile” on the left-hand navigation bar of your LinkedIn Home Page and see what it says under “Interested in” in your “Contact Settings” at the bottom of your profile. Do you remember entering this information? When you first created your LinkedIn Profile, one of the questions you were asked was how you would be using LinkedIn. Based on those responses, LinkedIn has populated this area for you.

Not only does this information show up whenever someone looks at your profile; in addition, this information is also used in the Advanced People Search in the “Interested In” section, where you can decide if you are looking for all sorts of people such as “Deal-Making Contacts” and “Entrepreneurs.”

If you are disturbed by what you see here, please immediately change your settings appropriately by selecting “Edit My Profile.”

In my upcoming LinkedIn Book, I argue just to check all of these “Interested In” check boxes if you are truly interested in receiving any of these types of communications. After all, why limit yourself to potentially valuable communications just because you think that you might not be interested in them? The value of Windmill Networking is in the unlimited potential of social networking…why are you limiting yourself here by not being open to any type of communication? You never know what potential there is for you without listening to what others have to say!

Now, if you are open to receiving these types of communications, and you receive a legitimate, personalized request, what reason do you have for not replying? I know my friend is of the highest integrity, and he is trying to provide value in his business communications. On the other hand, if you are not open to receiving InMails, you do have the option in the Contact Settings above to choose not to receive them and you should indicate so accordingly if you don’t plan to be reciprocal in your communications.

As I wrote in my blog post yesterday about social media credibility, social media is all about being transparent. If you say you are open to receiving communications yet do not respond to legitimate requests, you not only lose your social media credibility, you are also guilty of false advertising. You know what else? Not only do you, but potentially the company you represent also loses credibility. And, adding fuel to the fire, if the business communication was potentially valuable to your company, that precious information is now being offered to your competitors!

If you advertise that you are open to receiving these communications, please do us all a favor by sending some sort of response when you receive a legitimate and personalized InMail or message. Even if you are not interested, it is pure common social networking sense that you respond with a simple “No thanks.” Otherwise, your actions may make LinkedIn users lose faith in the system. And the more LinkedIn users stop utilizing the platform, the worse it is for all of us.

Do you have a similar story? Have you been on the other side of the fence? Do let us know by commenting!

http://loratis.co.in/ Santosh
Thank you for the informative article. Its a eye opener.
Pingback: Neal Schaffer
Pingback: Jason Ball
Pingback: Craig M. Jamieson
Pingback: Windmill Networking
Pingback: Lynette Ann Murphy
Pingback: JasonBall_GoodPeople
Pingback: Neal Schaffer
glenloock
Great article, it also brings up just the general topic of internet etiquette. We all read emails throughout the day. But do we also check our social media sites as often? And does age play a part in how often we check?
Just thoughts.
Pingback: Rochelle Veturis
Pingback: Christina Woodward
Barry_AT_IMPACT
Neal,
I believe the general lack of responsiveness in places like LinkedIn, Facebook, forums, and other on-line discussion/communication sites mirror the general lack of responsiveness in the off-line world. Just because someone has an account on LinkedIn and indicates in their settings they are open to contact for business opportunities, career opportunities, or any other setting – doesn't mean they will experience a behavior change from what they normally do day in and day out.
My experience 25 years as a Retained Executive Recruiter, having coached, counseled, contacted, and interacted with well over 250,000 managers, executives, and CEOs worldwide is that their is a lack of courtesy and responsiveness in the business world. Social media sites basically amplify that lack of responsiveness – it doesn't improve it.
Barry Deutsch
Partner
IMPACT Hiring Solutions
http:.//www.impacthiringsolutions.com
http://windmillnetworking.com/ nealschaffer
Hi Barry, thank you for your comment and your contribution to the discussion. What you are saying could very well be true, that the corporate world is seen to be a cold society because the people at the top lack common courtesy. In my experience, I do feel that executives (as well as anyone truly plugged in to social media) are challenged for time, so sometimes the lack of responsiveness is not the intent of their actions. As you mention, social media sites, because of their transparency, do amplify who we are. I also expect social media activities to mirror real-life activities. However, I would still like to believe that there are more genuinely good and responsive people in the world who may yet to be educated on how transparent social media can be and how their lack of responsiveness can affect their online brand. I for one have been blessed to be surrounded by many caring executives and managers, both in the workforce and in transition, and these people are genuinely responsive both online and offline. Therefore, I (and Windmill Networking) still believe that innate human nature is good and with a reminder, like I did in this blog post, things can be remedied. That being said, the friend who I wrote this for is still perturbed by the situation so perhaps there is nothing I can do…but I won't stop trying.
- Neal
glenloock
I believe there is a divide, not sure if it is geographical but I suspects that that is part of the divide. I talk to small to mid size business COE across the country. Often when discussing social media their reply is I have enough people after me to purchase something, hire them for some posted or non-posted position that it takes up too much of my time. I do not need to make it easier for people to find and contact me. Because of this thought process their companies are not using social media either. I find that thought process amazing. Setting up a social media account for the company is not something they would even have to administrator themselves, but could use their name. Then there are others link the Wahoo’s Fish Taco founders that are doing a great job of social media and with a simple tweet can have thousands of people at a location in hours. Social media is not a fad it will be the future and that future is now.
http://windmillnetworking.com/ nealschaffer
Thanks for your comment Glen. It is interesting how many executives are “bothered” by social media and don't see that conversations are taking place around them without their knowing it. When you mentioned Wahoo's I immediately thought of the Kogi BBQ taco truck success story. Indeed, social media is only increasing in its users and thus its influential power. I hope that people and companies who find themselves on the other side of the divide will open their eyes to what they are missing out on and start embracing or at least looking into how to engage with social media.
glenloock
I believe there is a divide, not sure if it is geographical but I suspects that that is part of the divide. I talk to small to mid size business COE across the country. Often when discussing social media their reply is I have enough people after me to purchase something, hire them for some posted or non-posted position that it takes up too much of my time. I do not need to make it easier for people to find and contact me. Because of this thought process their companies are not using social media either. I find that thought process amazing. Setting up a social media account for the company is not something they would even have to administrator themselves, but could use their name. Then there are others link the Wahoo’s Fish Taco founders that are doing a great job of social media and with a simple tweet can have thousands of people at a location in hours. Social media is not a fad it will be the future and that future is now.
http://windmillnetworking.com/ nealschaffer
Thanks for your comment Glen. It is interesting how many executives are “bothered” by social media and don't see that conversations are taking place around them without their knowing it. When you mentioned Wahoo's I immediately thought of the Kogi BBQ taco truck success story. Indeed, social media is only increasing in its users and thus its influential power. I hope that people and companies who find themselves on the other side of the divide will open their eyes to what they are missing out on and start embracing or at least looking into how to engage with social media.
Pingback: Larry Adler
Pingback: Jason Spector
Pingback: Kevin Brindley
Pingback: leavitt9