LinkedIn: a case study for quality over quantity

linkedin-network-1940x1122When it comes to Twitter, Instagram, and Pinterest, I’m not too choosy with accepting followers. They serve different purposes- and to be honest, I’ve followed Instagram accounts for reasons as thin as them being positive. But when it comes to LinkedIn, there’s a case for exclusivity. Like making a recommendation for someone (the old schooled way – in person – you’re literally saying,

I trust this person enough that I think they’ll do a good job.

You’re connecting a recommendation to your brand – if someone’s an absolute disaster but their manager got a glowing recommendation from you, you’re indirectly responsible.  If you don’t know the person, that credibility, and quite honestly, will to recommend someone is diminished.  A continuation of that, is that you may be connected to someone at your dream company but it defies the network’s original purpose.

The Muse  published an article recently by someone who opened up her Linkedin network and accepted over 300 random requests. She essentially came to the same conclusion:

…will these people be who I turn to when I need something professionally? Will I be able to rely on them to tout my skills or offer any sort of benefit—other than making me look extremely popular on social media?

Probably not. It sounds harsh, but the fact remains: I don’t know anything about these people, and they know almost nothing about me—aside from the bits and pieces they read in that one article that I wrote. We could literally share a bus seat or sit in the same doctor’s office waiting room, and we wouldn’t even know it.

In other words – it’s quality not quantity. A 100 people who you can count on, and network with to expand your job prospects vs. 300 random people you don’t know, can’t credibly recommend, and may not be inclined to help when you have a limited number of “ins” with a company.


Mindy loves her McDonalds

There’s a multi faceted brilliance to McDonald’s new ad featuring Mindy Kaling – for one it took me a minute to realize it wasn’t an ad for Coke or for Google. If you examine the details, her bright yellow dress against the red background is revealing. And for another, it’s an organic fit- it fits her public persona to promote a brand she’s referenced in her memoirs and one that has organic placement on her show.

Screen Shot 2017-04-19 at 11.46.30 PMBeyond that, it invites the audience to be part of the story- the call to action is literally telling the audience to go do something. It’s constructed in a way that understands we’re all on our devices all the time and are probably multitasking. It respects the idea that their audience has intellect.

According to a recent New York Times article,

The ads, which started running last week, are meant to play on how teens and twentysomethings use their phones while watching TV, while also acknowledging “how they’re discovering information” they trust, said Deborah Wahl, chief marketing officer of McDonald’s for the United States. “They are very influenced by word of mouth and what their peers say,” she said.

In case you’ve missed the ad, you can watch it here: