Reid Hoffman (LinkedIn) Responds

Reid Hoffman, CEO, of LinkedIn responded to my posting about making it easier for customers to get in touch with you.  It’s a thoughtful response that deserves higher notice then in the comments. In addition, it provides some additional lessons that you, start up types, can learn from. 

And, as a reminder, I use the service and, in general, I’ve been happy with it.

I’ve put my comments in between paragraphs of his full response below.  Thanks for dropping by, Reid

 ——————————————————-

Rick,
Thx for your comments.

First, we publicize the "ceofeedback@linkedin.com" address for a simple reason. it's a mailing list; while I read every eMail feedback, so do several other folks here @ linkedin. It allows us to quick absorb feedback, and structure replies. (We have recently received so many and fairly diverse, that it's taking a little bit of time to craft the replies to each thread of comment.) And, fyi, I don't read every eMail from feedback -- just ceofeedback.

Fair enough.  Again, tho, when you look at the note, the talk to me vs. the email address is jarring and can cause an impression not intended. rhoffman or r.hoffman or any other variation accomplishes the same mailing list point while being more personal. If it had been some variation of a human email address, I probably would have zipped right over it. I point it out as a lesson for others while acknowledging I may have too much time on my hands.

Second, as we offer a completely free basic service (ability to reconnect with old colleagues, ability to network out to 3 degrees, ability to connect and stay synced, etc.), we have a small and overworked customer service staff. This will get worse before it gets better for the free accounts, because we will treat all communications from subscribers as top priority for all the obvious reasons. People who like the service enough to subscribe will get preferential service.

I think this is a core lesson for start ups. I’ve mentioned this before. People who use free have the same expectations of those that pay.  Personally, I think free should have a separate set of expectations but that isn’t reality.  I’ve spent countless hours on this with portfolio companies as well as potentials and the message is clear: If you don’t love the free person, they won’t move up to the paid version. People reading blogs, forums, etc, will see bad comments about customer service and won’t actually make the distinction between free and paid.  Nothing is truly free on either side of the equation. LinkedIn has a cost to support “free” and my time using it/getting help has a cost.  I’ve sent a LinkedIn customer service request in and it was handled just fine and timely. Others do complain and the implied answer of upgrade is just the wrong approach in my view.

Third, one aspect of LinkedIn. There are a large number of business people (I am one) who are only interested in interacting with approaches from strangers when those strangers arrive via referral from a trusted friend or colleague. There's a reason for this. You wouldn't believe the number of unsolicited resumes (for jobs), deals (for LinkedIn), sales pitchs, investment inquiries (for LinkedIn or for me), that I get every day. Even if I wanted to spend all of my time tracking them all down, I simply couldn't get to them. And, a trusted referral really helps you pay attention to what's important. That's why I encourage anyone who wants to get in touch with me through a referral. People can choose what's important for them; for me, and a large number of Linkedin members, referral is essential

I was trained in the art of interrupt driven work days at Microsoft. At the peak of that gig, I was seeing 800 emails a day, every day. (I think Robert Scoble told me he is around 500). Lots were “cc” stuff and I was a rules machine, filing for read later. The critical thing I wanted to do was be responsive.  As the President of Chapters Online, same thing. Tons of “where’s my book” email and yours truly was on the receiving end of lots of it.  As as new VC, I pretty much want the world to come by and pitch me both for deal flow as well as my being able to keep up with everything that’s happening.  I track 200+ emails a day now which is nothing compared to the good ol days.

My manual LinkedIn method is fairly simple. If you worked for Microsoft, was in the U.S. Air Force, or worked at Chapters, you go to the top of the list after family and friends.  I’m not sure I am a fan or supportive of the idea that in order for somebody to get to me, they need to go through somebody else.  It’s probably simple minded on my part. I suspect that if I was President of some massive enterprise or a country, my answer everybody rule just breaks. 

In reading Reid’s paragraph, I’m just wondering where that line is and when you to start to “filter” it. I don’t know but I suspect that for most people, most start up/new business types, taking Josh Einstein’s approach or Blake Rhode’s approach of just answering it all will serve you well.  Jeff Jarvis, Fred Wilson, Doc Searls, Dave Winer, Marc Canter, Chris Anderson, and a host of other “A-List” (busy) people, from what I can tell, talk to pretty much everybody and then filter it after the first encounter. To repeat, tho, I don’t know where the point is where it breaks.

Just to be clear, I’m not saying Reid’s approach is right or wrong.  It is certainly worth thinking about as you grow your company, your personal brand, etc.

Anyway, I hope that these commments help clarify some of these discussions. And thx for the feedback, even critique. It is important for us to keep trying to improve the service that we offer.

thx,
Reid

p.s. thx for using Typepad as well. :)

 ——————————————————-

Dialog is always helpful and the time spent to respond is a testament to your professionalism. Again, thanks for stopping by.