The Creative Capitalist:

After six weeks, my unscientific yet decidedly “A”-for-effort LinkedIn experiment has fizzled to an ignominious and quiet ending. The reason is simple: Not only does LinkedIn not live up to its marketing hype (and seriously, how could any company promise users 5.5 times more job offers without first knowing how many offers the users were getting to begin with or, indeed, what industry the individual users are in?) and not fulfill its ostensible objective of creating an interactive Web 2.0 social networking site for professionals, it doesn’t even have the back-end functionality to support its most basic uses. As for LinkedIn customer support: What is it, five people working at a rent-a-cubicle in Des Moines? (Or Bangalore, more likely.) Boo.

Anyway. To recap. Phase 1 (uploading pre-existing contacts from Yahoo into LinkedIn): I was never able to complete it because some random programming bug started associating my YahooMail password with a Hotmail account, telling me that my Hotmail password wasn’t supported by its system. Well, duh. First of all, I don’t have a Hotmail account. Never have. Second, I was clicking the Yahoo radio button every time. Third, LinkedIn doesn’t support Hotmail. LinkedIn makes that very clear.

I e-mailed customer support twice about the matter. First, my CSR wanted screen shots. Apparently LinkedIn had never seen this phenomenon before. Then he helpfully told me that LinkedIn (drum roll) does not support Hotmail. He wound up this incredibly astute message by saying, “On your screen shot, you are selecting the Yahoo Mail button.” ”

Yes, that’s true,” I said. “Because I have Yahoo Mail.” To date, I have not received an answer.

Phase 2: Using LinkedIn functions to communicate with members of my current network. Well, I tried. I asked for referrals, I gave referrals, I passed on job requests, I sent messages…the whole kaboodle. Though about 50 percent of colleagues complied with my sudden LinkedIn frenzy, they mostly just seemed confused. “What’s the point?” seemed to be the overall response.

The other 50 percent refused to comply. One of my best professional references told me he’d happily give me a reference to anyone at any time, privately, but that he felt the LinkedIn public forum devalued the whole process.

One PR director did not respond to a media request I sent via LinkedIn for about three weeks. When she finally responded, she said “I am so sorry! Totally missed this. It went in my bulk file.” Meanwhile, the deadline for her to be included in a national feature story had come and gone.

Happily for both of us, I had gotten information from another source and included her brand. She and I moved our correspondence into regular e-mail. We’ve been communicating regularly via e-mail, Blackberry and even (gasp) in person ever since.

Phase 3: Pitching potential clients. I don’t know why, but a personal intro using any channel other than LinkedIn is, hm, 500 percent more effective than a LinkedIn intro. Again, not scientific. But.

Out of five LinkedIn intros made in Dec. and Jan., I got zero jobs. Zero meetings. Three responses to queries–two of whom were recruiters, one of whom wanted to charge me for a “consulting” service I didn’t need. And one job lead, for a job I have no interest in and for which I’m not qualified.

Out of five real-life referrals, two jobs already. For the second, I got the official offer this afternoon. The first I already finished, invoiced, visited the NYC office and was invited to bid on another projects. Additionally, I had two meetings in New York. Plus, out of the clear blue, a quasi-serious offer to take a consulting contract in Miami for a national luxury hotel brand. Someone at a conference introduced me to the founding partner, and things took off from there.

Out of five cold-calls, I received no jobs but two responses, one of which has turned into a fun back-and-forth correspondence. Who knows what will happen in time.

Final verdict: Nothing can come close to the personal referral. And no matter what the LinkedIn marketing materials say, the site can’t provide that extra personal touch.

Added to all of this personal research is my observation of the endless dialogue among MyLink500 members. I remind you, these are the LinkedIn uber-networkers. They more or less keep the whole system going with their zealotry and their dedication to maintaining LinkedIn networks. Yet. From everything I’ve seen, LinkedIn treats them as second-class citizens. All of their discussions center around how to overcome the various hurdles that the site has thrown in their path.

To me, it all seems like a tremendous waste of time. I am all for networking and always will be. I convention-hop, I save business cards obsessively, I have 1,800 contacts in my address book, and I benefit from the results every day. But if you want to network, go to a conference or a cocktail party. Scan the member list of a relevant organization, find e-mail addresses on Google and introduce yourself. Hell, start chatting up strangers in bars. Any of these methods is more effective.

When it comes to LinkedIn, it’s an understatement to say the emperor has no clothes. I don’t think the emperor is even in the house. Just like the Wizard of Oz, from the outside there’ an impressive presence, but try to peek behind the curtain and…nobody’s there.

I have a Gal. She lives online, she looks like me, and I love her. I got her off designhergals.com, and I am duty bound now to share the secret with all of you. Not only is it my own personal favorite site of the past several months, but it’s a smash hit with every woman (and man in the market for a gift) whom I refer to it. I’m raving. And loving. I’m encouraging you to check it out and to buy some product.

But first, let me tell you how I found the Gals.

It all started in Curacao, believe it or not. My friend Charyn had the cutest business cards, with a watercolor-style logo of a gal that looked just like her next to some fun supplementary copy. Not super-scary professional in the way of a corporate card. But then, we are not corporate people. By choice. In fact, Charyn is a food writer.

“My cards used to say, I want ALL the cake,” she confided.

I was, understandably, curious about what identity design firm would create such a sleek-looking logo and then let its customer announce “I want ALL the cake” on the collateral. Most identity designers don’t allow that sort of thing.

But this did not end up being the work of an identity designer. Instead, it was something Charyn had created herself on my new favorite site:

Guests utilize a Flash app to design a young lady, much like playing virtual paper dolls. You dress the image, accessorize it and upload it into the stationery product of your choice. (Charyn and I both chose business cards, but you can also get greeting cards, bookmarks, aprons, coffee cups and all manner of other customized logo merchandise.) A portion of the proceeds from every order is donated to a breast cancer charity, which makes the product even more appealing, in my eyes.

It probably took me an hour to design my Gal, and another to re-attire her and change the copy 12 zillion times. But still, it was less expensive and less complicated than any other stationery order I’ve ever made (and there have been many).

I used my (blonde, mini-skirted, magic-wand-carrying) Gal on plain white, standard business cards. (I suppose I could have ordered some logo coffee cups, but that would have necessitated my buying a much larger carrying case. Possibly a wheelbarrow.) I passed her out everywhere from the Las Vegas Convention Center to Jay-Z’s 40/40 Club to the American Lodging Investment Summit to the Rose Bar in Manhattan. She was a huge hit and inspired many women to ask where they could procure similar cards of their own.

This is what I told them:

Go to the site without delay, and design away. But know that once you do, you’ll be hooked. It’s free to create an image, and the site will store all Gals and product designs in your account forever. So if you feel like creating a sparkly Gal with a magic wand one day and a Gal in a business suit and briefcase the next, you can. Just don’t get carried away and start thinking you own the images, because the copyright belongs to the site owners. As it should.

That said, founder Jeanne Fitzmaurice is thrilled at the idea of entrepreneurs everywhere using her Gals to promote their businesses and inspired ideas.

“My mission is to foster fanatical fans of our brand, and continue to bring new products and benefits to those who enjoy using our site,” she told me during our first-ever communique. “We currently have nearly 250,000 community members on our site. But we have a big goal, and getting our word out is important to raising funds.”

Well, here’s fanatical fan No. 250,001, doing her bit to help out.

I have, it’s true, been somewhat underwhelmed with my LinkedIn experience. For me, it has proved nothing more than an extra step in the day-to-day process of keeping in touch. But as the comments on my blog have shown, that is not the case for everyone. And my policy is always to open the field to as many opinions as people can shout out. So I sent out a message to the YahooGroup for TopLinkedIn users, asking what LinkedIn does for them. Below are the responses I got, together with a bit of professional background on each of the respondents.

In addition to my “9 to 5″ job I edit a daily e-mail publication, the Transportation Communications Newsletter. The newsletter has over 6,500 subscribers and most of my contacts are people who are readers of the newsletter.

While I don’t use LinkedIn daily, it is helpful if I’m trying to find a contact in a company that I report on in the newsletter or if I want more information about one of my readers. I also find LinkedIn to be helpful in terms of staying up-to-date on what my contacts are doing. By checking it daily I see who’s updated their profile and know about new jobs contacts have.

I also do freelance voice work. Again, LinkedIn has been helpful in identifying contacts in companies of potential customers.

I don’t use the forwarding feature of LinkedIn, but I do tap my own contacts directly to get leads.

Bernie
Positions: Operations manager, editor
Industry: Transportation

In the past week or so I’ve spent some time recruiting people for the Ex-Convex LinkedIn group that I manage, and clarifying our membership policy. Being in a leadership position here provides opportunities for me to stay in better touch with my former co-workers and keep my name fresh in their minds.

I’ve been helping a long-time colleague and new LinkedIn connection learn his way around LinkedIn. We’ve both been experimenting with improving our visibility by answering questions in LinkedIn Answers. Our continued discussions have led him to become a new advertising client of mine. It’s never as simple as getting an introduction request and then signing a new business deal.

Danny
Position: Owner/consultant
Industry: Software

The fact that your LinkedIn profile is reviewed by people from within and outside your immediate network is a benefit, but I have yet to dollarize the results to date, and I am now hovering around 920 active members in my network. I probably will not grow my network into the thousands, as I prefer to connect to people where we can mutually benefit one another. So the long and the short of it, IMHO, is that LinkedIn, like many social networks, is a way to garner visibility, and hopefully have people link to your homepage, blog, etc… where you can build a following, create interest, and ultimately gain a business opportunity.

Mark
Position: Managing director
Industry: Information technology & services

I’ve only recently become more active on LinkedIn so am probably not a good example, but I did have someone recently contact me about some possible work through someone who was in our joint network. We’ll see if anything comes out of it. Also I think your LinkedIn profile comes up on a Google search, and someone once contacted me for a quote after doing a search, but nothing came out of that one.

Yvette
Position: Virtual assistant
Industry: Information services

I use LinkedIn for my ventures in the Entertainment business. Mostly, I use it to connect to other creatives and production people with ideas for reality shows, scripts and other entertainment ventures.

Dylan
Position: Freelance television producer
Industry: Entertainment

I am a legal recruiter and have been trying to understand why lawyers have not adopted LinkedIn in the same number as other industries. The key complaint is based in the Q&A piece: Lawyers want to use the system by answering legal questions! But the system allows anyone to answer and incorrect answers to be marked “best answer” etc..

R. Raymond May
Position: Recruiter/managing partner
Industry: Legal services
Blog: www.zebriod1.blogspot.com

While the party line says that long-lasting, solid relationships are key to entrepreneurial success–put simply, your friends are the ones who’ll make sure you’re always working–sometimes the best and biggest opportunities come out of left field, fully formed and ready to fatten up your bank account. This week has seen a lot of that.

Example 1: Way back in July (seems like light years ago), I put together a proposal for Diageo. The person at the company who requested it had been a good friend of mine for a while, had had me on his Christmas card list for five years and had often told me how big of a fan of mine he was. After receiving the proposal, he passed me along to five other people who gave me approximately a zillion noncomittal answers. The prospect of something materializing dwindled away over several heartwrenching weeks–and I never heard from the erstwhile friend again. I sat on the proposal until last Thursday, when a major travel site contacted me on the strength of one mixed-up communication. After a five-minute conversation, the editorial head asked me if I’d be interested in devising an original content product for them. I dusted off my poor, forgotten proposal, tweaked it, sent it in, and… three days later, it looks like I have a buyer.

Example 2: I’ve been pitching an urban Hawaiian culture story to Hemispheres, to Islands–basically to every domestic travel pub that supposedly knows Honolulu well enough to veer away from the “Waikiki, beaches, hula dancers” claptrap. For six months, I got no traction. A week ago, a colleague I barely know sent my info to a British publisher, who offered me the exact assignment for a fantastic rate. Then I was recommended to someone else within the company, who also is giving me a gig. Never met either of ‘em–never spoken to them, in fact. And they know nothing about Honolulu. They just know they don’t want to write the same story about it that everyone else has.

There are many other examples, but the point is always the same: No matter how much you nurture longtime connections or trust your friends, the unknown factor is always going to account for 25 percet of your business. And it’s going to be the fun part. Instead of pitching, revamping and staying awake nights hoping, you’ll just blink one day and–bzzing!–open your eyes to discover a fat little opportunity sitting comfortably in your lap. It’s almost like the universe is delivering you a hit of preemptive gratification.

I know many people who, upon receiving a few of these little zingers, take them as a signal that they no longer have to work so hard. They just sit back and wait to see what lands in their lap. Unfortunately, this tactic tends to decrease the numbers rather than increase them. To borrow a moral lesson from Pilgrim’s Progress, the hire powers, just like other powers, usually help those that help themselves.

In the past couple of weeks, I have tried to utilize LinkedIn in the way its makers ostensibly intended. I have not attempted to “connect” with people I don’t know (that is the final frontier), but I’ve experimented with all the LI capabilities that relate to people I do know.

In a most unscientific manner, here are my findings:

• Only 20 percent of my contacts are on LinkedIn.
• Only 10 percent of them are active on LinkedIn.
• Out of 350 invitations sent, 120 still remain outstanding.
• Three people have already e-mailed me directly to inform me that they don’t use LinkedIn and would like to continue communicating using traditional methods.
• Four people have said they were going to accept my invite but didn’t, so I still talk to them via Yahoo Mail, on the phone or at happy hour.
• Three people have reported that they tried to connect but weren’t able to.
• Two people have emailed me back to say hello but have not accepted my LinkedIn invite.
• Six people have said they didn’t know me.
• Of that number, two realized straightaway that it was an accident. They tried to fix the record on LinkedIn, but it wasn’t possible. Three more would probably do the same thing if I said anything, but I don’t want to deal with it because we all have better things to do right now. When I do contact them again, it will be directly, for a specific purpose other than rectifying a social networking mixup.
• I asked five people for recommendations. Of that number, three recommended me. One ignored my request but updated my website (we’ve got a trade deal, and right now I’m getting the best of it). The final person said “No, because I think LinkedIn doesn’t do justice to either the recommending party or the recommendee. I will give you any personal recommendation you want and help you in any way I can, but I will not write anything on that website.”
• I recommended several colleagues. Only two wrote back to acknowledge that they’d seen and liked what I’d said.
• I forwarded two job requests from contacts and got no responses.

My verdict for LinkedIn’s potential as a a contact management/networking system? It takes too much work.

Too much exporting. Too many notes to write. Too much managing, mollycoddling and appeasing the LinkedIn police. Seriously. In a normal world, my contacts just sit in my address book till I need them, at which point I e-mail the appropriate person and say:

Hi! Here’s who I am, what I’m working on, and what I need. Can you help?

They say yes or no, and we move on.

In a LinkedIn world, I e-mail tons of them for no reason except to say: “Hi. Do you remember that we know each other? Okay, so let’s publicly acknowledge that we know each other, and then let’s go on about our business and not ever answer our LinkedIn e-mails anymore b/c we don’t really use LinkedIn for e-mail, we use Outlook or Gmail or Yahoo like every other person in the civilized world.”

Then you sit and wait for all those contacts to jump on your bandwagon. Probably only 50 do. An additional 45 languish in your archives. If you’re me (large network, but some of ‘em I only talk to once a year), a few people will e-mail to say “How do we know each other?” You explain, they say “Wassup? Good to hear from you!” and that’s the end of it.

The final two or three say “I Don’t Know This Person,” which makes you feel unmemorable, not very charismatic and also like a LinkedIn pariah, because you know you get spanked for those IDKs. So you e-mail them and say, “What the heck, am I that forgettable?” And they say “Nooooo!” and try to fix the setting but can’t, and then everyone’s irritated.

But still. I’m going to complete the final bit of this journal soon. I will e-mail five contacts and see whether the LinkedIn job networking thing really works. Maybe it will, and I’ll get tons of gigs and be forced to take back everything I said. Wouldn’t that be nice?

In the meantime, I’ve got 120 outstanding invitations that I really need to deal with, and I think sending 120 individual notes is the only way to do it. Which really defeats the purpose of LinkedIn, but reconnects with lost contacts; which is something worth doing, regardless of the communication mode.

I know everyone else is making lists of New Year’s resolutions, things they accomplished last year or the high points of 2007. But I am not jumping on the ‘08 train just yet. Technically, yes, it’s a new year. However, I have not yet accomplished some of my resolutions from last year. I don’t feel like they’ll require an entire additional year to achieve, so I’m giving myself a one-month extension. This seems reasonable. So, at the end of January, I’ll take stock and see how many of the ‘07 resolutions I can cross off the list. Based on that, I’ll carry some items over, revise others and come up with a few new goals just for 2008.

If editors and clients can extend deadlines on an as-needed basis, why can’t I? It’s not as though I ask often. Plus, while everyone else is humdrumming through February, all good intentions forgotten, I’ll be full-speed ahead, bolstered by resolve and–I hope, fingers crossed–heartened by all the fabulous things I accomplished in 2007 (+1 month).

Note: Part 3 of the LinkedIn Diaries will post over the weekend.

“LinkDaddy” Marc Freedman owns the software company RazorPop in addition to several other small businesses in the technology and digital media sectors. He also runs the Dallas-based networking group Dallas Blue. In four years, Freedman has built up a LinkedIn database of 20,000 people worldwide. In this Q&A, the entrepreneur/consultant/uber-networker discusses LinkedIn’s capabilities as a business tool and beyond.

First, please describe how LinkedIn is different from the online networking of yore.
LinkedIn is a service that encompasses a feature set involved with bringing your offline network into the online world and increasing your online network through social networking tools.

LinkedIn is actually a very limited tool. At the end of the day, all it’s good for is being a huge database to connect on a direct personal basis with other people. Conceptually, it’s simple. (The LinkedIn developers) like to think of themselves as Web 2.0, but they are very far from Web 2.0. This is not a place to manage groups or manage contacts. Really, it’s just a place to find other people. The real key is how you integrate that with your business. It depends on what you need to do for your business or other aspects of your life.

Click here to learn the basic uses for LinkedIn.

Doesn’t maintaining a large network (on or off LinkedIn) ever become counterproductive–like a second (unpaid) job?

Networking is an institution and activity that has its own logic and philosophy. It’s not tit for tat, I do something for you and you do for me. It is the proverbial “pay it forward” mentality. I’ve been doing this for a number of years, and it’s taken three or four years for my network to come back and pay off in a substantial way. It’s really like any investment. If you understand and have a long-term perspective, time and inclination, it can pay off.
The only expectation you can have of online networking is that it’s an opportunity. If a request or announcement meets your criteria, you will forward it. You start a conversation with the expectation that you will reciprocate if and when you can.
Here’s an example: I have a programmer–a former employee and good friend who now lives in Buenos Aires. We were chatting, and he says, “I have a problem.” His dog–a 150-pound Rottweiler–was very sick, losing his hair, and was possibly going to die. He needed a zinc formulation that you can’t get in Buenos Aires, but can buy on Amazon for $10. So I bought it and shipped it, but it never got there. It turns out because of drug trafficking laws, the import of any product like that is banned.
Now my friend was in a real bind, and he said, “Mark, you know people; what can you do?” Because of my network, I had 100 connections who either lived or had lived in Argentina. I sent out an SOS, and within two days I received 20 responses–everything from “My brother’s a chemist” to “I know someone who works at Argentinean consulate and can help you.” It happened because of this large online network.
On your LinkedIn recommendations, I read one from a man who had gone from only having a few connections to having 1,000. How?
Mylink500.com is what he used. It’s a directory of top LinkedIn networkers, as well as open networkers. If you go to the site, they say they’re open to invitations from other members. Download a list, and invite everybody on the list. There are about 1,200 people in the database; it’s pretty easy to add 1,000 connections that way.
In that case, though, wouldn’t the connections be superficial? How could they be useful if they didn’t even know him a day ago?
I don’t think it’s limited to that. If I were to segregate the (networking) universe in three classes, there would be:

• People with large, weak networks. A lot of them are recruiters. They have lots of people on file, but they don’t use or support their network in a material way.

• Large networkers who are active in supporting their networks. If you have 500-plus contacts in your network, you can’t have a strong connection with each of them. But you can actively manage your network–spend a few hours each week processing requests and helping people if you can. It becomes incumbent upon you to develop a strategy and process about acquiring and building your network.

• Strong networkers. Far and away, this comprises the majority of LinkedIn users. These are people with 50 to 300 contacts, each one of which is a strong connection.

The fundamental relationship on LinkedIn is to forward referrals and accept updates from one another, and that’s it. The rest is going to be based on the quality of relationship. If people don’t know each other, there’s neither an expectation nor a likelihood that they’re going to help each other out in any way.

What’s step 2 for this man if he wants to strengthen his existing network?

If he’s a job seeker, there are two potential ways. The first is to use the existing network to send out an update which might well be, “I’m looking for a new job.” I think that’s what he did. Clearly if he can continue to expand his network, one would think the size of his network would be proportional to new job leads.
The second would be where the value is: the ability to target your network. Target hiring managers, executives and decision-makers in your field. Find these people, get referred and secure informational interviews, starting on LinkedIn.

He also said that out of those 1,000 connections, he got one solid job offer. In my business, that’s a pretty low return rate. How could he raise the percentage?

But that’s marketing. That’s like saying I’ve been alive for X amount of years, and I’ve only gotten so many job leads per year of life. It’s not directly measurable. To say one job lead out of 1,000 contacts is bad, I disagree. One job lead in two days is better than he had been getting, which was nothing.

You mentioned on the LinkedIn message boards that you felt that some people you didn’t know were taking advantage of the system to request recommendations from you. Could you talk about that?

The salient issue is not what I as forwarder should do. Anyone who receives a message can and should in good conscience do what he or she wants. The problem is from the sender’s perspective. Because of poor design on LinkedIn, they don’t make it clear that a recommendation from a former colleague/supervisor is very different from a personal recommendation. A job recommendation means you actually worked with this person and can recommend his or her work.

Many people who are inexperienced and don’t understand nuances don’t think it through and treat the work referral as a standard introduction referral because that’s how LinkedIn handles it. From the forwarder’s perspective, you want to help somebody, but you can’t give him or her the recommendation because you didn’t work with him or her. It makes that person look bad, and you look bad because of poor design on LinkedIn’s part, so anyone requesting would really want to be cognizant of that.

According to some LinkedIn users, there are different levels of LinkedIn, which correspond with different kinds of networking. So an open networker such as yourself might use the tool much differently than “closed networkers” who have always made a practice of safeguarding their contacts.

I’m not familiar with your industry, but I am with recruiters. There are clearly a small number of recruiters that subscribe to that theory:”I’m not going to share lists; I’m not even going to forward requests.” My philosophy is, it’s a huge world out there, and we’re all big boys and girls. I think having a closed network like that is ultimately counterproductive.

One of the things about LinkedIn that’s a huge detractor but I think is ultimately a positive in this discussion is that there’s no qualitative aspect to connections. All someone outside may know is that you and I are connected. They have no idea what the nature of the relationship is. We might have gone to school together, we might be neighbors or we might have an intimate business relationship. From the perspective of shared media lists, the value is not always in having the name. The value comes from the relationship.

And the flip side is, if these people are already on LinkedIn, they’re going to find them anyway. Whether they find them through you becomes irrelevant. They can contact them with or without your help.

There’s a lot of talk about “paying it forward,” but it seems most normal, entry-level networkers have no idea what that means. It’s almost like they’re going around looking for a handout. Doesn’t that glut up the system?

If you put yourself out there in any way, you open yourself up to people on the fringe. Post your e-mail address and you’ll get legitimate inquiries, and you’ll also get spam. You’ll get unsolicited invitations and people who make assumptions. If you’re building a large network, there will be a lot of inexperienced networkers–people with different expectations who don’t share the same values as you. This doesn’t just apply to LinkedIn.

How would you respond to the naysayers?

There are a lot of people who feel that LinkedIn is a waste of time. They don’t see any value. I first would say there are absolutely industries and professions where LinkedIn is going to have less value. It’s not going to be accessible to you at a business level if your business is selling residential energy in Texas or if you’re working for Amway or if you’re selling prepaid insurance.
But there is a lot of value besides making business prospects.
The thing is, it’s damn complicated. If you don’t come at it with appropriate expectations, it’s not going to be worth your time and effort. It’s going to be a bad experience. It provides no support, the customer service is horrible, and it’s difficult to get into. So that attitude is perfectly understandable.

One of the hazards of networking on a place like this is if someone says they don’t know you, you get penalized–even if they try to change the response later. How do you allay that? Is it worth the risk?

In my opinion, this is atrocious design on LinkedIn’s part. A year ago they had a “no” button that carried no consequences. Today, people don’t have a way to say no. They receive an invitation, and they can accept it, archive it or say “I don’t know.” With the current system, archiving is the same thing as saying “No.” But to most people, archiving means “I don’t want to think about it.” Most people click “I don’t know this person” because that’s the option closest to what they want to do. Most people who click on it would not do so if they knew the repercussions.

Do you keep your entire address book open to your connections?
I don’t. I did have at one point, but if you have 500-plus connections, browsing leads to a bad experience. The default account setting allows people to browse your connections, and in general I recommend use it because it’s good networking and is valuable to the browser. The problem is, if you have too many pages–and I have several hundred–it leads to bad networking. LinkedIn displays 90 connections per page, and there’s no way to search them. So you can’t target through browsing.
Also, the expectations are different. You can’t make the overarching assumption of a strong mutual connection if someone has a large network. Although you’re in my network, Lena, someone shouldn’t assume that the best way to reach Lena is to go through Marc. To find you, they should go through the best/strongest connections– someone who can give them the best referral. And to find my best/strongest connections, they would need to ask directly, not browse.
For more LinkedIn resources, visit:

http://linkedin.pbwiki.com/

Wow. I’m 10 days into my LinkedIn experiment, and it’s already becoming much larger and more unwieldy than I would have expected. I thought I would have Phase 1 finished a few days ago, but instead it’s looking like it may…never finish!

Here’s the update:

The best way to transfer your contacts into LinkedIn is to upload your address book. However (rather embarrassingly), my address book was a mess. I hadn’t updated it in four years. Instead I just archived all my emails and found contacts via Yahoo mail search as needed (surprisingly effective, but not ultimately the best solution.) So my experiment started out with a massive address book cleaning–long overdue, total pain in the neck, but it feels great to have done it.

Here’s my first week of LinkedIn, by the numbers.

• 35: Approximate number of hours it took me to clean up my address book.
• 4000: Approximate number of emails deleted from my archives.
• 800: Approximate number of out-of-date contacts deleted from my address book.
• 1200: Approximate number of current contacts added to my address book. (Just finished last night. Phe-ew!)
• 400: Approximate number of Yahoo contacts who are already on LinkedIn.
• 271: Number of “join my network” invitations I’ve sent via Linked In since 12/06.
• 154: Number of members in my network currently
• 3: Number of people who’ve said they don’t know me

This last number is a bit sinister because, apparently, whereas in the real world if people don’t want to know you they can just ignore you, if they don’t know you on LinkedIn, you get penalized. I don’t know how this penalization works yet, but I’m trying to find out.

I think the most frustrating thing about that is, if it turns out the person actually does know you and just spaced out (as was the case w/one of mine), that individual can’t go back and change his or her answer. So one hair-trigger response can affect you negatively, and the person on the other end may not be aware of it, and there’s nothing either of you can do.

I may be wrong about this. As I said, I’m trying to get an answer from LinkedIn customer service.

In other news, I have not received any job offers out of LinkedIn yet. This is somewhat disappointing–you will recall that it promised me 3.5 times more than I had been getting. And upon a closer look, the language goes, “you’re 3.5 times more likely to receive a job offer for every 5 contacts you add.” Oh really! So where are my, um, I guess that’s 2 x 3.5 x 24 (120 contacts added / 5 ) = 168 new gigs!

Ah, well. Perhaps in time.

Anyway, I’m being facetious, because I didn’t start this experiment with the expectation of getting 168 job offers in a week. I did it to explore the potential benefits. And here’s what I’ve experienced to date:

• Reconnected with several old friends and colleagues–always a pleasure, especially in the cases where we’d been out of touch for years.
• Have “met” a couple new folks, who had been on the books for some reason, but whom I’d never spoken with previously. They responded to my LinkedIn invite with a personal note, I followed up, and now we’re truly on each other’s radar. This always feels warm and fuzzy; whether you call it “building a network” or “making a connection” or (my personal favorite) “making a friend.” It’s good to know somebody out there is interested in you.
• Several people have reached out to me, to see what projects I’m working on and whether we might help each other. In one case, my answer was a definite “Yes, please, immediately”– and as a result, I now have two amazing leads on potential female protagonists for a documentary treatment I’m developing. Absolutely no way could I have found them without the assistance of one Karen Cleary of Boundless Journeys, who made the introduction without gaining anything for herself…all on the strength of one previous conversation and a LinkedIn invite.

(Shout out: Thanks Karen. PR types like you make the world go round .)

• Finally…and this is the most important thing for anyone w/questions of his or her own about LinkedIn: On Friday, I made the acquaintance of Marc Freedman–aka My LinkDaddy.

With 20,000 connections in his files, Marc is what some people call an “uber-networker.” I would have probably called him a “zealot.” However. Marc agreed to do an interview with me about LinkedIn–which we completed an hour ago (no dilly-dallying in these parts!). And while he’s definitely an uber-networker, he’s definitely not a LinkedIn zealot. Which makes him much more valuable in terms of answering questions.

I’m going to post the Marc Freedman interview as soon as I can edit it down to a reasonable length, and I definitely encourage everyone to read it. Not only is he knowledgeable, but he is the epitome of the “pay-it-forward” player. It was very interesting to tap into that mindset–particularly coming from Los Angeles, where the standard question tends to be, “What can you do for me?”

In the meantime, check out Marc’s page at: http://MyLinkDaddy.com

And/or join the experiment at http://www.linkedin.com/in/lenakatz

Send me a note with your invite, please–otherwise I’ll have to check “I don’t know this person,” and then the LinkedIn police will put a black mark by your name….

Much ado has been made of LinkedIn lately, and I’m not sure it’s warranted. I’ve been on there for two years and never noticed any real benefits, monetary or otherwise. However, given all the buzz, I decided to explore the site a bit further and see whether its networking potential is truly worth $2 billion.

As everyone knows, I’m a networker extraordinaire–always going places and meeting people, and then keeping in touch with them forever and ever, amen. I have no qualms about asking for a referral, a recommendation, a leg up. And I’m very used to living in the cyber world. So if anyone’s qualified to test-drive an online networking tool, it’s me. To make things even more interesting, my virtual Rolodex is a colorful mishmash of PR reps and writers, editors and publishers, business execs and TV producers, athletes, fashionistas, mountaineers, surf bum and sundry. At the end of this experiment, I intend to have them all coexisting happily in my LinkedIn network.

But more importantly, at the end of this experiment (if things go as the LinkedIn advertising patter would lead me to believe), I will have 3.5 more job offers than I do currently. Being that I currently get about two job offers a week (contracts, article commissions and projects included), that adds up to…umm…seven job offers a week. A delightful amount. An overwhelming one, even.

But. We will see.

My experiment has three phases.

1. Link. This involves importing all my Yahoo address book contacts into LinkedIn and asking them to join my network.

2. Network. Use LinkedIn tools to get references from old clients, prospect for new ones and ask first-degree connections to connect me with second-degree connections.

3. Pitch. The true test of LinkedIn. I’m pitching five second-degree connections, made through LinkedIn channels. In the interests of science, I’ve decided to also pitch five connections made through normal channels (i.e. asking colleagues, “Do you know anyone at ___?”) and finally to pitch five random editors who don’t know me from Eve. I will rate all 15 based on promptness of followup, open-mindedness and (the most important) whether I get the assignment.

I’m still figuring out the exact point scale, but I will let you know. As of now, I’m midway through Phase 1 and already having some interesting results, which I will share with you later.

(On LinkedIn?) Look me up–full name’s Lena Katz–drop me a note, and join my network. Then you can become part of this experiment in modern social studies instead of just reading about it.

Oh man, oh man. I hate writing bios. So very much. In fact, I have an entire set of rules around bio writing, which is that I:

1) do it as little as possible;

2) only for friends; and

3) never charge.

That last one might seem odd, but there’s a strange sort of logic behind it. First off, bios are typically very short pieces (at least they darn well should be–250 words is usually sufficient, and anything over 500 makes readers’ eyes cross). They’re quick to research and quick to write. In theory, they should only take a couple of hours. In reality, they tend to take twice that long, because you have to transcribe five times more notes than necessary and then rewrite the copy two times. That’s still only four hours… and even if you bill $100 an hour (which I don’t), it’s still not that much money.

However. If you bill… then you can bet your pinkie finger that whomever’s commissioning the bio will come back to you with revisions and rewrites at least four times. Maybe more. In fact, he or she might never be satisfied at all. That person will, however, feel that he or she already paid you enough (people never budget much for bios), and that you should make their tweaks for free. Ad infinitum.

So I figure, write bios as a favor, don’t accept any money, and you’re entitled to put the kibosh on rewrite madness whenever you please. But once you accept that lousy few hundred bucks… well, then you’re in over your head.

Thing is, bios are so intensely personal–a life story, a public manifesto, a distillation of character–that most people will never, ever be quite satisfied with their own. Every word in it carries great significance. Every clause gets analyzed right into the ground. And then, 70 percent of the time, the client will turn around and rewrite it, throw in 200 words extra, and tell you that that’s what he or she really wanted the whole time. (Except soon thereafter, he or she will tire of it and bring in someone else to write it again.)

Nobody realizes that there are approximately a zillion bios floating around in the world today, and unless you’re Barack Obama or Lindsay Lohan, nobody really gives a damn about yours. I mean, come on. How many of you have read my bio?

Nonetheless, I’ve rewritten my bio at least 50 times. At the moment, I have three versions floating around the internet, plus several more in print. They all reflect me. They all serve their purpose perfectly. Yet, none is quite right. Actually, I hate them all. If I’d hired someone to write these bios, I would be demanding rewrites for sure.

I’m only human.

Anyway, the reason that this is important at the moment is that I’ve just delivered the rough draft bio copy for Greg and Kevin over at Medici. I think I did a pretty good job. I tried to take good notes, use good quotes, include all the important stuff and still keep the copy tight. I feel OK about it, really.

However, I know that within 48 hours, there will be comments, questions and suggested rewrites in my inbox. Which is fine. And will be fine a second time as well. But after that, no more.

OK, well, maybe a couple of tweaks. Quick edits. Typo corrections, if need be (though I hope I’m not that sloppy). But that’s it. No, really, guys. I mean it this time…

My agent Andrea Somberg is a champ. She’s tough but not terrifying, critical but not brutal, eminently supportive of her little brood of wordsmiths, and consistently responsive to requests–even those that her peers might deem superfluous and time-wasting. Without that final quality, this particular Q&A could not exist.

Below, I give you Andrea’s detailed, candid and thoughtful “Nonfiction Publishing 101″ treatise. I asked her every question I could think of on your behalf–and I’ve already thanked her effusively (though you’re welcome to post further thanks in the comment section). Not only has she shared valuable information, but she’s also proved that there are still some people who do nice things even when there’s nothing in it for them.

Before we start, Andrea’s professional bio:
Previously an agent at Vigliano Associates and the Don Maass Agency, Andrea Somberg joined Harvey Klinger Inc in the spring of 2005. She represents both fiction and nonfiction, including memoir, pop culture, how-to, self-help, humor, interior design, cookbooks, business, and health and fitness. Some recent sales include Devin and Cameron Lazerine’s Rap-Up: The Ultimate Guide to Hip-Hop and R&B (Grand Central, February ‘08), Heather Maclean’s Baby Gear Buying Guide (Rutledge/Nelson, February ‘08), Kyra Sundance’s The Dog Rules (Touchstone/Fireside, spring ‘09), Kent Sayre’s Unstoppable Confidence (McGraw Hill, fc), Marcelle Karp and Pauline Wall’s Knitchicks (F&W, fc) and Eva Nagorski’s The Down and Dirty Dish on Revenge (Thomas Dunne, fall ‘08).

And now…the yummy stuff…

1. How important is it for an aspiring nonfiction author to have previous clips and/or published titles?
I do look to see if a client has published previous clips, in part because it establishes the writer as a professional and an expert in their field, but also because it helps me get a handle on whether an author has some sort of promotional platform. I can’t stress enough how important a promotional platform is for nonfiction writers. If I see that an author is a regular contributor to several magazines, I can then assume that they have relationships with these publications and will be able to parlay it into future promotion.

As for published titles, they can be a good thing, but they can also work against an author. Bookstores decide how many titles to order of a specific book in part based on the author’s previous sales. If those sales are weak, they’ll be less likely to buy as many copies of the author’s next book. Publishers know this, and so one of the first things they turn to when deciding to take on a project is Bookspan.

Authors sometimes come to me with their self-published book, telling me that it’s been carried in major bookstores. Unless that book has sold thousands upon thousands of copies, this will actually work to to the author’s disadvantage–the bookstores now have a record of previous sales and, if sales are low, it will be an automatic strike against them.

That being said, nonfiction can be a bit more forgiving than fiction. If the topic of the book is strong enough, it can sometimes overcome previous poor sales.

2. As an agent, what do you look for in a query/new author?
An engaging narrative voice, a promotional platform, and a book idea that has a strong marketing hook and fulfills a need in the market.

3. What can someone do to impress you right off the bat (in their approach, query, follow-up, etc.)?
Professionalism is always impressive.

4. What mistake would you caution would-be authors against making?
Don’t be rude or obnoxious! It sounds obvious, but you’d be amazed how many people cross the line.

5. What categories are the easiest to break into right now? What are the toughest?
Each category is challenging in its own right. Whatever the subject matter of your book, the two questions you need to ask yourself are:

• Who is my audience? Sometimes a book is too niche for a major publisher (for example, a book aimed at auto mechanics), in which case you’d be better off focusing on smaller, specialty presses.
• Does my book fulfill a need in the market that hasn’t been met by other books out there? There are so many books being published each month, it is not enough for your book to be well-written. It’s got to distinguish itself, either by fulfilling a gap in the market or by having a strong marketing niche. Preferably both.

Memoirs vs. practical nonfiction come with their own separate challenges. For practical nonfiction these days, it is really important to have a promotional platform. Cookbooks, self help/relationship books, interior design, health/fitness, parenting, business–publishers are looking for authors with a national presence. Humor books are a bit of an exception, in that it is possible to place a title without the author having one. Memoirs on the other hand are marketed more like fiction. An engaging story and narrative voice can be more important than platform.

6. What do you feel is the biggest misperception about the publishing industry, and could you clear it up for us?
This is a business. So if an agent or a publisher rejects your book, it’s not necessarily because they don’t like it–it’s because they don’t think they can make money on it. On the other hand, I will sometimes take on a project that I absolutely love, even if I think it will be a tough sale. But these are few and far between. I really have to fall hard for it.

7. A lot of people who aren’t writers feel that it would be either a pivotal career move or a significant personal/career milestone to publish a nonfiction book. Do you honestly think it’s worth the stress, legwork, time and tears?
In terms of a career move, in many situations, yes. Publishing a book can be a great way to expand your brand, and/or to increase your audience/business. In terms of a personal milestone, it can be very fulfilling. But it can also be frustrating. When authors think of publishing a book, they tend to daydream about the bestseller list. The vast majority of books are published, spend a few weeks in bookstores and then are quickly remaindered.

8. How do you feel about e-books or self-publishing houses?
The problem with self-publishing is a lack of distribution. How do you get your books to customers? Some people who self-publish do meet with great success, but it’s rare. Usually the author is on the lecture circuit, gives seminars, is skilled at web marketing, etc. E-books are still in their infancy. It will be interesting to see how that market develops over the next few years. But still, you run into the challenge–how do you make customers aware of your product?

9. What scams should newbie and/or aspiring authors be wary of?
Never pay an agency a “reading fee.” Also, don’t jump at the first agent who wants to sign you. For the most part it’s an unregulated business, so make sure you find out whether the agency is legit or not.

10. Please list three great writers’ conferences open to beginning authors.
Pike’s Peak, Writers League of Texas Conference (in Austin), Surrey Writers Conference. …There are a lot of good ones. One thing to look out for is, check out who the “faculty” will be. Make sure that they handle the type of books you write, and that they’re from legitimate agencies and publishing houses.

11.In your professional opinion, what does the perfect nonfiction query look like?
Short and sweet. I want to know the premise of the book, I want to know your bio, and I want to know what you can do to promote it. It’s sometimes good to include the “overview” as well, so I can get a sense of your narrative voice.

OK, I don’t really mean that literally. I just mean… well, maybe in-person communication isn’t such a bad thing sometimes. Or, failing that, I’ve heard wonderful things about this gadget called the telephone.

Context: I, like everyone else, have come to rely on automated systems and Digital 2.0 communication devices in my day-to-day working life. I absolutely adore CMS tools–always have, always will–and am perfectly happy to work for someone for years without ever meeting them. I prefer e-mail to phone conversations for the most part, and I always request e-mail over snail mail. (In fact, I have a deep and abiding hatred for the U.S. Postal Service. But that is not particularly relevant to this story.) I don’t use IM programs, but that’s only because I feel that IM chat is as big of a time-waster as regular conversation. Worse, because my godmother would never corner me by the water cooler (she’s in Honolulu; it’s physically impossible), but she definitely would if she saw me on Yahoo Messenger.

I know I’ve driven more than one person crazy with my reticence to attend networking events, “do lunch” or “take a meeting” when I feel it’s unnecessary. Why do lunch when you can figure everything out over the phone? Why take a meeting when the project is self-explanatory? These are my feelings. And they work for me. I’m a hired gun–I’m not supposed to be on the party circuit.

However. There are times when I feel like I’ve gone too deep into Digi 2.0 mode, and it’s not serving me or anyone else. And there are definitely also occasions when I feel that others have gone too far. Today, the juxtaposition of both situations has led me to make a rather unusual decision. I will let you know whether it works for me:

Part 1: Last week via e-mail, a colleague invited me to attend a three-day meeting. I went last year and got a lot out of it, so this time, I quickly sent her a response: “Sure, would love to.” Three days later, while in Jamaica, I get a crackly phone message from her telling me that she can’t sign me up for the event. I need to go online and register. She wants to know whether I’ve received her e-mail, stating the same.

Well, no, I haven’t. I’m in Jamaica, trekking around the Blue Mountains. I have neither time nor inclination to check my e-mail, much less mess around with online forms. So I wait a few days, return to civilization, and this p.m., I fill out the online form. When lo, it becomes clear that the hotel I need to stay at is not available, and the activities on the itinerary have very little to do with my needs. Hm.

I complete the form, get confirmation, e-mail back immediately asking if someone can help me with the hotel and itinerary issues. And immediately, I get bounced back to the same colleague who demanded that I online reg in the first place.

I am beginning to feel like a handball. And the colleague no doubt wishes I would stop being such a squeaky little handball. But. If I can’t get what I need out of this event, then there’s no reason for me to go. So. How ’bout a little human touch, people?

Part 2: I have a story due day after tomorrow. It won’t require much research, but I do need to speak with about a half-dozen different sources. Given that time is limited, I decided to send out an auto e-mail to all of them. I don’t know them all, but that is irrelevant. I’ll put in an eye-catching subject line. If they ignore it, that’ll be their loss, not mine.

But then I said… wait a minute. Yeah, these generic group e-mails work well when I’m dealing with 25 different sources. They’re great when I’m not sure who’s going to be able to help and who’s not. But when I’m dealing with five people who all know the subject matter intimately, and when every one of them could potentially improve the piece exponentially… why not take the time to send individual notes? It’s true, they need me more than I need them. But I do want them on my side. So… why not treat them like the precious jewels they are?

On a normal day, I might not have felt this way. But given the e-vite, e-mail, online reg, auto-response, e-mail cc shuffle that I just went through, I’m feeling like a little extra communication at the beginning goes a long way. At the very least, it saves you doing the exact same communication several days later.

…Or does it???