Ha$ LinkedIn Gone Too Far?
I understand that every company reserves the right to provide returns to their shareholders. I also understand that this is no different for LinkedIn, who went public in May of 2011. Around this same time, I was using LinkedIn to post jobs that I was recruiting for either at OpenView Venture Partners or its portfolio. The cost to post wasn’t exactly cheap, but LinkedIn definitely yielded better candidates than your typical job board, so why not, right? Buying in bulk made sense as I’m always recruiting year-round for numerous roles at any given time and the individual cost per posting would be cheaper.
In 2011, it cost $775 for a 5-pack of job postings with Linkedin. Now that 2012 has rolled around, I find myself needing to renew and was flabbergasted to discover that a 5-pack now costs $1150 to purchase. That’s just about a 50% increase and it undoubtedly confirms that LinkedIn is taking advantage of its customers.
Do I need to post jobs on Linkedin to find top talent? No.
Is it nice to have? Yes.
The higher level my search gets (Manager, Director, VP) the less I even consider posting a job online to find my ideal candidate. Jacking up the price of luxury products will turn off any paying customer (high elasticity) and I can only imagine this will end in some backlash, especially since there are several other options out there. I recruit for a lot of sales positions and I’ve already come across some awesome alternatives — like SalesGravy – that provide you a niche job board at a fraction of the price!
Perhaps LinkedIn is incredibly confident that customers will play (and pay) along as they seemingly have no other viable choice. However, I’m pretty sure that’s what the clever fat cats at Netflix and Bank of America thought as well before disgruntled patrons helped them reverse certain decisions based purely on greed. TBD soon …