LinkedIn mimic Facebook this the right move? -LinkedIn, led Britain, Facebook, Facebook-IT information

As we all know,LinkedIn's target market is too narrow for it is both a blessing and a curse. From one perspective, the special nature of the company (the LinkedIn is a business-oriented social media website) position them with the traditional distinction between social media and avoid a direct clash with social networking Giants Facebook and Twitter, but as a supplement.

But the defects of their environment are obvious: for investors, investing in social media sites in addition to some traditional stock indexes (for example, income and company profits), but also would monitor the site and the amount of increase or decrease in activity. For LinkedIn, but advertisers target users are only interested in, its market position also determines the potential user base is very limited. For example, any person who has reached the age of 13 years can be found in Facebook and Twitter on opening accounts, looking for value in a product, but what about LinkedIn? Just tailored for commuters.

In order to enhance the user's activity and participation, LinkedIn is continuing to increase its "social interaction" development of functional products and concern. Actually it could be shown that LinkedIn would have seen themselves the differences between traditional and social media.

In recent years, you will find that, in terms of interface and user experience, LinkedIn has begun to mimic Facebook. For example, LinkedIn added a dynamic news listing, increase points of praise (like) and comment (update messages) and other functions, as well as "internal messaging (station)" service ... ... Are Facebook's shadow. According to the new media site, BuzzFeed is: LinkedIn has been thinking about how Facebook's next Idea.

LinkedIn establishment of Instant Articles is a good thing?

BuzzFeed has reported: "Facebook introduced Instant Articles (the service can speed up loading article, greatly increased the amount of Facebook access) a year later, LinkedIn also began to consider cooperation with content publishers, create a service similar to Facebook Instant Articles. "Indeed, Facebook a bright spot of this new service is that users don't have to click on the link to go the article source, but rather contribute directly to Facebook my page visits. From the perspective of increased viscosity of the user to build up such a system is a good thing to LinkedIn.

Another way to consider, content publishers face a "trade-off" problem. Most media sites are dependent on advertising revenues, website traffic is an important index to set advertising rates. Licensing content to social media Web sites, means that to some extent with the "access" runs counter to this purpose.

However, Facebook also has certain particularities of the case: faced with nearly 1.7 billion active Facebook users and 200duowange advertisers, content publishers are actually hard to say no, because it will significantly increase their brand exposure. Fundamentally, this is good for their own website. In addition, Instant Articles have faster loading speeds, which means that the user will not be an article directly, slow loading speed option to turn off, reducing article reprints and exposure.

As regards advertising, Facebook wisely established a "ad revenue-sharing model": If content publishers to advertise on their own article page, all content publishers of all advertising revenue; if you handed over to Facebook to sell advertising, Facebook only revenues of 30% and 70% to all content publishers. But as an equal exchange, content publishers need to comply with Facebook advertising restrictions established by Ordinance. Launched early in Instant Articles, many content publishers have complained about, Facebook advertising restrictions are too strict, so that there is no actual income. After several rounds of negotiations and regulatory changes, the operators seem to be Facebook become obedient.

Traffic VS content dispute

Increasingly, many focusing on traffic to the site to start looking for ways to take control of the user experience. In addition Facebook,Twitter also launched a new product--Moments, the main content by editing the important "tweets".

Of course, such things are not Google. As early as last year, Google launched a mobile Web page loads a project--AMP (Accelerated Mobile Pages). Because the ads are an important part of preventing the page from loading, AMP allows users to block certain content advertising and limit the number of content publishers to advertising in the article, so as to make the content in a more friendly way, shorter time to reach the user. Of course, the AMP is going to treat content publishers will give back to them more search traffic.

Results of these attempts is with huge traffic to the website as a "user" to "coerce", eventually obtaining concessions for content publishers . So, LinkedIn is no reason not to copy or imitate. In General, the LinkedIn mimic Facebook do to increase traffic for themselves the wisdom of Instant Articles. Especially in ad-sharing deal on the one hand, will be a powerful impetus for future earnings.

LinkedIn模仿Facebook这步棋走得对吗？ - LinkedIn,领英,Facebook,脸书 - IT资讯

我们都知道，LinkedIn 的目标市场较为狭窄，这对它而言既是一种福气，又是一种诅咒。从一方面来看，公司的特殊性质（LinkedIn是一家以工作为导向的社交媒体网站）将其定位与传统社交媒体区分开来，避免了与社交巨头 Facebook 和 Twitter 的正面对决，而是作为一种补充体存在。

但其所处环境的缺陷也十分明显：对于投资者来说，投资社交媒体网站除了要看一些传统的股票价值指标（譬如年收入与公司利润）外，也会关注网站用户的增减量与活跃度。但对于LinkedIn来说，广告商一般只对目标用户感兴趣，其市场定位也决定了潜在的用户群十分有限。举个例子，任何一个年龄达到13岁的人都可以在Facebook及Twitter上开设账户、在产品中寻找价值，但LinkedIn呢？只是为上班族们量身定做的。

为了提升用户的活跃度与参与度，LinkedIn正在持续增加对“社交互动”类功能产品的开发与关注。其实这能够证明，LinkedIn早就看到了自己与传统社交媒体之间的差异。

近几年来你会发现，在界面布局及用户体验上，LinkedIn已经开始在模仿Facebook。举个例子，LinkedIn添加的一个动态新闻列表，增加的点赞（like）及评论（更新的消息）等功能，以及“内部消息传递（站内信）”服务……都有Facebook的影子。按照新媒体网站BuzzFeed的说法就是：LinkedIn一直在思考怎样学习Facebook的下一个Idea。

LinkedIn建立Instant Articles是件好事儿？

BuzzFeed曾这样报道：“在Facebook推出Instant Articles（该服务能够加速加载文章，大大增加了Facebook的访问量）一年后，LinkedIn也开始考虑与内容发行商进行合作，创建一个类似于Facebook Instant Articles的服务。”的确，Facebook这项新业务的一个亮点就在于，用户不用点开链接进入文章来源地，而是直接为Facebook自己的页面贡献访问量。从增加用户粘度的角度来讲，建立这个系统对LinkedIn是件好事儿。

从另一方面来考虑，内容发行商其实面临着“权衡取舍”的问题。大多数媒体网站都依赖于广告收入，而网站访问量是设置广告费率的重要指标。将内容授权给社交媒体网站登载，某种程度上意味着与“提高访问量”这个目的背道而驰。

然而，Facebook这个案例也有一定的特殊性：面对着Facebook近17亿活跃用户和200多万个广告商，内容发行商们其实很难说no，毕竟这将大大提高自己的品牌曝光度。从根本上来讲，这对他们自己的网站流量是有好处的。此外，Instant Articles有更快的加载速度，这也意味着用户不会因为一篇文章缓慢的加载速度而直接选择关闭，减少文章的转载及曝光机会。

在广告方面，Facebook很明智地建立了一套“广告收入共享模式”：如果内容发行商在自己文章的页面上投放广告，广告收入全部归内容发行商所有；如果交由Facebook来出售广告位，那么Facebook只分得收入的30%，其余70%归内容发行商所有。但作为等价交换，内容发行商需要遵守Facebook制定的广告限制条例。在Instant Articles推出早期，很多内容发行商都曾抱怨过，Facebook的广告限制过于严格，以至于根本就没有什么实际收入。在经过若干轮谈判及条例修改之后，内容商们似乎对Facebook的规定变得顺从起来。

流量VS内容之争

逐渐地，很多注重流量的网站开始寻找能够掌控用户体验的方法。除了Facebook，Twitter也推出一项新产品——Moments，其主要内容主要由经过编辑整理的重要“推文”组成。

当然，这种事儿肯定也少不了Google。早在去年，Google就发布了移动网页加载项目——AMP（Accelerated Mobile Pages）。由于广告通常是阻碍网页加载的重要部分，AMP允许用户屏蔽某些内容的广告，并限制内容发行商文章中的广告数量，从而使内容能够以更友好的方式、更短的时间到达用户。当然，AMP也不会亏待内容发行商，将会回馈给他们更多的搜索流量。

这些尝试的结果就是，拥有庞大流量的网站以“用户”为“要挟点”，最终获得内容发行商们的让步。所以，LinkedIn没有理由不照葫芦画瓢。总的来说，LinkedIn模仿Facebook做一个可以为自己增加流量的Instant Articles是明智的。特别是在广告分享协议这一方面，将是一个获得未来收益的强大推动力。