Three rules for good (or roughly decent) Linkedin profiles

Linkedin, linkedin profile, social selling, sales,
Is your IoT PaaS API in the cloud? Or does it actually address problems?

Photo credit: Hey_aventur

Hello, do you search for a PaaS that can make sure your multi-dimensional marketing strategy optimised in the cloud?

Are you still here? Wow, I am impressed. I would have switched off if I were you (don’t, I stop the jargon now!). And yet, this is what more often than not we find in marketing literature. Technical jargons used for the purpose of either selling ourselves or the organisation we work for. Yet, as I’ve already mentioned, the main reason people buy is to address problems they have today or they know they will have tomorrow. It’s just human and we are all trying to make our life easy. And as we also know, being social nowadays is important. So we are all producing engaging content in our social profile that presents the problems addressed? Well, not always I fear. So we miss good opportunities to get engaging social profile. I sometimes come across profiles on Linkedin that are presenting in length the technology at the heart of the service of their organisation. Here is a random example (click on picture for more details):

Linkedin, problem, profile, linkedin profile
Is your problem that you search BDaaS and MIS?

I think the issues with this summary is a- there are too many “we”, “our”, b- it’s very technical (it might be just me of course), and c- it doesn’t specify the problems addressed (I believe people don’t buy a “data driven marketing”).

So, how to combine the need to focus on the problems addressed in social aka Linkedin? Three simple rules:

1- No jargon: Remove all possible jargon. Whilst a small subsets of people might be impressed with new technology trends, I don’t believe that’s what matters to them (unless they are recruiters looking at a specific technology skill which is, of course, a legitimate reason to have a LI profile)

2- Empathy: I mentioned in a previous post the great critic that Dale Carnegy made about a prospecting letter he received. He points out a letter (actually he is quite critical about it) that is full of “I”, “we”, etc… making it irrelevant to him. What was valid back in the days of Dale Carnegy is still valid today. Social profiles should be focused on the reading party, not ourselves. In the example above, winning awards is great but it’s about the profile writer, not the possible buyer or prospect.

3- Problem, problem, problem: Finally, I believe a good LI profile share the problem clients had. It’s not about a technology, be it PaaS or Anyother-aaS acronym. It’s about the problem that existing users had and have managed to sort out using the service sold.

Here is a fictional and very short example:

“We only work with organisations that struggle with PROBLEM 1 or are frustrated by PROBLEM 2 . Working with title 1 or title 2, they realise they could not XXX which meant YYY to their organisation and ZZZ to the project owner.”

Clearly this can be extended and enriched with some specific examples. YYY can be the “business related problem”, i.e. specific KPI. ZZZ can be a more personal problems that the project owner has managed to address. I explain the difference between the two in this post. It’s not always possible to put the personal problems addressed but, if known, it helps to relate to the reader.

Finally, some people in a technical/product/finance function might argue: “But I am not in sales, I am a technical/product/finance owner and this is what my users / counterpart understand“. Well, actually, I think we are all in sales. I sell the concept of eating properly without their fingers to my children. I sell ideas for the weekend to my better half so that she buys into my idea rather than hers. At work we sell all the time even if it doesn’t mean a financial transaction. So, when it comes to LI, it’s just another touch point we can use to sell ourselves or the organisation we work for.

 

Leave a Reply