Depending on who you talk to, the recent move by TheLadders to burn the candle at both ends – charging job seekers and employers – was either genius or a bit too greedy. I tend to waffle, but the move undoubtedly uncovers an opportunity for someone to pick-up the ball Ladders has dropped.
Enter LinkedIn?
With over 16 million professionals, LinkedIn has the mojo to connect six-figure job opportunities to the right audience – who I’m sure would be willing to pay for access to such opportunities – like few others.
Considering TheLadders claims about 1.6 million members, LinkedIn would need only 10 percent of their current users to match the success. Simplifying things, they could just add it to their existing services.
Certainly obtainable with the right marketing strategy. Hell, there’s already a built-in job seeker and employer audience, supported by Simply Hired content along with their own.
And every recruiter I know regularly worships at the alter of LinkedIn, so getting good job content quickly shouldn’t be too difficult, particularly offering $100K postings at no charge. And LinkedIn already attends most recruiting conferences, so they’re a very familiar face. The buzz would be deafening.
Moreover, if the rumors of News Corp acquiring LinkedIn are true, the site could have access to a flood of top-tier News Corp-owned Wall Street Journal readers very soon, potentially bouncing TheLadders from their current partnership, heading into year two of a 2-year deal.
Assuming 1 million sign-ups in 12 months, at $30-per-month, we’re talkin’ $360 million a year in ongoing revenue. That’s gotta be worth at least a 30-minute exploratory meeting if I’m the brain trust at LinkedIn.
Doesn’t it?
Popularity: 4% [?]
November 27th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
Interesting concept, prompting a few Catbert comments:
1. The Ladders-NEITHER greedy or genius, but rather desperate. An obviously dwindling subscriber base (turnover/attrition of this base must be horrific) led them to attempt to prop up the revenue model by charging the employer/recruiter. Postings going down, subscriber numbers going down, ship going down. BTW, stop waffling…you’re reminding me of Hillary.
2. LinkedIn-I suspect the vast majority of 16 million members are using the free service (like me!). I could be wrong on this, but LinkedIn likely has a good sense of what their subscriber base will and will NOT pay for.
3. 100K Postings-Since LinkedIn already sells job postings to employers and recruiters, they’re already driving revenue through this channel. While LinkedIn could creatively segment the job postings to put a large nail in the coffin of the Ladders, I remain VERY skeptical of a candidate driven revenue model. I do not think a viable subscriber base can be sustained to support mid to long term revenue growth. Turnover is simply too high, and the same content is typically available for free.
4. 30 bucks a month? Who do I look like? Jason Goldberg?