Post by account_disabled on Dec 24, 2023 22:45:13 GMT -5
We can therefore be tempted to create the largest possible audience by accepting all invitations without discernment and inviting dozens of strangers every day. This strategy again has its limits. To date, I have +/- 5,000 contacts or subscribers (the difference between the two is not significant). Depending on the themes of my articles, I have between 300 and 1,500 readers (750 on average; the “broader” the theme, the greater the number of readers). On average, I have 10% engagement (35% on the last article). I see profiles that have more than 20,000 contacts having an average of 300 to 600 readers per article and an engagement equivalent to mine (compared to readers, therefore much lower compared to the number of subscribers).
Which might seem surprising given the audience gap. Actually, it's not that surprising. As Brian Email Data Chesky (co-founder of Airbnb) says: "It's better to have 100 people who love you a lot than a million people who love you a little from afar." “Don’t count the people that you reach, reach the people who count”. I think this may be linked to how you network. So I have about 5,000 contacts. The vast majority of them invited me. I only responded to their invitations. I send very few requests. It can make a difference. If a network is made up of profiles who have invited us, our contacts know roughly who we are and what we do. When they see one of our articles, they have an idea of who the author is, it speaks to them and therefore may be more inclined to read its content.
If, on the other hand, you have developed your network by inviting all your contacts and doing it without thinking too much, you have a lot of contacts but they don't really know who you are or what you do. When we publish, our name doesn't speak to anyone and the number of readers remains low. Have a big community around you. As I stated in the introduction, in this case groups are probably more appropriate. Indeed, groups are real community spaces where we can dialogue and exchange with others. With your profile contacts, you can exchange 1:1 with everyone or "one to all" by publishing articles. You can certainly start the conversation via comments, but it's less practical than in a group. Position yourself as a networker How to detect them? Most have a big network.
Which might seem surprising given the audience gap. Actually, it's not that surprising. As Brian Email Data Chesky (co-founder of Airbnb) says: "It's better to have 100 people who love you a lot than a million people who love you a little from afar." “Don’t count the people that you reach, reach the people who count”. I think this may be linked to how you network. So I have about 5,000 contacts. The vast majority of them invited me. I only responded to their invitations. I send very few requests. It can make a difference. If a network is made up of profiles who have invited us, our contacts know roughly who we are and what we do. When they see one of our articles, they have an idea of who the author is, it speaks to them and therefore may be more inclined to read its content.
If, on the other hand, you have developed your network by inviting all your contacts and doing it without thinking too much, you have a lot of contacts but they don't really know who you are or what you do. When we publish, our name doesn't speak to anyone and the number of readers remains low. Have a big community around you. As I stated in the introduction, in this case groups are probably more appropriate. Indeed, groups are real community spaces where we can dialogue and exchange with others. With your profile contacts, you can exchange 1:1 with everyone or "one to all" by publishing articles. You can certainly start the conversation via comments, but it's less practical than in a group. Position yourself as a networker How to detect them? Most have a big network.