It seems that every time Microsoft releases an update on LinkedIn, they make the same claim – “record levels of engagement”. This has been a consistent pattern since 2018, with each quarterly report boasting of increased sessions and engagement rates. But can we really trust these numbers, or is it just a narrative that Microsoft wants us to believe?
Looking back at the timeline of LinkedIn’s reported engagement levels, it becomes clear that this is not a one-time occurrence. From 2018 to the most recent update in 2024, the trend of “record engagement” remains constant. However, the lack of transparency and specific metrics behind these claims raises questions about the validity of such statements.
While LinkedIn proudly claims to have over a billion members worldwide, the distinction between “members” and “active users” is crucial. Simply signing up for the platform does not guarantee active engagement, and the recent shutdown of its Chinese business adds another layer of complexity to these numbers. The inflated member count may not reflect the actual usage and impact of the platform.
Comparing LinkedIn’s reporting logic to other platforms like Twitter reveals a glaring issue – the presence of dormant profiles. Just counting cumulative profiles without considering their activity level skews the perception of engagement. If a significant portion of these “members” are inactive, the touted “record engagement” loses its significance.
Despite the claims of “record engagement”, the overall revenue of LinkedIn is reported to be up by 10%, attributed to “all lines of the business”. The lack of specific details and transparency in these statements raises doubts about the actual growth and sustainability of the platform. Without tangible evidence and metrics, it becomes challenging to assess the true health of LinkedIn.
While Microsoft keeps celebrating the “record levels of engagement” on LinkedIn, the lack of clarity and specificity behind these claims casts a shadow of doubt. With inflated member counts, dormant profiles, and vague revenue reports, it is essential to approach these statements with a critical eye. As users and investors, we deserve transparency and concrete data to evaluate the actual impact and success of LinkedIn, beyond the buzzwords of “record engagement”.