Linkedin to libraries: drop dead

[mmascari]

@MohawkLibrarian

So a library may be paying a few thousand dollars or much more. There are other providers on the market, but Lynda has provided the best and most content.

It feels in some ways like LinkedIn is just trying to remove libraries.

Where I was going with the question was, how valuable is the library market to LinkedIn? If it’s $10K per library, and there are 10K libraries subscribed, that’s $100,000,000 market to throw away. But, if it’s $5K on average and there are only 1K libraries, then it’s only a $5,000,000 market. It’s possible it’s more trouble than it’s worth for them to keep supporting libraries. At least to some manager making this decision.

The profile changes are part of the “content” they provide. With this change, they may not have the best anymore.

@whatafan

Remember that libraries often serve folks who aren’t the most sophisticated about searches and privacy and security and scams and such. They trust us to help them with that. Having a dedicated service provider endorsed by the library is meaningful - going out to find their own learning opportunities would be much less accessible and probably too overwhelming for many.

Definitely agree. I wasn’t suggesting that patrons think about new sources. But, that libraries themselves think about new sources and simply drop LinkedIn completely.

Transition is never easy. Trying to get them to change their stance and requirement for a profile is fine. But, looking for a replacement service and switching is probably a smart move too. Even if they relent and change the policy now, looking for a new provider is probably still a smart move, as it’s likely to happen again.