What if we all told LinkedIn we were men? Or better yet, white men?
I’ve been thinking about the experiment that Cindy Gallop, Jane Evans, Stephen McGinnis, and Matt Lawton ran. The numbers are startling.
No experiment is perfect, and this one is telling. But one wrinkle: the new algorithm has decided to “prioritize” smaller creators, like Matt and Stephen. So they’re getting more reach per capita simply because they have smaller followings.
Add that to the fact that Cindy talks about things some people find uncomfortable (as do I), and we’re f*cked.
Interestingly, I have a comparable audience to Matt, but I’ve had posts flagged and removed. (No notice, by the way. Just poof and they were gone.) I doubt he’s had any removed.
Upshot? My reach isn’t anywhere near as good as Matt’s. The same week, my post got 1,500 views (compared to his nearly 12,000) and 2.5x the comments (66 to his 27). Beth Massa’s post the week before got 4,000 impressions and 9 comments. I wrote about it here.
Side vent
Has anyone considered the fact that the reason Cindy and other women and POC with large followings — like Isvari Maranwe, Erin Gallagher, and many others (I can’t tag them all here or LinkedIn will de-prioritize this post) — have such large followings is precisely because there aren’t enough diverse voices speaking on uncomfortable topics?
So what’s the solution?
Some people are suggesting we stop paying for Premium. But since LinkedIn is now pay-to-play (paid accounts get priority), your content would get even less reach by leaving.
I wonder what would happen if we changed our demographics to state that we are m-@-l-e. Better yet, straight and white, too.
LinkedIn knows so much about us. Seriously, so much more than you realize. I’m seriously thinking about changing mine to see if it makes a difference in my reach.