The Reality Behind LinkedIn’s Brilliant Growth Tactic: Are Collaborative Articles a Scam?
LinkedIn's collaborative articles offer a winning growth strategy, but is it fair to the users who contribute to its success, or is it just a scam? Learn more.
LinkedIn's collaborative article is a brilliant growth initiative.
Very well thought out and executed. Admirable stuff.
Bravo! Honestly, Bravo!
Although, I can't shake the feeling that it's low-key a scam for its collaborators.
Okay, it's not an actual scam, but it sure feels that way when you look at the ROI.
And now, with their latest development, this return sees a new low. If there were a TL;DR version, it would read, 'Terrible before, hopeless now.'
Being an early collaborator, I thought I’d highlight the good, bad, and ugly sides of the game.
So, let's explore what makes LinkedIn's collaborative articles a brilliant growth tactic. And how they've dodged suspicions of a clever scam.
But first, some groundwork for the hero of this piece.
Introducing LinkedIn Collaborative Articles
When you think of articles published on LinkedIn articles, there are essentially three types, including
User-generated and user-distributed articles, just like this one.
LinkedIn News, which is company-generated and distributed by the LinkedIn team and users.
Collaborative articles, which bring together both parties (LinkedIn and users) for content generation and distribution.
LinkedIn's collaborative article tag-teams AI efficiency with community expertise to create informative and reliable articles.
The keyword is expertise, and the LinkedIn algorithm decides who the expert is.
You get a notification inviting you to contribute.
Something like this.
The topics are suggested based on your profile preferences. If you’ve mentioned you’re interested in content marketing, like I did some time back, you’ll be suggested the same.
But herein also lies one of the flaws. More on that later.
But Wikipedia vibes, much?
You open the notification, and you end up on the article draft.
This AI-content draft, courtesy of LinkedIn's editorial team, is primed for SEO.
There, you have the Expert Contribution section, which might have no contributions, or you might see other experts share their points.
As a contributor, you expand the initial draft, offering unique perspectives and knowledge.
And if you do it well enough, regularly, you get rewarded. Or you used to get rewarded.
Here’s the stakes LinkedIn presents for contributing to the articles.
Enticing?
Hold that thought.
First, here's why I admire their strategy so much.
LinkedIn's Collaborative Articles Growth Strategy
Let me start by saying it’s Brilliant! Absolutely brilliant!
LinkedIn's collaborative articles use content content loops to acquire new users and engage existing users.
The beautiful thing about it is the scale at which they have done it.
Here's what it looks like...
Acquisition using Content Loops
LinkedIn's collaborative articles use content loops to attract users by leveraging SEO.
LinkedIn uses AI to publish a half-cooked, draft-like article and invites users (community experts) to expand on it with their insights and knowledge.
Every published article follows a template optimized for on-page SEO, with optimized header tags (H1, H2, and so on), meta tags, etc.
Programmatic SEO on display.
Basically, everything is set for the articles to get indexed and rank on Google.
Any random person searches for a specific query related to his profession, sees the article, finds it helpful, and signs up for LinkedIn. And sooner, he’s contributing to these articles, too.
That’s the loop.
But why do I call it brilliant? Here’s why.
Why is LinkedIn’s collaborative article’s UGC loop special?
What sets LinkedIn’s whole operation apart is its contributors. And their valuable contributions.
Search engines, like Google, use 200+ ranking factors to push the best content at the top of SERP.
One such critical ranking factor by Google is E-E-A-T.
E-E-A-T stands for Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, and Trustworthiness.
You can find the dots connecting here.
LinkedIn possesses all the right tools to leverage these factors via contributors.
And that's what we see with the Collaborative articles. It's just professionals sharing
thought leadership content
their experiences and anecdotes
industry insights and expertise
advice for peers and newcomers
results of their experiments
That checks their boxes for E-E-A-T.
Plus, these articles answer very specific questions that people might be looking for an answer to.
Who better to answer than subject matter experts?
These specific queries might not have huge search volumes, but high user intentions, yes. That makes it easier to rank.
And that's why contributions from relevant folks make these articles helpful.
These points are enough to set LinkedIn's organic content game on another level.
Add LinkedIn's high domain authority score to the mix, and you'll find they're cooking!
You're looking at LinkedIn ranking for a ton of keywords. Maybe not now, maybe not soon, but they'll be there.
And here are some numbers to tell you the scale at which they are operating.
LinkedIn Collaborative Articles in Numbers
Wide Range of Categories
As per my calculations, LinkedIn covers a mammoth 2097 categories for its collaborative articles.
And every category has again a ton of topics inside. Talk about their content tree and keywords for which they want to rank.
Here are some topics for the B2B marketing category.
You can explore all the LinkedIn collaborative article categories in alphabetical order, starting with the letter A.
# Indexed Articles
As for the number of articles on Google, we have 326k articles indexed between 3 March '23 and 30 September '24 (577 days).
# Average articles published daily
If my numbers are correct, that averages around 565 articles published daily. Imagine the cost and time of doing it yourself.
And a cool thing about these articles is that they'll keep getting edited by an expert who wishes to enhance it. So, the average number of words per article keeps increasing.
These content loops don't just drive new users in. They engage the existing users, too. Here's how...
Engagement (and Retention) using Habit Loops
LinekedIn's collab articles use manufactured habit loops amplified by the network effects.
The user gets an in-app notification requesting contribution on a topic.
This cue triggers the user into action.
The users contribute with their expertise on the topic.
And then the community takes care of things, ensuring guaranteed viewing, reactions, and even content sharing.
In the end, there’s the reward of being seen as an expert in your category.
And, of course, boost the personal brand.
If nothing, there’s always the selfless valor of a volunteer. The unappreciated messiah.
But let's be honest, the primary motivation for the majority has always been earning the Community Top Voice (Gold badge).
It makes your profile special. And looks good.
Getting the badge is a work.
To attain the badge, you must contribute regularly to earn a chance at it. And it does take a while if you're at it.
But there's a twist.
Even after you do get one, you'll still need to contribute regularly to maintain it on your profile. No lifetime guarantees.
Talk about the returns...
If it feels like a scam, you might be right.
Despite that, people contribute happily. As did I. It was all about the badge. The bloody badge!
Honestly, it's such a clever growth loop.
And it gets even better.
As I mentioned earlier, I was also a collaborator. While writing this piece, I thought I'd check out my earlier contributions. And this is what I see.
Touché, LinkedIn! Touché!
Top 6%, yeah, right!
It almost enticed me (an inactive contributor) enough to jump back into the game. I even wrote a post about it because I was going all in. And then I had to scratch that because of what I found soon after.
It makes you feel like that dog who salivates when he hears the bell ring. And it all comes down to these loops.
Anyhow, off we go to the big reveal ahead!
It's time to lift the curtains...
Why the Big No to LinkedIn Collaborative Articles?
Here are some reasons I find the collaborative articles a scam.
Where’s the Motivation?
It was never collaborator-friendly.
When you think about the biggest motivation for contributing to the articles, there's only one correct answer.
It's the Community Top Voice Badge. Your credibility slogan. Your bragging rights source on your profile. A happy place for some.
Here’s Jim Carrey describing what it means to get the Community Top voice stamp.
Now comes the problem.
If you think earning the badge is a challenge, which is quite the case, retaining it is a whole other battle.
And if that doesn't help, the badge is valid for 60 days only.
Then, it gets re-evaluated to see if you're still worthy.
If you wish to keep the glorious badge, you must contribute regularly, even after earning it.
Or it's back to square one.
It's like feeding a hungry wolf that's always coming for more. And once there's no food, you're the food.
You're trading your experience and knowledge for an opportunity to get a badge.
The odds are stacked highly against you.
And that's the reason it feels so scammy.
But none of this matters after I found out about this latest development.
As it happens, the LinkedIn team is scrapping the ever-desirable Top Community Voice badge. Gone in the wind. Just like that.
It makes me wonder, where's the motivation now?
Who Owns it?
The platform doesn't belong to you. You're a resident encountering algorithms. Just a number to their stats.
Even the content you contribute kinda belongs to LinkedIn.
You're essentially doing a free internship.
It's because you write, they get free content, and they acquire new users. There is only one winner here, especially now.
And so, the question arises. Are you getting enough returns for your efforts? Think about it.
The answer for me is no.
And that's why I started my website. The content belongs to me. I'm the sole owner of the badge. I control the platform. And it helps build my brand.
But all’s not gloomy. There's always something you can take away.
And it's one of the best things to come out of this mess.
You get access to the content tree, which has a ton of topics you can write about. LinkedIn has done the homework for you. Just plug in and play.
Cases of folks Gaming the system
As I've found to be the case, you might be competing with some folks who are contributing to these articles using just ChatGPT.
Talk about garbage in, garbage out.
What you’re left with is a ton of subpar content that’s useful to nobody. Think of it like feature creep.
I’d like to coin this term as content creep.
As for you, your good stuff might get lost in the pile of average contributions.
There's that risk.
It's also one of the reasons why LinkedIn retired the Community Top Voice badge.
Here’s the official announcement.
It’s quite frustrating for some members.
Here's one of my connections venting one out while raising a good point.
You're not alone, brother! You're not alone.
Life After Community Top Voice Gold Badge
The community's top voice gold badge is gone.
Long live that beautiful badge. The source of the bragging rights for many...
As the dust settles, one might wonder what the future looks like for LinkedIn's collab articles.
Here's a look at what comes next and the potential ramifications for LinkedIn and its users.
1. Losing Face
LinkedIn losing the contributor's trust is the worst thing to come out of this fiasco.
Contributors, especially the ones holding the badge, can be considered the power users of the platform.
With the time they've spent on contributions, hurting them hurts the platform, too.
Most users will think twice before engaging in any such future activity, but engagement should fall in the short term.
2. Drop in User Engagement
Naturally, we should see a significant dip in user engagement, which relied heavily on the badge's charm to drive participation.
The primary motivation for the majority has always been to gain visibility through the badge.
Without that incentive, LinkedIn faces challenges in maintaining a similar engagement level.
This brings me to the first positive thing that came out of this.
3. Improvement in Content Quality
As the adage goes, 'There is nothing stronger than the heart of a volunteer.'
Though most users might disengage, there'll always be those who contribute nonetheless—love for the game, I guess.
With the biggest incentive out of the picture, it should also remove the imposters. And if you recall, contribution quality (and auto badge rewarding) was the main reason LinkedIn retired the badge.
With the bad apples gone, some good might also leave the picture.
However, those who remain will likely be genuine experts passionate about sharing wisdom.
Over time, this could increase trust among LinkedIn users, who can confidently rely on the expertise shared on the platform.
Plus, it reinforces LinkedIn's reputation as a genuine thought leadership content hub.
But there has to be some return down the line for contributors.
Here are some things LinkedIn can do in that direction.
4. Improving Engagement Strategies
LinkedIn may need to develop new strategies to counterbalance the decline in potential participation while encouraging contributors to stay.
This could be as simple as
Increasing organic impressions of article contributions to 2nd-degree and 3rd-degree connections of the contributors.
LinkedIn team creating and nurturing experts from various niche communities.
Rewarding the blue Top Voice badge (the only available badge that's invitation-only and curated by LinkedIn's editorial team) to individuals/contributors who consistently contribute insightful content.
What other things do you think LinkedIn can do to keep users engaged?
Conclusion
LinkedIn's collaborative article combines AI efficiency with a highly relevant human touch.
The model fosters community engagement and highlights thought leaders within specific domains, promoting authoritative dialogue and knowledge sharing on the platform.
What sets it apart is that it targets relevant folks for answers, which fulfills Google's EEAT algo requirement.
This puts their pSEO efforts in the winning zone, doubled by their domain authority.
However, this raises a big question because the model relies heavily on users to contribute.
And why would someone write for them? Is the incentive enough for a user to contribute? Or it’s not about the game anymore?
For some, the answer might be a yes. For most, maybe not.
But it has to be said that incentives do add a fun element to it.
What's your take on this?