How to Get Unlimited LinkedIn InMails

 

Pile of Mail by faungg

What does LinkedIn’s new InMail policy mean for you? That depends on how effective your InMails are and the response rates you can achieve.

If you have a premium account with LinkedIn and haven’t been living under a rock, you are aware of LinkedIn’s InMail policy change which will, for most people, reduce the total number of InMails they are able to send.

However, their new policy does open up the possibility of unlimited InMails, provided you can achieve a 100% response rate.

Yes, it really is that simple. :)

Of course, even for folks with ridiculously effective messaging, there are a number of reasons why it is practically impossible to get a 100% response rate (e.g., people respond via email instead of through LinkedIn, people not logging into LinkedIn for long periods of time, people simply ignoring InMails, etc.).

However, if you can figure out how to get a much higher than average rate of response, you can actually end up with more InMails under LinkedIn’s new policy than the old.

Let me show you.

Depending on your account type, you will get a different amount of monthly InMails, with some accounts receiving large increases:

  • Recruiter = 150 InMails (up from 50)
  • Recruiter Professional Services = 100 (up from 50)
  • Recruiter Lite  = 30 (up from 25)
  • Talent Finder = 25 (stays the same)

Please Note!

For the sake of simplicity, I am going to use 50 InMails per month to demonstrate the old InMail policy, and 100 InMails per month to demonstrate the new InMail policy. Additionally, I am going to use only 2 response rates in my examples, 20% and 80%, I am not going to over complicate things by trying to factor in the reality of variances in the dates of response to each InMail, and I am rounding all numbers, which can make some of the smaller numbers on the charts look odd, but you’ll get the point.

Old LinkedIn InMail Policy

Under the old LinkedIn InMail policy, if you achieved a 20% rate of response on your 50 InMails/mo, you would be credited back 80% of the InMails you sent as they didn’t receive a response, which would be 40 InMails. If you then sent those 40 InMails out and continued to achieve a 20% response rate, you would get 32 InMails credited back to you, and so on. Ultimately, you could end up sending as many as 244 InMails from an initial monthly allotment of 50 InMails.

Here’s what that looks like in a a chart:

LinkedIn Old InMail Policy Example 1

Here’s what that looks like in a simple graph form:

LinkedIn Old InMail Policy Chart 1

As you can see, LinkedIn’s old InMail policy technically rewarded people with low(er) response rates by giving them more InMails to send. If you run the numbers for a 10% response rate, a person could end up being able to send over 400 InMails/mo from an initial 50 InMails!

I guarantee you this was neither intended nor considered when LinkedIn devised their initial InMail policy.

Even if you don’t like it, you can probably see why LinkedIn has made the change. No longer will highly ineffective messengers be essentially rewarded with the ability to send more and more ineffective messages to LinkedIn users. Believe it or not, this actually helps the rest of us who do try hard to send effective messages.

New LinkedIn InMail Policy

Under LinkedIn’s new InMail policy, stepping up to 100 InMails/mo and staying at a 20% response rate, you would end up with about 125 total InMails to send based on InMails credited back to your account.

Yes, you’re seeing that correctly.

Under the new policy, doubling your monthly InMails coupled with a 20% response rate actually results in you being able to send about half as many total InMails (125 vs. 244) as you used to be able to send with half as many initial monthly InMails (100 vs. 50).

Follow me?

LinkedIn New InMail Policy Example 20 percent response rate

This clearly demonstrates why many people are upset  by the new InMail policy.

Under the new policy, if you sent 100 InMails on the first day of the month and then resent your credited InMails back from responses, you could run out of InMails in 4 days. Of course, that’s assuming immediate responses, which is highly unlikely, but hopefully you can see where I am going.

LinkedIn New InMail Policy Example 20 percent response rate graph

Now, let’s say you are a messaging master and can achieve an 80% response rate. Let’s see what that would look like under LinkedIn’s new InMail policy:

New LinkedIn InMail Policy 80 percent response rate chart

Pretty sweet, right?

In theory, under LinkedIn’s new InMail policy, you could send about 295 InMails from an initial allotment of 100 if you could achieve an 80% response rate.

You have to admit that this seems to demonstrate what LinkedIn is trying to do with their new InMail policy, which is reward effective messaging.

In this example, a person with an 80% response rate and 100 InMails/month would be able to send about 21% more InMails under the new policy than some one getting a 20% response rate on 50 InMails/mo under the old policy.

New LinkedIn InMail Policy 80 percent response rate graph

Is an 80% response rate possible?

While improbable, it’s not impossible. :)

By the way, if you could get a 50% response rate, you would be able to send about 188/month from your initial 100. 40% would get you about 162/month from your initial 100.

What About Effective Messengers Under the Old Policy?

Interestingly, if LinkedIn increased your monthly InMail allotment to 100 and did not change their policy, and you were an extremely effective messenger and achieved an 80% response rate, you would actually be punished for having a high response rate, at least when it comes to the amount of InMails LinkedIn provides you.

Old LinkedIn InMail Policy with 100 InMails and a 80 percent response rate chart

Do these numbers look familiar?

That’s right – if LinkedIn gave you 100 InMails/mo and credited you only for InMails with no response (old policy), you would in theory only be able to send 125 InMails/mo even with an admirable 80% response rate, which is the same number of InMails you could send from an initial allotment of 100 and a response rate of 20% under the new policy. Ouch.

In this light, effective messengers should rejoice over LinkedIn’s new policy.

Old LinkedIn InMail Policy with 100 InMails and a 80 percent response rate graph

Final Thoughts

If you’re an effective messenger and can achieve high response rates from your InMails, the new policy is great, and certainly a dramatic improvement over the old policy, which actually punished people with high response rates when considering the amount of InMails LinkedIn credited to people with very low response rates under the old policy.

On the other hand, for people who are ineffective messengers (including spammers, of course) and those people who simply can’t achieve high response rates, the new policy will appear to be a curse, significantly reducing the number of InMails they can send when compared to the massive InMail credits they would have previously “earned” from their low response rates.

Oh, and let’s not forget that if you could get a 100% response rate, you could in theory be rewarded with unlimited InMails, whereas with the old policy, you would be rewarded with 0.

Of course, as I noted above, there are many challenges to achieving very high response rates from LinkedIn InMails, even for people who craft dynamite, highly personalized messages, and this means that the value proposition of LinkedIn licenses might change significantly for some folks and companies.

Ultimately, change is inevitable, and I’d like to share a quote which is typically erroneously attributed to Charles Darwin; “It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is most adaptable to change.”

In any event, I hope you enjoyed my basic visualizations of the old vs. new LinkedIn InMail policies.

 

  • Mark Dinan

    Maybe college recruiters working in-house for Google get a 80% response rate, but anyone working for either a challenging company or on a challenging, high demand position will get anywhere near that. Most of what I do is recruit the best software engineers in the world. There is literally 0% unemployment for these folks ( a typical candidate would be at Google/Facebook/Netflix making $200k-$300k and a MSCS from Stanford) , and they spend as little time on LinkedIn as possible, and will only reply when they are commencing a job search. No matter how you mix it up with either personal messaging or a cut and paste e-mail, the response rate never gets much above 10%. On the other hand, when I recruit a Product Manager, Security Architect, or Marketing Managers, I’ll easily get a 20% or 30% response rate. These types of professionals love LinkedIn, spend time on it, and are very responsive to inmails.

    I have had long discussions with people at LinkedIn about their new policy. I think it 1) rewards recruiters working on easier to fill reqs 2) Is dramatically biased towards big companies like Google, Facebook, and Apple, as candidates respond much at much higher rates to “dream” companies compared to start-ups. 3) Does not recognize that there are regional differences in response rates and in different industries. 4) Most importantly, this changes my contract midway through its run, with little or no recourse. When I signed up for a $50k contract with LinkedIn, this was not in the plan, and it has effectively lowered my InMails dramatically. I may be small potatoes for LinkedIn, but I am sure I am not the only one very annoyed by their various policy changes.

    My overall feel is that the people making big policy changes in LinkedIn really do not understand how paying customers use their platform. The search function on the Recruiter platform is awful, and they have not innovated at all in making the platform more responsive to both candidates and recruiters. Instead of doing that, they have made brute force policy changes which will lead to many, many customers getting annoyed at LinkedIn. I’ll be really curious to see how customers take these changes – maybe I am wrong, but I could see this being a “New Coke” moment for LinkedIn.

  • John

    The biggest frustration is currently LinkedIn has a monopoly in terms of sourcing professional candidates. Their software is less than desireable but where else does anyone go? I so hope we will have more choices in thee future.

  • Tom Marino

    I resigned an 8 license full recruiter package and a week later learned of the changes (admittedly it was a few weeks after the announcement). Like Mark, I also pursue high level SWE. I was pretty steaming.

    However, I disagree with Mark on the near-monopoly. There are enough tools that are out, in beta or on the horizon that make LinkedIn disposable to a large degree. There are plenty of tools covered on this and other sites that will take a bit more digging and time, but you can contact most anyone with enough work.

    I will significantly reduce, if not eliminate, my team’s use of paid LinkedIn services by Q4 2015. Its a tool, not the differentiator. The people I attempt to contact look at InMail as a whole as mostly a nuisance anyways.

  • Mark Dinan

    I agree. We have been evaluating competing tools and offerings, and will certainly be looking to cut back on LinkedIn in the future. I’ve been doing this since 1996 in the fax/file cabinet age, and I am sure there will be continued innovation by companies looking to compete with LinkedIn. LinkedIn has made a bunch of changes that are aimed at limiting their paying customers ability to use the service they signed up for. As a growth stock, LinkedIn will only need to see its revenues flatten out a bit to see its stock plunge. Maybe they will get the message at that point.

  • Carl Guse

    In a recent discussion with a sales rep from Monster, he was telling me that they are coming out with an social app that he says will do better that what LinkedIn and Dice are currently providing. I think he said they are shooting for mid-2015.

  • Pingback: Revue de presse - Les bonnes résolutions 2015 du recruteur mobile & social - #rmsnews()

  • LinkedIn should also make next logical step: penalize recruiters for spam reports.
    If job seeker gets

  • Brian Weidner

    Just cancelled the premium package for my company…over this issue. Nice to see many people in the comments who feel the same way. Thankfully I was on the monthly plan option.

  • DP

    Nothing beats hammering the phones… in-mails just don’t do the trick…. The annoying part is that you can accept an in-mail and say your not interested as a job seeker….There should be a better system in place that if the person accepts an in-mail they become connected to your network even if they are not personally interested so at the least it skips a step and allows a recruiter to then ask for a candidate referral. The system is botched and inefficient currently on LinkedIN.

  • Hi,
    Emails are the best way to reach your prospect / target audience when inmails turns you away!

    Checkout eGrabber’s latest product Email Prospector http://tinyurl.com/nvcd4zs

    This Email Prospector gives you Verified Email addresses from deep Internet Search. Just type in the name and company of the prospect, product will provide you further details.

    Regards,
    Barath
    eGrabber Inc.
    Product Manager of
    eMail-Prospector

  • Gina

    Great info, thank you so much!

  • Jorge Orlando Lopez

    Just the info I was looking for! Thanks for the great post. going to pass this along.

  • Joe Belbin

    InMails are great, but nothing beats picking up the phone! Kendlebell offer a good candidate screening service – http://www.kendlebell.com

  • MPLS STPL

    It’s 2015, not 1985. That said, emailing, sending InMails, networking, etc… beat harassing people at work.

  • David

    need help with premium accounts???? I can help with 30 percent discount on all packages. give me a call at 520 477 2594

  • David, do you mean LinkedIn premium accounts?

  • rootlesscosmo

    Any remote (non in-house, non-RPO) recruiting services or ad recruitment agencies out there who offer InMail capabilities? In other words, folks who can accept a job req via email and reach out to qualified candidates on LinkedIn via InMail?

  • sonibvc

    Unfortunately there is too much noise on social media today. It has become almost impossible to get attention and sell anything. This is what happens when channels get saturated. It pushes people to try and get more and more creative which only leads to higher costs in terms of time and money for a smaller and smaller reward. The most effective way and the only way that has held true for thousands of years is direct communication with the prospect. LinkedIn stands out for obvious reason. But even then the only valuable aspect of LinkedIn is the ability to connect to your prospect and start a conversion via chat. The system is simple. Send an invitation to connect and once accepted, introduce yourself to the prospect via chat. Then, try and move the prospect to continue communication via email or phone as soon as possible. Here is how I work and I get results:

    1. I send out 50 invites a day. Out of these 10-20 will accept which equals to 200-400 new prospects a month.

    2. I will then send a short intro message to the prospect introducing myself and my company (using http://www.linmessages.com to automate this as it can become frustrating rather quickly)

    3. As soon as I feel the prospect is interested enough to continue the conversion, I try and get him to continue on email or phone.

    It is simple, free and most importantly – effective!!!

  • Pingback: What is the Commercial Use Limit on LinkedIn Search? - Prominence()

  • chad hatten Albuquerque

    thanks for that

  • chad hatten Albuquerque

    thanks, great post..

  • chad hatten Albuquerque

    have to agree

  • chad hatten Albuquerque

    yes, agreed…