It's a valid point. The entire early growth team is gone and onto other ventures. It's probably very likely that the new growth team is facing increasing pressure to continue to grow, which can lead to overly aggressive tactics.
I also think the product is in the middle of a massive pivot from referral network to network+content destination and that transition isn't quite done yet. It will be interesting to see what the next few years hold for them.
I didn't, and to be honest, after going through 10+ years of interviews and articles to find the growth nuggets, I wasn't exactly looking for them.
One thing, that I mentioned in the follow up comment, is that much of the early growth was built by Josh Elman, Reid, Keith Rabois, and then later Adam Nash and Elliot Shmukler. All of those people are now gone.
As LinkedIn looks to continue its growth, it will be interesting to see how the company responds to a massive talent turnover on the growth team, and whether they can 1) keep it going, and 2) balance growth with user experience and value so that it doesn't continue to alienate users.
Here's my take, after researching them for so long. LinkedIn is definitely aggressive with their growth tactics. From the endorsements product, which has some questionable value, to the gimmicks like the "You're in the top 1% of profile views" emails, they definitely push the limits on growth and driving sustainable engagement. There's definitely an argument to be made that they cross the line too often for many people's tastes.
But what I think the most important takeaway from their success is that even after a decade they are constantly pushing the growth envelope. They are launching new products, new tests, new features, many focused on creating repeat visits and new growth, all the time. It doesn't stop.
To innovate on the growth engine for a decade straight? That's impressive. Sure they get things wrong, but they don't stop trying. Even as a public company. Even with 225 million users they keep trying new things.
I think that's a great lesson for companies to learn from, regardless of how hard you decide to personally push tactics for growth. So many companies lament their lack of growth, but what did they really try? What have they shipped that is actually focused on driving growth? PR, AdWords and a referral program does not make for a sustainable startup growth engine. I think the focus on the need to grow and the constant iteration and learning is something that has certainly given me a new perspective on how to think about startup growth.
His title should really be "The decay and fall of guest blogging for SEO" because guest blogging is still relevant for traffic, awareness, thought leadership, reaching new audiences, etc.
So while it may no longer a worthwhile SEO strategy, guest blogging still has some other PR-related upsides to consider.
Thousands of startups have been saying this _exact_ same thing for 10+ years in real estate. Out of all those that tried, only two have had major success.
Why?
Entrenched interests that don't want to give up control or data for fear of being disintermediated.
Regulations and association control that makes it tough to get traction & adoption.
Real estate is like anything. The vast majority of transactions are done by a fraction of the actual base. Getting traction quickly enough is very challenging.
So while it seems like a great space, and there is tons that _should_ and _could_ be done, it's a helluva battle to get things to change.
What the author does get right, however, is that the need for growth puts a lot of pressure on a founding team and sometimes that pressure can push teams to take more risks than they should.