The clearest answer to me is that people are curious about them by their title. If your title doesn’t evoke curiosity, they won’t read it.
Why am I sharing this? I am currently watching a LinkedIn Learning called Tips for Writing Emails. Of course, all the tips are valid, but like my old newspaper editor used to say titles are the reason that people read an article.
Now reflecting on my experience publishing on LinkedIn/website, a curious division exists. On LinkedIn, the posts have a limited shelf life. Only one article had people looking at it for more than 3 days and that was because an influencer liked it and it got 9000+ views. Previous to that influencer, my best post was about 2000 views about the risk of the apple laptop charger.
However, on my website, the post can continue to gain views as long as I keep it up. Practically speaking, LinkedIn turns information sour quickly and is hard to find. I know because I tried to search for something that I had seen earlier that day and I couldn’t find it. What would make more sense is that all the past posts from a member should be retrievable, and LinkedIn should be more of a database than a website. If LinkedIn was Salesforce, we would both find jobs easier and cut down on the BS that we are forced to endure.
Clearly, Microsoft-owned LinkedIn will never become Salesforce unless they buy them. It is interesting to think about, however. Microsoft is both benefiting from the past and burdened by it. They are burdened by old ways of doing things, and even though they use technologies like Copilot to address this, it adds complexity for the average worker. See this about Salesforce.
No Salesforce is not paying me, but I have been learning about it and am just so impressed with how integrated it is. This is clearly the future, and companies that resist this way of thinking will be left behind.
Grab their attention, and you can have a chance to win their heart.