17 Reasons to Use LinkedIn’s New Lead Forms vs. Facebookhttp://1.gravatar.com/avatar/?s=96&d=mm&r=g
17 Reasons to Use LinkedIn’s New Lead Forms vs. Facebook
LinkedIn’s lead forms are a step in the right direction for the platform and although caveats exist, they are overall an excellent tool that marketers should take advantage of to further lead generation agendas. If you are looking for that little shove or more information to help you make up your mind regarding leveraging LinkedIn’s new lead forms in comparison to the similar feature on Facebook, here are 17 reasons.
Preselected info categories
LinkedIn forms are limited to 7 categories in a move aimed at reducing the probability of losing potential leads due to cumbersome signup processes. Dissimilarly, Facebook forms have more categories which may discourage potential leads from signing up.
Even better, LinkedIn forms autofill from users’ profiles during signup. Coupled with the minimal 7 categories, a potential lead may end up filling only three or four text boxes unlike Facebook which, though also utilizing autofill, can have as many as 10+ categories most of which call for manual fill up.
Single step vs. two-step signup
LinkedIn signup is a one-step affair which points at the intent focus of the platform on ensuring an unencumbered user experience. Contrastingly, Facebook lead forms have an extra terms and conditions step.
Scare leads away
Experts propose that the extra terms and conditions step in Facebook forms contributes to making a significant percentage of leads get cold feet. This is a nonexistent risk in LinkedIn by virtue of the step missing altogether.
Most professionals who are serious about building sound networks take to LinkedIn first which makes it a highly targeted platform for accessing the general business community. The same cannot be said of Facebook which has a more general audience.
The demographic on LinkedIn is more uniform compared to Facebook’s which is wider and more varied. LinkedIn is thus a naturally more attractive channel for getting leads. Facebook offsets this by offering superior targeting options.
With a more filtered audience and easy signup, the resultant effect is a higher lead quality for LinkedIn. To achieve a similar lead quality on Facebook, more work will have to go into figuring out the right target metrics to leverage.
Cost per lead
LinkedIn’s cost per lead is slightly higher compared to Facebook’s, but this is to be expected from a lead quality viewpoint. A cost-benefit analysis that factors in all relevant metrics including man-hours is likely to point at LinkedIn as preferable though this is not cast in stone due to the variability of metrics of importance to different people and campaigns.
Facebook has more pseudo-accounts compared to LinkedIn hence LinkedIn lead forms have an increased probability of getting higher genuine viewership and signups for a given number of people. However, due to Facebook’s staggering user base, with some work, superior actual viewership may still be realized through the platform.
To sum up reach, Facebook has a humongous but less targeted reach while LinkedIn has a smaller more targeted audience. Which one you go for will depend on your needs even though in principle, you should use both.
LinkedIn users keep their profiles more current and updated compared to Facebook users. Therefore, highly relevant data can be gleaned from a lead’s LinkedIn profile to help create a customized value proposition to drive conversions
LinkedIn plans to roll out many different features to offer marketers increased flexibility. Lead forms will soon be available for in mail ads, for example, and they are also working overtime on the analytics front. On the other side of the fence, Facebook does not seem to have many things planned apart from bettering analytics.
B2C vs. B2B
Facebook is excellent as a business to consumer platform while LinkedIn shines at availing business to business linkage. As such, lead forms on LinkedIn can potentially activate bigger deals since companies are oriented towards bulk purchasing to drive down costs.
As a business platform, LinkedIn has a better reputation due to the professional demographic it attracts. This good reputation makes it easier for marketers to get and interact with leads since people put up minimal interaction shields.
With its many options and tweaks, Facebook has a bigger workload which translates to more man-hours. Comparatively, setting up a campaign on LinkedIn is more straightforward even though the lack of added alternatives means reduced flexibility.
Many who have already used LinkedIn report a better ROI if a campaign is carried out prudently with expert skill. This, of course, is music to marketers’ ears and it is one of the reasons why LinkedIn lead forms are rapidly growing in popularity.
People on LinkedIn are more receptive to direct business communication compared to Facebook. Thus, successfully reaching out to a lead is often more fruitful which makes the platform more appealing as a lead source.
Using Facebook or LinkedIn lead forms should not be an either-or scenario; rather, both should be utilized for the different benefits they provide. At the outset, however, emphasis on LinkedIn is advisable.