LinkedIn introduces Group Statistics

LinkedIn have launched Group Statistics whereby you can view the statistics for each group that you’ve joined. I recently just left a few groups which I felt were full of spammers, feeds, no discussions or lack of engagement, lack of value and no real growth. The new stats may help marketers identify which groups they should join to get the best value from. Alternatively if you have your own corporate LinkedIn group these stats will help you understand how your group is performing and help you identify growth, target audiences, job functions etc.

Take a look at the stats for the CIMCIG group (one of which I enjoy participating in and advise all marketers within the construction industry to join):

CIMCIG LinkedIn Group Summary

CIMCIG LinkedIn Group DemographicsCIMCIG LinkedIn Group GrowthCIMCIG LinkedIn Group Activity

Pretty simple hey? Look at that growth chart especially in 2011 with a 23% WoW growth! Wonder what the stats are for other popular LinkedIn groups?

About Stuart Dinnie

Stuart has worked in the world of digital marketing for over 15 years. With his measured and planned approach, he has delivered robust digital strategies for construction companies to achieve real business growth. He now heads up the team at Pauley Creative as Managing Director and is leading his team & clients towards digital marketing excellence. He’s worked with over 100 construction clients; helping them on their digital transformation journey, providing sustainable strategies that return year on year incremental growth, delivering award-winning websites and adding value from board level to marketing assistant.

3 Responses to “LinkedIn introduces Group Statistics”

  1. Ross Sturley

    I wanted to compare to other groups too. Hopefully the capability for group owners to compare to some benchmarks (mean, lower quartile, upper quartile) will come soon. I’m told the CIMCG group is ‘one of the more active’, but it’s hard to measure that.

  2. Pritesh Patel

    Hi Ross

    Thanks for the comment. I have done a comparison on a few groups also and what I am finding is that it might be best to take a ratio between ‘the number of discussions created’ and ‘the number of comments’.

    The CIMCIG group is a 1:1 – for every one discussion there is a comment. Good level of engagement I would say.

    However, another group has 3 comments, 18 discussions. Less engagement. I’m not too bothered by the quantity of members. Irrelevant for me.

  3. Ross Sturley

    How about the depth of engagement – the proportion of members involved in discussions? Still would like linkedin to provide some sort of banchmark against which to compare. Glad you think we have good engagement though!


Leave a Reply