????瑞恩?羅斯蘭斯基是領(lǐng)英（LinkedIn）的內(nèi)容產(chǎn)品主管,，他極力否認領(lǐng)英的媒體野心,，或者至少是拒絕正面發(fā)表觀點。“我們并不是從一家出版或媒體公司的角度做出這項舉措的,，”他在上周曾經(jīng)這樣告訴我,。

????“這項舉措”是指，領(lǐng)英宣布將向它的2.77億注冊用戶開放“內(nèi)容發(fā)布平臺”,。此前,，這個網(wǎng)站已經(jīng)向25,000名測試用戶開放了這個平臺。此舉實際上意味著領(lǐng)英向其用戶提供了一個充滿活力的博客工具,，但里面又有新意,。Tumblr（雅虎旗下）以及Twitter（和Blogger）創(chuàng)始人埃文?威廉姆斯運營的新站點Medium這些博客網(wǎng)站相對來說是免費向所有人開放。用戶發(fā)表博文,，使用社交媒體進行分享,，希望有人會來看。發(fā)表在領(lǐng)英上的文章針對的是已經(jīng)在你職業(yè)網(wǎng)絡(luò)中的那些人,，“你的領(lǐng)英身份是你專業(yè)資歷的記錄,，”羅斯蘭斯基說道。他表示,，新增發(fā)布長篇專業(yè)信息的功能,，“有助于確保一些人能夠在職業(yè)生涯中脫穎而出，同時改善自己的職業(yè)形象,?！?/p>

????領(lǐng)英現(xiàn)在的形象看起來已經(jīng)相當不錯了。這項大規(guī)模開放平臺的策略依據(jù)的是領(lǐng)英在2012年推出的大獲成功的影響者項目（Influencer）,。這個項目受到嚴格控制,，發(fā)布平臺只向接到邀請的知名領(lǐng)英用戶開放。影響者項目起步時有150名供稿人,，現(xiàn)在的數(shù)量在500名左右,。這些人的文章平均被瀏覽31,000次，能夠獲得81條評論以及200個“贊”（或曰讀者表示認可的方式）,。羅斯蘭斯基確認,，理查德?布蘭森和比爾?蓋茨所發(fā)布文章的數(shù)據(jù)要超過平均值，但他拒絕透露影響者項目文章的中位數(shù)統(tǒng)計數(shù)據(jù),，而那是更有意義的衡量指標（注：本人是影響者項目的初始成員,，領(lǐng)英編輯主任丹尼爾?羅斯曾經(jīng)是《財富》雜志的編輯，同時也是我的朋友）,。

????至于領(lǐng)英是否正在轉(zhuǎn)型成為一家媒體公司,，答案似乎顯而易見。羅斯蘭斯基指出,，領(lǐng)英的賺錢方式有三種：通過增值賬戶（跟其他新聞記者一樣,，領(lǐng)英向我免費提供了這種賬戶）,，在網(wǎng)站打廣告，以及面向招聘者的工具,。他說,，等到新的發(fā)布工具推動用戶更頻繁地使用網(wǎng)站，那將增加廣告機會,，鼓勵更多人注冊增值賬戶,，同時提升招聘者獲得的信息質(zhì)量。至于新的發(fā)布平臺是否是一個賺錢機會,，他提出了不同意見,。他說：“一名參與度高的用戶對我們所有三條營收線來說都是好事?！?/p>

????事實仍然是,，領(lǐng)英的“發(fā)布平臺”越看越像一筆媒體資產(chǎn)。丹?羅斯上周在接受讀寫網(wǎng)（ReadWrite）歐文?托馬斯采訪時稍微有些不謹慎,，他告訴后者,，領(lǐng)英希望找到自己的奈特?斯萊弗——斯萊弗是統(tǒng)計學(xué)家出身的作家，他起初為《紐約時報》（New York Times）撰寫文章,，現(xiàn)在則為娛樂體育節(jié)目電視網(wǎng)（ESPN）供稿,。我在這里解釋一下，以免大家產(chǎn)生困惑,，《紐約時報》和娛樂體育節(jié)目電視網(wǎng)都是媒體機構(gòu)，而下一個奈特?斯萊弗的出版商也是一家媒體機構(gòu),。

????跟所有優(yōu)秀的競爭者一樣,，領(lǐng)英并不避諱借鑒別人的思路，其中也包括傳統(tǒng)的傳媒公司,。領(lǐng)英最新的影響者最佳建議“系列文章”——我的文章鏈接在此——會讓《財富》雜志的訂閱讀者產(chǎn)生一種熟悉的感覺,。我們邀請知名領(lǐng)袖人物制作的“我得到的最佳建議”專題最初發(fā)表在《財富》雜志2005年5月21日刊，封面人物是沃倫?巴菲特,。

????如果領(lǐng)英的下一步行動中包括聘請真正的記者來補充它的業(yè)余供稿人隊伍,，大家不要感到意外。領(lǐng)英“媒體”產(chǎn)品的另一個自然延伸將是圍繞其影響者舉辦現(xiàn)場活動,。

????從一個關(guān)鍵的角度上看,，領(lǐng)英肯定跟其他出版商是不同的。也許是因為它不為內(nèi)容支付費用,，同時還規(guī)避責(zé)任——L領(lǐng)英將內(nèi)容的完全所有權(quán)授予會員供稿人,，同時承諾將刪除、注釋或編輯違反網(wǎng)站政策的文章,。

????這是多么偉大的商業(yè)模式：不用為內(nèi)容支付費用,，但又從這些內(nèi)容中賺大錢,，同時通過放棄所有權(quán)跟文章的質(zhì)量、可靠性或準確性保持距離,。領(lǐng)英絕對正在成為一家出版商——一家“不粘鍋式的”出版商,，它也許是所有出版商中利潤最高的那一種。(財富中文網(wǎng))

????譯者：王燦均

????

????Ryan Roslansky, head of content products for the company, strenuously rejects LinkedIn's media ambitions. Or at least he refuses to address them head on. "We are not approaching this from a publishing or media-company perspective," he told me last week.

????The "this" in question is LinkedIn's announcement that it is opening its "publishing platform" to all its 277 million members, beginning with a test group of 25,000. The move essentially means providing a juiced-up blogging tool to LinkedIn users, but with a twist. Blogging sites like Tumblr (owned by Yahoo) or even Medium, the new site run by Twitter (and Blogger) founder Evan Williams, are relative free-for-alls. Post your blog, tell other people about it using social media, and hope someone will see it. A post on LinkedIn is targeted at the people already in your professional network. "Your LinkedIn identity is your professional profile of record," Roslansky says. Adding the ability to post long-form professional information, he says, "helps to ensure someone can stand out and look better in their career."

????LinkedIn is looking pretty good already. The platform-for-the-masses strategy expands on the wildly successful rollout in late 2012 of the LinkedIn Influencer program, a tightly controlled, invitation-only publishing platform for well known LinkedIn users. It started with 150 contributors and now has about 500. Their posts are viewed an average of 31,000 times, provoke 81 comments, and attract 200 "likes," or expressions of approval by readers. Acknowledging that the data for posts by Richard Branson and Bill Gates skew the average, Roslansky declines to divulge median statistics for Influencer posts, which would be a more meaningful measurement. (This seems like a good place to note that I am a founding Influencer and that LinkedIn's editorial director, Daniel Roth, is a former Fortune magazine editor and current friend.)

????As for whether LinkedIn is becoming a media company, the answer seems obvious. Roslansky notes that LinkedIn makes money three ways, through premium accounts (like other journalists, LinkedIn provides one of these to me free of charge), advertising on its site, and tools for recruiters. He says that to the extent the new publishing tool encourages people to use the site more, it will increase advertising opportunities, encourage more premium accounts sign-ups, and improve the quality of information for recruiters. As for whether the new publishing platform is a money-making opportunity, he demurs, saying, "An engaged member is a good story for all three of our revenue lines."

????The fact remains that LinkedIn's "publishing platform" looks more and more like a media property. Dan Roth was slightly less circumspect with Readwrite's Owen Thomas last week, telling him that LinkedIn hoped to discover its own Nate Silver, the statistician-turned-writer, first for the New York Times and now for ESPN. Lest there be any confusion, the Times and ESPN are media organizations; the publisher of the next Nate Silver is a media organization too.

????Like any good competitor, LinkedIn isn't shy about borrowing ideas, including from traditional media companies. It latest Influencer "package" on best advice—my contribution ran here—will have a familiar ring to subscribes of Fortune magazine. Our franchise on the "Best Advice I Ever Got" cited by prominent leaders first ran in the March 21, 2005, issue of the magazine, with Warren Buffett on the cover.

????Don't be surprised if LinkedIn's next moves include hiring real journalists to complement its amateur-writer contributors. Another natural extension of the LinkedIn "media" offering would be hosting live events around its Influencers.

????In one critical way, LinkedIn certainly is different from other publishers. Perhaps because it pays nothing for its content, and also undoubtedly to avoid liability, it grants full ownership rights to its member-writers, while promising to remove, annotate or edit posts that violate its policies.

????What a great business model: Make a ton of money off content you don't pay for and distance yourself from its quality, reliability or accuracy by never owning it. LinkedIn absolutely is becoming a publisher—a Teflon publisher, perhaps the most profitable kind of all.