Inmail is LinkedIn’s internal messaging system that allows users to contact other members outside of their network. It can be a useful tool for making professional connections and recruiting talent. However, Inmail has also developed a reputation for being misused for spamming purposes. In this article, we’ll examine the question of whether Inmail constitutes spam or not.
What is Inmail?
Inmail is a private messaging system within LinkedIn that allows any member to contact another member even if they are not directly connected. Regular LinkedIn members get a limited number of Inmails per month while paid Premium members get more access.
Inmail messages bypass the recipient’s inbox and appear in the Messages section of their LinkedIn account. Recipients can choose to reply, ignore, or report Inmail messages.
The idea behind Inmail was to facilitate professional communication and recruitment between LinkedIn members. However, over time it has been used for unsolicited outreach which has contributed to a perception of Inmail as spam.
Key Differences Between Inmail and Spam
While Inmail is sometimes abused for spam-like behavior, there are some key differences between true spam and Inmail:
Opt-in Platform
LinkedIn is an opt-in platform where members create profiles and agree to communicate with others on the site. Unlike email spam which is sent without consent, Inmails are only received by active LinkedIn members who signed up for some level of communication.
Reputation System
LinkedIn incorporates profile-based reputation signals. When receiving an Inmail, you can view the sender’s profile, connections, credentials, recommendations etc. This provides helpful context compared to anonymous email spam.
Reporting System
Recipients can report inappropriate Inmails which may lead to the sender being restricted or banned from the platform. Email spam does not have an integrated reporting system.
Sales Prospecting vs Malicious Intent
Most perceived “Inmail spam” is actually sales prospecting from recruiters or business development professionals. While potentially unwanted, it does not have the malicious intents that characterize true spam such as phishing scams, malware distribution, etc.
Pros of Inmail for Professional Communication
Despite some misuse cases, Inmail remains a valuable tool when used properly for legitimate professional networking and recruiting. Benefits include:
– Direct access to passive candidates who aren’t actively job searching. This allows for more proactive recruiting.
– Ability to contact prospects who you have no existing connections with. This enables wider outreach, especially helpful for sales.
– Surface-level screening based on LinkedIn profiles. You can view someone’s credentials and experience before reaching out.
– More direct and effective than broadcasting to your whole network. Inmail allows tailored messaging to specific individuals.
– Appears directly in the LinkedIn Messages section leading to higher visibility and response rate compared to email.
Cons of Inmail as a Spam Vector
There are also some drawbacks that enable the perception of Inmail as spam:
High Volume Outreach
Some recruiters or sales professionals use automated tools or templates to send high volumes of generic Inmails. This lack of personalization feels spammy.
Irrelevant Contacts
In some cases, people receive Inmails promoting opportunities unrelated to their current job, skills or interests. This irrelevant targeting contributes to a spam sensation.
Feels Intrusive
Since Inmails appear directly in the LinkedIn messaging section rather than an external email inbox, some recipients perceive them as more intrusive and annoying.
Restricted Reply Options
Unlike email where recipients can freely reply, Inmail restricts who can reply. This feels limiting and spam-like for the recipient.
Frequency Caps are High
Even unpaid members can send up to 15 Inmails per month while Premium members can send up to 1,800 per month. These high caps enable spammier activity.
Best Practices for Professional Inmail Etiquette
If using Inmail for legitimate professional networking and recruiting, keep these etiquette practices in mind:
Personalize Each Message
Avoid copy-pasted templates and include specifics about the recipient’s experience, skills, company etc. This shows genuine interest in them.
Introduce Yourself and Your Purpose
Explain who you are, your professional role, and your reason for connecting. Don’t make them guess.
Be Transparent and Honest
Get straight to the point. Don’t trick them into thinking you want to network only to pivot to a sales pitch.
Make it Easy to Learn More or Follow Up
Include links to your website, LinkedIn profile or other relevant pages where they can vet you.
Respect Their Time and Boundaries
Don’t persistently re-Inmail someone who hasn’t responded. Take the hint and move on.
Use discretion when contacting less connections or publicly listed people
Selectively target people likely to appreciate your outreach vs spamming every possible prospect. Prioritize quality over quantity.
Guidelines for Reporting LinkedIn Inmail Spam
If you receive an Inmail that feels like spam, here is how to report it:
Open the Inmail Message
You can’t report directly from your inbox. Open the message thread first.
Look for the Report Option
There should be an option to report the message in the upper right corner with an explanation mark icon.
Select the Reason for Reporting
Choose options like “commercially advertising”, “inappropriate content” or “harassing me” based on the situation.
Add any Details to Describe the Issue
Provide written context on why you felt the need to report this Inmail message.
Submit Your Report to LinkedIn
LinkedIn will review the reported Inmail and take action if it violates their professional community policies.
Optionally Block the Sender
You can also block the sender directly from the message thread to prevent future contacts.
Red Flags: Signs of a LinkedIn Spammer
Watch for these red flags to identify potential Inmail spammers:
– Sending the exact same Inmail to you multiple times
– Extremely short connection history, especially if recently created
– Profile lacks details, work history, connections or seems fake
– Images used appear stock or generic vs authentic photos
– Inmail references a “great opportunity” without specifics
– Messages have spelling and grammar mistakes
– Quickly pivots conversation to sales pitch without context
– Persistently re-messages you despite lack of response
Should LinkedIn Limit or Filter Inmail to Reduce Spam?
LinkedIn faces an ongoing challenge balancing Inmail’s professional communication value against its abuse for spam-like purposes. Here are some potential changes they could implement:
Stricter Frequency Caps
Lower daily/monthly limits on Inmails sent, especially for unpaid members or those with sparse connections.
Sensitivity Filters on Message Content
Automated scanning to flag high volumes of similar Inmails or content with phrases like “great opportunity”.
Poor Sender Reputation Restrictions
Temporarily restrict accounts with high blocks or spam reports from sending Inmails.
Double Opt-In for First Contact
Require recipients to confirm they are open to being contacted before receiving someone’s initial Inmail.
However, excessive limitations could also undermine the intended value of Inmail for enabling direct professional communication between members. Overall, a balanced approach is likely needed.
Conclusion
Inmail has a mixed reputation – while it can enable productive professional relationships, it is also frequently perceived as an annoying spam channel. The reality is nuanced. With proper etiquette and restraint, Inmail remains a useful tool. But overly promotional or high-volume outreach that feels inauthentic and intrusive justifiably earns criticism. LinkedIn faces an ongoing challenge policing this line to keep Inmail effective while preventing its abuse. With a combination of technological filters and enhanced user policies, they may find an approach that works. But some degree of human judgment will always be required in moderation. Overall, Inmail inherently carries risks as a messaging system across weak ties. But with the right precautions and norms, its professional communication value can outweigh the negatives.
