Accordingly, business attire is not, in fact, business attire, since people are dressed up as people not as businesses.
What a waste of bandwidth...
Similarly, the advice offered by the article was vague pablum. One example:
>The company needs to simplify its number of revenue streams and make sure that they work in concert with its user engagement and growth strategy, rather than in conflict.
Sure. How? Kind of like saying "the company needs to increase revenue by making more money".
You may not agree with that, but that's their logic. It's not quite as tautological as you make it seem.
And that was my point. The author says that LinkedIn needs to find a completely different revenue model in midstream that works for them and that its users love. Do you think there's really a revelation in there? Do you think that's never occurred to LinkedIn (or anyone who's paying attention)?
Making vague and obvious statements as a commentator is also easy. For the article to have value, it should have offered some concrete examples of how these problems could be solved.