Are We Reaching Peak LinkedIn?
I have been wondering whether we are reaching peak LinkedIn.
Not peak LinkedIn in the sense that the platform is about to disappear or suddenly stop being relevant. Quite the opposite. LinkedIn is bigger than ever. The platform now claims to have more than a billion members, and LinkedIn says revenue has grown by 12% year-on-year. Microsoft reported that LinkedIn revenue had already passed $17 billion in its 2025 financial year, while membership had reached 1.2 billion. So, commercially, LinkedIn is clearly doing rather well.
What I mean is whether we are reaching peak LinkedIn culture. Peak personal branding, content creation and trying to understand the algorithm; the peak of people telling us how to write the perfect hook, how many times to post each week, when to comment, what type of post LinkedIn supposedly favours and, increasingly, peak AI-generated content that has been polished until every last trace of the person who wrote it has disappeared.
Perhaps the question isn't whether LinkedIn is reaching its peak, but it is whether the way we have been using LinkedIn has reached its peak.
LinkedIn is still growing, but so is the noise
There is an important distinction here because it would be very easy to write an article declaring that "LinkedIn is dead". It isn't. The figures don't support that argument.
LinkedIn says it now has more than 1.3 billion members, and its own figures show that original posts increased by 14% year-on-year, while knowledge-oriented comments increased by 11%. Paid video is also growing, with LinkedIn reporting almost 30% year-on-year growth in that area.
That tells us something quite important. People are still using the platform, and they are still creating content.
People are still talking, learning, recruiting, selling, networking and looking for opportunities.
The problem is that there is now an enormous amount of competition for attention, and when more content competes for the same attention, the temptation is to create even more. If posting three times a week worked, perhaps five times a week will work better. If a useful post gets 2,000 views, perhaps we need to publish another one tomorrow. If somebody else's personal story gets hundreds of comments, perhaps we need to tell a more dramatic version of our own.
Before long, marketing can become an endless and exhausting exercise in trying to keep up with LinkedIn rather than a way of helping the people we actually want to reach.
That is where I think we have started to lose the plot.
We have turned LinkedIn into a performance
There is nothing inherently wrong with personal branding. In fact, for small businesses, particularly service-based businesses, I think being visible as a real person can be extremely valuable.
The difficulty is that somewhere along the way, personal branding started to become more and more about personal performance.
We have become very familiar with the formula. Start with a dramatic sentence, then leave a gap between every line, then add a story about something that happened on the school run, in a coffee shop or while sitting in the car. Then, of course, you need to introduce a profound business lesson and finish with a question designed to encourage comments.
Again, none of these things are automatically bad. As a genuinely interesting story can make a really engaging post.
A personal experience can make an otherwise abstract business lesson memorable, and a great question can start a useful conversation.
The problem comes when we start manufacturing these things because we believe we are supposed to.
You can feel the difference when you read something that somebody actually wanted to say compared with something that somebody felt they needed to produce because Tuesday was "content day".
I think audiences are becoming much better at spotting that difference.
Then AI arrived
If the LinkedIn feed was already becoming crowded, AI has poured petrol on the problem.
Producing content is now incredibly easy. You can take a vague idea and turn it into a polished LinkedIn post in seconds. You can ask AI for ten variations, five hooks, three endings and a stronger call to action. You can make something sound more confident, more authoritative, more emotional or more conversational without necessarily having to spend very long thinking about what you actually believe.
There is nothing wrong with using AI as a tool. I use technology myself, and I don't think we should pretend that every word anyone publishes online has to be typed entirely unaided.
But there is a huge difference between using AI to help you communicate an idea and asking AI to come up with the idea, the personality and the experience for you.
LinkedIn has proven that they see there is a problem. In June, the company said it was taking steps to reduce generic content and automated engagement, including systems designed to identify content that lacks perspective or feels repetitive. LinkedIn said its initial testing was correctly identifying generic content 94% of the time.
Then things went a step further.
In July, LinkedIn introduced a "seems like AI slop" reporting option. Within the first few weeks, many people had claimed to have used it. LinkedIn then said members were seeing around 40% fewer views on content it classified as AI slop compared with a few weeks earlier.
But was the content AI-generated, or was it content people maybe just didn't like? This is the worrying thing: when you put the power into the users' hands, it can be misused and perfectly helpful post scan be reported and others that are AI not.
The irony is that AI is making authenticity more valuable
It's this bit that I find the most interesting...
We have spent years being told that we need to produce more content, more consistently and at greater speed. AI has finally made that possible, and now LinkedIn is having to work out how to stop the resulting flood of generic-sounding content from making the platform less useful.
LinkedIn's own guidance is clear. The company says AI can help with refining language, proofreading and making writing more concise, but the content should still reflect the person's own voice, perspective and experience. It describes "AI slop" as content that may look polished but lacks a clear point of view, unique perspective or substance.
That is a much bigger issue than whether something was technically written by AI.
A human can write boring content.
A human can copy somebody else's ideas.
A human can write something purely to generate engagement.
AI can help somebody produce something genuinely useful.
The real issue is whether there is a person behind the content who has something worth saying.
This is where I think the next path leads us, and where I believe LinkedIn is heading.
We may be moving from visibility to recognition
For years now, much of the advice around LinkedIn has focused on visibility.
How do I get more views?
How do I increase my followers?
How do I get more comments?
How do I make a post go viral?
Those things can be useful, but they are not necessarily the same thing as good marketing.
Imagine a therapist who publishes a post that receives 50,000 views. It gets shared all over LinkedIn and attracts hundreds of comments. It feels like a huge success.
But suppose almost none of those people live anywhere near the therapist, are looking for the type of support they provide or have any intention of becoming a client.
Now imagine another post receives 600 views. Five of those people are exactly the type of clients the therapist wants to work with. One visits the website, another follows them, and somebody else gets in touch three weeks later.
Which post was more successful?
The first one looks better in the statistics.
The second one might be better for the business.
This is why I think we need to stop confusing getting lots of attention with effectiveness. Marketing isn't successful simply because lots of people saw it. It is successful when the right people understand it, remember it and know what to do next.
Perhaps we have reached peak "being everywhere"
There is another reason I think this matters, particularly for small business owners.
LinkedIn can become a second job.
There is the time spent thinking of ideas, writing posts, creating graphics, responding to comments, commenting on other people's posts, sending messages, checking analytics and wondering why Tuesday's post received 37% fewer impressions than Thursday's.
Then there is the guilt.
"I haven't posted this week."
"I really should be more consistent."
"I haven't engaged enough."
"Everyone else seems to be doing more than me."
It becomes very easy to measure your commitment to your business by how visible you are on social media.
But being busy on LinkedIn is not necessarily the same thing as moving your business forward.
Sometimes the better use of that hour is improving your website.
Following up with someone who has already expressed interest.
Writing an email to your existing audience.
Having a proper conversation with a potential collaborator.
Or simply doing the actual work your clients are paying you for.
And sometimes you need to step away from LinkedIn altogether and remember that your business exists outside of LinkedIn and in the 'real world'.
So, are we actually reaching peak LinkedIn?
My answer is: possibly, but not in the way you might think.
I don't think LinkedIn is going anywhere. The numbers make that pretty clear. It has more than 1.3 billion members, revenue continues to grow, and the company is investing heavily in improving its recommendation and content systems. In March 2026, LinkedIn announced a new generation of its feed ranking technology, using large language models to better understand what posts are actually about and match them with people's interests.
What I feel may be reaching its peak is the idea that success on LinkedIn comes from producing more, posting more frequently and becoming increasingly skilled at playing the platform, because when everyone knows the formula, the formula stops being unique.
When everybody has a polished personal brand, a polished personal brand becomes less interesting.
When everybody is using the same AI prompts to create the same style of "thought leadership", sounding like an actual human being becomes a competitive advantage. Then the biggest one: when everyone is desperately trying to get attention, being useful becomes surprisingly powerful.
Perhaps the future is simply being more yourself
I don't think the answer is to abandon LinkedIn or suddenly decide that content marketing doesn't work. Instead, I think the answer is to become much more selective about why you are there.
What do you actually want the person reading your post to understand about you? What do you know from experience that would genuinely help them? What questions are your customers asking? What do they struggle to understand? What might make them trust you enough to start a conversation?
Those questions are much more useful than "What should I post today?"
Your best marketing may not be the post that gets the most attention. It may be the one that makes the right person stop scrolling and think, "Finally. Someone who understands me."
That is the kind of visibility I am interested in.
Not being everywhere.
Not trying to beat the algorithm.
Not turning your entire life into content.
Simply making it easier for the right people to find you, understand you, recognise that you are for them and decide whether they want to take the next step.
LinkedIn may continue to grow for many years yet. In fact, the evidence suggests it probably will, but perhaps we are reaching peak LinkedIn in another sense: peak posting, peak personal-brand performance and peak content designed to satisfy the platform rather than your ideal customer, and if that is where we are heading, I don't think the answer is to shout louder. Instead, look at having something real to say and then say it in your own voice and most importantly, make sure the person reading it understands why it matters to them.
So, what does this mean for your marketing?
Perhaps instead of spending another hour worrying about what LinkedIn wants from you, it is worth stepping back and looking at what happens when someone actually finds you.
Can they understand what you do? Do they recognise that it is for them? Do they trust you? Can they see why they should choose you? And is the next step obvious?
Because LinkedIn is only part of the journey. Getting attention is one thing, but turning that attention into enquiries is another.
If you want to see how your own marketing looks through your customer's eyes, my free Marketing Scorecard takes you through ten simple questions to help you spot where things might not be connecting. And if you already know something isn't working but can't quite put your finger on what, my Marketing Audit takes a closer look at your marketing and the journey you're asking potential customers to take.
As just maybe, the answer to LinkedIn isn't posting more; it's making sure the marketing you already have actually connects with people.
Comments