I understand what the article was saying and I don&#x27;t disagree. In fact, I&#x27;m saying it&#x27;s obvious. Your explanation effectively repeated it, using equally vague terms.<p>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&#x27;s really a revelation in there? Do you think that&#x27;s never occurred to LinkedIn (or anyone who&#x27;s paying attention)?<p>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.