LinkedIn InMail Spam: A Hall of Shame

LinkedIn data shows that personalized InMails get 40-50% response rates while generic templates get 10-15%. You'd think recruiters would learn from this.

You would be wrong.

I spent the last month collecting the worst recruiter InMails sent to actual candidates. These are not exaggerated. These are copy-pasted verbatim. Names removed to protect the guilty.

Buckle up.

Category 1: The "I Definitely Read Your Profile" Lie

InMail #1: Software Engineer → Dental Hygienist Role

"Hi [Name]! I came across your profile and think you'd be a perfect fit for our Dental Hygienist position! Your experience aligns perfectly with what we're looking for. Interested in chatting?"

The candidate's profile: 10 years as a backend software engineer. Not one mention of teeth, dentistry, or any interest in the medical field. Not even a volunteer role at a dental clinic.

This recruiter saw "profile" and "available" and fired away. Reading is apparently optional.

InMail #2: Marketing Manager → Truck Driver Opening

"Your marketing background makes you an ideal candidate for our CDL-A Truck Driver position. Competitive pay and benefits!"

I have so many questions. What part of "B2B SaaS Marketing Manager" screams "ready to drive a semi cross-country"? Was the recruiter using a dartboard to match candidates to jobs?

The candidate replied: "I don't have a CDL, I've never driven a truck, and I'm very confused why you think this is relevant."

No response from the recruiter. Shocking.

Category 2: The "We Definitely Have a Real Job" Energy

InMail #3: The Vague Opportunity

"Hi! We have an AMAZING opportunity that I think would be perfect for you! Competitive salary, great culture, exciting work! Are you interested in learning more??"

Cool. What's the company? What's the role? What's the location? What's the salary range?

"Let's hop on a quick call to discuss!"

No. Tell me literally anything about this "opportunity" first. This is the recruiting equivalent of "I have a great investment opportunity, just wire me $5,000 and I'll explain later."

InMail #4: The Mystery Company

"I'm working with a top-tier tech company (name withheld due to confidentiality) seeking a Senior Engineer. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity!"

If it's such an amazing opportunity, why is the company name confidential? Are they hiring engineers or recruiting for the CIA?

This approach only works if your "confidential company" is actually impressive. Most of the time it's a startup nobody's heard of that thinks secrecy makes them seem important.

Spoiler: It doesn't.

Category 3: The "I Copy-Pasted This to 500 People" Template

InMail #5: Zero Effort Template

"Hello [FIRST_NAME],

I hope this email finds you well. I wanted to reach out regarding an exciting opportunity with [COMPANY_NAME] for the position of [JOB_TITLE].

Your background in [SKILL_1], [SKILL_2], and [SKILL_3] makes you an ideal candidate.

Let me know if you'd like to discuss further.

Best regards, [RECRUITER_NAME]"

They forgot to replace the merge fields. The candidate received an InMail literally addressed to "[FIRST_NAME]" looking for someone with skills in "[SKILL_1], [SKILL_2], and [SKILL_3]."

This is beyond lazy. This is performance art about laziness.

InMail #6: The Wrong Name

"Hi Jennifer! I was impressed by your profile and think you'd be a great fit for..."

The candidate's name is Michael. Not even close to Jennifer. Not a typo—a completely different name.

Michael replied: "I'm not Jennifer, but good luck finding her."

The recruiter responded: "Sorry about that! Are you interested anyway?"

No. No, Michael is not interested in working with a recruiter who can't even get his name right.

Category 4: The "This Role Pays Nothing But It's a Great Opportunity!" Pitch

InMail #7: The Unpaid "Opportunity"

"We're looking for a Senior Full-Stack Developer to join our exciting startup! This is an unpaid position initially, but there's potential for equity and future compensation once we secure funding. Great opportunity to get in on the ground floor!"

Translation: "Work for free, maybe get paid someday if we don't go bankrupt first."

The candidate has 8 years of experience and current employment at a FAANG company. What part of their profile suggests they want to work for free at a pre-funding startup?

InMail #8: The "Exposure" Payment

"This role pays $40K/year, but you'll gain incredible experience and work directly with the CEO! Plus, our office has free snacks!"

For a Senior Software Engineer role in San Francisco. Market rate is $180K-$220K.

But hey, free snacks! Surely that closes the $140K compensation gap.

The candidate replied: "My rent is more than $40K/year. Please don't contact me again."

Reasonable response, honestly.

Category 5: The Red Flag Factory

InMail #9: The Immediate Red Flags

"Wanted: ROCKSTAR NINJA CODE WIZARD who THRIVES in FAST-PACED, HIGH-STRESS environments!! Must be willing to work nights and weekends because we're CRUSHING IT 24/7!!! Unlimited PTO* (*manager approval required)"

This job description is giving "we have no boundaries, terrible management, and a 200% annual turnover rate" energy.

The asterisk on "unlimited PTO" is chef's kiss. Nothing says "we trust our employees" like requiring manager approval for your "unlimited" time off.

InMail #10: The Salary Range Insult

"Salary range: $50,000 - $250,000 depending on experience"

This range is so wide it's useless. A $200K variance tells candidates exactly nothing except that you have no idea what the role should pay.

Minnesota and Illinois specifically prohibit open-ended salary ranges like "$50K and up" for exactly this reason—they're meaningless.

Either post a real range or admit you're hoping to lowball whoever doesn't know better.

Category 6: The Peak Cringe

InMail #11: The Weird Personal Comments

"I noticed you went to University of Michigan—GO BLUE! I also see you enjoy hiking based on your photos. I love hiking too! Anyway, wanted to reach out about a Customer Success Manager role..."

Sir, this is a professional networking platform, not a dating app. Commenting on someone's personal photos is creepy, not relationship-building.

There's a line between personalization and being weird. This recruiter found the line, crossed it, and kept going.

InMail #12: The Desperate Follow-Up

After no response to the first InMail:

"Hey! Following up on my previous message. Still interested?"

After no response to the second:

"Just wanted to check in one more time!"

After no response to the third:

"I know you're probably busy, but this is a great opportunity and I'd hate for you to miss out!"

After no response to the fourth:

"Is everything okay?"

No response means no interest. Following up once or twice is fine. Four times is harassment.

What Recruiters Should Learn From This

Personalized, targeted InMails get 40-50% response rates. Generic spam gets ignored or roasted.

If you want responses:

Actually read the candidate's profile
Explain what the role is, where it's located, and what it pays
Personalize your message with something specific about their experience
Don't follow up more than twice if they don't respond
For the love of everything, replace your merge field variables before sending

None of this is complicated. It's basic professionalism mixed with not being creepy.

The Bottom Line

These InMails are real. Recruiters actually sent these. People got paid to write messages that ended up in this hall of shame.

LinkedIn data proves that personalization works. Mass templates don't. And yet, recruiters keep blasting generic messages to hundreds of people and wondering why nobody responds.

If you're a recruiter reading this: Check your sent InMails. If any of them resemble the garbage above, stop. Delete your templates. Start over.

If you're a candidate receiving these: You're not alone. We're all suffering through this together.

And if you're the recruiter who sent the truck driver opportunity to a marketing manager: We need to talk.

Sources:

The Daily Hire