Do Marketing Agencies Really Benefit When They Buy LinkedIn Followers?

[Emmyjohn]

Some agencies claim faster credibility when they buy linkedin followers, but I'm curious if this actually helps engagement or just inflates numbers. Is this strategy tested over the long term and has it any effect on reach, impressions or account safety?

 

[SarahWren]

Although marketing agencies might get a temporary rise in "social proof, " buying LinkedIn followers is, at the end of the day, a net negative strategy. The followers are basically bots or dormant accounts that do not give any engagement, thus are a negative signal to the LinkedIn algorithm, telling it that your content is of low quality, and it is therefore greatly limiting your organic reach. Besides, savvy B2B clients can easily see the mismatch between a huge follower count and low post interaction, thus the agency's credibility that the purchase aimed to establish is destroyed. Most of all, it is a breach of LinkedIn's terms of service, and therefore, the account is very likely to get shadowbanned or suspended permanently.

 

[Gdinscecar]

No, marketing agencies don’t really benefit from buying LinkedIn followers. Purchased followers are usually inactive or fake, which means low engagement and zero leads. LinkedIn’s algorithm values real interactions, not inflated numbers, so visibility doesn’t improve. Worse, a high follower count with poor engagement can damage credibility with clients who know what authentic growth looks like.

 

[robbinhook]

Buying LinkedIn followers might boost numbers, but it doesn’t help meaningful engagement. Fake or inactive followers don’t interact with posts, so your reach, credibility, and lead generation won’t improve. Organic growth through quality content and networking is more valuable and effective than buying followers.