May 05, 2015Organizations should treat social media as they would any other electronically stored information and assume it is potentially discoverable. Und...
April 07, 2015If content is king, then certainly customer experience is an integral part of the royal court. As companies everywhere invest in content marketi...
March 19, 2015It’s no surprise social customer service demand is on the rise. To stay ahead of the game, your brand must formalize a streamlined and scala...
March 13, 2015Fifty-seven percent of customers expect the same level of response through social channels as traditional support channels. That can be cha...
Aug 8 Posted 7 months ago
The problem that will be the continuing plague of Google+ is also the a fundamental trait of internet browsing: expecting anonymoty and/or separation of lifestyles.
Cutting this short, Google resorted to creating their social media environment embedded in the hierarchy of their entire website. As a web user, my existence on the web is created by the websites that I frequent. I have a presence on Facebook. As well as a few pages. And a small profile in Linkdin. And an old Myspace page where I posted my music during my college days.
My point is I created a user for these specific environments, and all these environments don't co-exist. As well, This ecosystem also coincides (but not affiliates) with a program (Search) I use to ask very private questions.
The latter will throw me off very quickly. Logged into a website that can keep my search history? No thanks. Does that show up in Google+? It doesn't? Oh, blimey! That's like going to the doctor's office but your entire high school class can possibly get your health notes SMSd straight to their phone.
You can't keep a system with a search history as an option. No one wants it by default, or has ever wanted it by default. Then, you want me to keep searching while logged in as a specific entity with a public social media page? Has it ever occurred to Google+ that the essence of social media is based on the assumed freedom of what someone gives up on the internet? Operationally, Google has done nothing wrong. But psychologically, by emphasizing logging into a network where people use its search mechanism 30-40 times a day, with sensitive topics, wouldn't they have thought to separate the UI in a way that wouldn't scare the hell out of someone's search topic?
It seems far-fetched, but a lot of users are turned off to the fact that they have to sign up for a "searchable" social media program that emphasizes publicity on the exact same site that sensitive subjects are searched?
The environments of the internet will be behaved differently, based on the users' wants. If I decide to post a crazy rebuttal on a Youtube dance video, does it have to be tied to my username? Do I have to choose whether a comment on a video ends up on a public page I never use? If I have 3 business, that means I have to signup for 3 different accounts? If I send my family a photo, will it show up somewhere on the internet? Or is it private? It is just my circle, but what about Google Drive?
The problem is, there are too many competing programs, and there is too much content public & private that would be attributable to just one account.
Google should've gone the Facebook route and allowed + users to add a "page" or avatar, and it can represent themselves in different formats. I might not want my Youtube page to correlate with my + page. I might have two separate business that need their own G+. Along with Youtube username to upload business videos. I might use + for networking and a collation of pokemon pictures. Does that mean they have to be showcased on my stream? Can I get a 2nd stream? What ends up fully public?
Without the ability of creating different avatars for each account, it makes + unusable because of perceived lack of privacy and content control. Users aren't guided to + as a singular product, but instead attribute it to all things they may do on Google and promptly log-out. The landscape is convoluted, and being stuck with one existence in Google+ makes it even harder. They will succeed when they separate all of their products into clickable items, and the ability to add avatars to the account to separate from the public space. Line is too gray on what is public and private, clearing it with separating user names within accounts would be a great first step. If not UI, as a psychological ease on user comfort in general.
Jun 27 Posted 9 months ago
I think that there is still a large distinction between Facebook and Google Plus. Like you mentioned, Google Plus is for networking and building your professional online brand, whereas Facebook is definitely more personal and focused on the private lives of individuals. I would say there is more similarity between LinkedIn and Google Plus (for SEO purposes) than with Facebook which by large is not used for professional networking.
I run an online platform (http://www.getserio.com/) designed for company hirers and online freelancers, and have found that LinkedIn has played the dominant role in our online marketing strategy.
Jun 23 Posted 9 months ago
Google+ will overtake facebook or not it can be prediction only.. but one thing is for sure that google+ has the ability to overtake the facebook NOW
Mar 13 Posted 1 year ago
Realistically I don't see G+ completely overtaking Facebook. Right now there is a social media migration going on as users are travelling to different social media channels other than Facebook. In the past we witnessed a mass-migration from MySpace to Facebook, but I don't really see a mass-migration happening from Facebook to G+.
Instead it will be a relatively slow migration in which social media users start turning to other platforms, but not just a singular platform like G+.
Mar 12 Posted 1 year ago
Social science is veyr complicated and close to unpredictable, however it is quite porbable that G+ will overtake Facebook. Recently many of my colleagues switched to Google Plus. I personally think that Google Plus is mostly used for professional purposes nowadays.