Attending The Social Shake-up in Atlanta this week? Send us a note if you'd like to meet up at the event.

Why Google+ Doesn't Stand a Chance Against Facebook

Why Google+ doesn't stand a chance against Facebook
So by now, you've likely heard Google+ is coming to an internet near you.

You may have taken a look at the demo, or gotten an early invitation, you might think this could usher in the next generation of social networking.

And you might be right.

I'll admit, I'm anxious to see if Google's actually gotten it right this time.

Google will be the first to introduce us to Web 3.0

The next generation of social networking is about to happen, no doubt about it.

Signs of Web 3.0 are clear, if you know what to look for.

Sites like Neflix and Pandora use your existing preferences to suggest new movies and music tailored to you. Facebook uses your likes and interests to target ads.

Web 3.o's core concept is that all of your data is collected and used to deliver results tailored to you. 

Tell Sparks what you’re into and it will send you stuff it thinks you’ll like, so when you’re free, there’s always something cool to watch, read, or share.

Sounds cool right, never be bored because you’ll always have something interesting coming your way…

Here’s why my money is on Facebook.

Facebook is a predator.

In 7 years Facebook has adopted many of the web’s most social technologies, has become largest information sharing hub, and with

the “like” button and open graph protocol worked it’s way into the backbone of the internet.

Every feature Google+ touts, Facebook has likely been developing for much longer than we realize.

They’re just waiting for the right moment to pounce.

Google+ Features and how Facebook will do it better.

Google+ descriptions by Mashable , then look at some of the things Facebook has been doing.

Then you decide who's going to do it better in the long run.

Google+ Sparks:

What Mashable says:

To spur sharing, Google has added a recommendation engine for finding interesting content. The feature, Google+ Sparks, is a collection of articles, videos, photos and other content grouped by interest. For example, the “Movies” spark will have a listing of recent and relevant content for that topic.

The system is algorithmic — it relies on information from other Google products (e.g. Google Search) as well as what is being shared via Google+ and through +1 buttons.

The problem: Just because I like independent movies doesn't mean I'm into every single independent movie known to man. Sparks is really Google Alerts set up in a dashboard that gives more weight to data that's gotten a +1 and been retweeted.

But+1 is still too new. Google added it to every search result to get more "+1"s on content, but that's like sending out a mass mailer, and why would you "+1" something you haven't read? Using ReTweets (or even my friends ReTweets) as a signal is also not useful. Just because my friend ReTweeted a link does not mean I'm going to be interested in it.

How Facebook will do it better:

Facebook has been integrated with Bing in some way for over two years. Facebook also knows what you "like" on its platform and on various websites throughout the web.

By combining Bing's search algorithm with an exhaustive collection of "likes" from over 750 million users, data won't just ranked algorithmically-  it will have a real human element.

Facebook and Bing together will create the first truly relevant "social search" engine.  Your profile data will be cross-referenced with the "like" data with other people's Facebook profiles. As strangers with similar interests to you "like" content across the web, Bing's algorithm will use that "like" as a signal that will be interested in that content as well. The more interests you have in common, the stronger the signal.

Google+ Circles:

What Mashable says:

Circles is well-implemented. It’s far easier than creating a Twitter List or a Facebook Friend List. The drag-and-drop functionality is a welcome addition, and the cute animations that appear when you perform actions give the product personality. That doesn’t necessarily mean users will take the time to create friend groups.

The problem: Exactly what Mashable says, even though it's cute doesn't mean it's going to make people want to make yet another group. From what it looks like, much of the Google+ experience hinges on Circles+, and while they're giving incentive with cute animations, if people don't go through the process of organizing their contacts again, the entire Google+ experience could fall flat on it's face.

How Facebook will do it better:

Facebook already has its existing groups and lists feature. By using some smart automation they could be a million times better.

All it would take for Facebook to make groups compelling is to match you and your friends  similar interests, and automatically create groups for the different categories of interests you have in common.

For example: How many people on your friends list have you lost touch with, but you know you're into a lot of the same movies?

Imagine Facebook did the hard work of creating a group and inviting people on your friends list with similar movie interests. Would you find yourself connecting with people you haven't talked to in a while and having stimulating conversations about something you love again?

Groups could be categorized by movies, television shows, musical interests, marital status, has children (and age of children) etc. Facebook is equipped for functionality like this with the introduction of broad category targeting on the ad platform.

Using the technology that delivers instant advertising, it would also be possible to create your update and just before you press enter Facebook  recommends which group to post to, taking the pain out of navigating different groups just to say something interesting.

Google+ Huddle:

What Mashable says:

Huddle is basically a group-texting feature for the Circles you create. It makes sense as a product, but it isn’t terribly exciting. I’m going to stick with GroupMe for now.

The problem: Mashable said it right, it isn't horribly exciting. That group chat for a social network being mobile is kind of neat, without additional features... I'm not sure it would be enough to encourage people to jump ship from their current group chat platform.

How Facebook will do it better:

A few months back Facebook acquired group messaging platform Beluga and it's talent, which happen to be 3 Ex-Googlers.

Beluga was described byMG Siegler of Techcrunch as " a simple, elegant, and fast group messaging service... that works across several different platforms: iPhone, Android, mobile web, regular web, and text message...It’s almost as if Beluga is like Facebook Messages plus Groups."

Notable features of the Beluga App

  • Pods (groups of friends you specify) you share with are totally private.
  • Everyone in a Pod can watch your updates.
  • Control alert settings capability for any specific pod.
  • Share photos and location on a map with your pods
  • Ability of inviting your contacts either from your email or mobile device
  • Add friends to a pod at any moment to instantly loop them into the conversation
  • The application is not tied to specific device, you can access pods from anywhere using any mobile device or computer with a web browser.

Imagine your Movies Group arranges a movie night.

On the night of the event, the host "checks in" through Facebook Places and members who have Rsvp'd are notified and can get directions from their current location. While on route, the host would send trivia questions from their computer, and the first to answer with their mobile device would win a prize.

Google+ Instant Uploads

What Mashable Says:

Instant photo uploads is a cool idea, but we worry about auto-uploading all of our photos for privacy reasons. We can see some users not being happy about auto-uploads, even if the albums they’re uploaded to are private. This could potentially create a lot of “garbage.”

The problem: Aside from the "garbage" and privacy concerns, auto-uploading could eat into my phone's data plan. If you shoot a lot of photos with your phone, you could inadvertently end up spending more on your data plan than you intended.

As an example here's what AT&T's data plans look like:

I hope Google+ does not keep this as an "always on" feature.

(Update: No worries here, instant upload only works when you're connected to WiFi, and it's actually a pretty cool feature)

How Facebook will do it better:

Simply put, they won't do anything.

If they do, they would speed the existing process up by allowing mobile users to upload photos with fewer "clicks"

Google+ Hangouts

What Mashable says:

Hangouts is one of the more innovative concepts of Google+, and we think it’s a cool approach to getting users to accept group video chat. The camera switching feature (it changes who’s on camera based on who’s talking) is far superior to having multiple video feeds open at the same time. That said, it will require users checking their Google+ streams every day for potential chats to join. If Google+ gains traction, Hangouts will be a killer feature.

The problem is: Not really any problems here actually. This feature is easily the coolest feature of Google+. Just because it's cool doesn't mean everyone will love it though, there are still plenty who refuse to use a picture of their face as an avatar, but overall that will likely not hurt the adoption rate of this feature.

How Facebook will do it better:

 Facebook has been integrated with Skype since October 2010, and it keeps getting better. If you're a Skype user, you can access Facebook directly through the software.

This primarily allows you to place calls to friends cellphones from the News Feed and chat with other Skype users. You can  as "like" and comment on friends status updates, chat via instant messager, and sync friends phone numbers to your contacts list without having to go to their profile.

Buying Skype is out of the question for Facebook, as Microsoft bought it for 8.5 billion dollars in May 2011. But it's also no secret that Facebook and Microsoft consider Google a common enemy. Is it likely Microsoft bought Skype to hold on to until Facebook goes public?

Even if that's not the case, with the introduction of a potential game changer like Google+ Hangouts, it's feasible Microsoft would let Facebook fully integrate Skype into it's back end. Meaning, you'd be making voice and video calls directly from

Using Skype's Screenshare function you could do a virtual screening of a movie with your Movie group, and using Skype's Group Chat you'd could see how your friends react and chat about the movie.

Make no mistake about it, Facebook is a predator.

And they're still a private company. With Facebook likely to go public no later than April 2012, that gives Google+ enough time to gain just enough traction to be lured into a false sense of security.

On the day Facebook goes public, when the closing bell sounds tears through the noise of brokers and shareholders cheering loudly, and news pundits reporting the record high day, know that the ringing in your ears marks the end of an era.

When the ringing subsides, you'll see and hear everything with unparalleled fidelity, and you'll wonder "what's next?"

Do you think Facebook will continue to lead the way for social networking and have a massive impact on society?

I'd love to hear your thoughts in the comments.

Join The Conversation

  • Mar 19 Posted 5 years ago Jammo

    The previous version connected with Workplace for Mac has been out for a time and has had hundreds or else thousands of megabytes worth of updates and patches by way of the years, which tends to make it comparatively trustworthy to function on.

  • Jul 22 Posted 5 years ago Trey (not verified)

    "All it would take for Facebook to make groups compelling is to match you and your friends  similar interests, and automatically create groups for the different categories of interests you have in common."

    ...ummm yeah this would be a huge #Fail, Facebook can not group my "friends" for me

  • Jul 18 Posted 5 years ago MartyB (not verified)

    Tommy I think you forget something about Facebook and Bing.. Bing is relatively new ans I don't know anybody that moved from Google Search to Bing so far (so we can assume that those using Facebook and Bing are probably the new users of both platform... Also I think I would prefer Google to know what I search on their search engine and then pushing me relevant informations based on my own search than Facebook looking on my interests that I didn't filled up on my Facebook profile since I subscribe in april 2007.  I have a few likes indeed but not that many and most of them are because of referal from other people to either support them in their business rather than really liking it.

  • tommyismyname's picture
    Jul 15 Posted 5 years ago tommyismyname

    I like the way you think!

  • Jul 15 Posted 5 years ago Tia Peterson

    Hi Tommy - I think it will be awhile before Facebook goes down, but not for the reasons you suggest. For the simple reason that people are interested in convenience.

    The bulk of everyone's contacts are on Facebook. Unless there is a mass exodus to Google+, much of the conversation will still be happening on Facebook. Businesses will continue to engage where the engagement is happening.

    For social media pros, it's going to be really annoying and we'll have to keep up with two spots. But no one else is going to care and most of the non-bloggers and non-content marketers that I know don't even know that Google+ exists. That would be, probably, all 600+ of my friends (don't know Google+ exists). 

    I bet it's the same for a lot of people. Google+ success is driven largely by content marketers who swear it's the next best thing because of "privacy" and "circles."

  • Jul 15 Posted 5 years ago Audio (not verified)

    Hey Tommy,


    I think you have completely misunderstood what Google+ is about.


    Here, take a look at this:


    Go through that album and you'll understand what G+ is really about.

  • Jul 14 Posted 5 years ago AndyMB (not verified)

    I look forward to Google+ succeeding at least enough to stick around because:

    1. I'm tired of Facebook's default tone.  Seriously, how did we users create such a borning, vanilla gathering place where people share inane quotes and pictures of their pets as the majority of the content.  It's so bad it drags down your normally witty friends' material.  Time to move on and learn from that mistake.

    2. I love Google products for ease of use and how they pair perfectly with...

    3. My Android phone.  See point #2. 

    4. Schadenfreude.  Fuck you, Facebook!

    5. My grandma isn't going to bother moving to another platform, making FB the catchall for all the late adopters who are already struggling to maintain their social media savvy in an ever more intimidating online world.


    In the end I hope both solutions flourish.  That way my Luddite extended family members and loose acquaintances can stay on Facebook and just the right amount of the rest of us can venture into the "use what we learned from past mistakes" Google+ years of social media.

    There are more like me too muhuhuhhahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!



  • EricMiltsch's picture
    Jul 14 Posted 5 years ago EricMiltsch

    Yes - totally agree with the fact that, for what you do, you need to fish in the bigger pond. Look forward to seeing the follow up post; filtering the firehose is an excellent choice of words.

    Thanks for the reply Tommy.

    Circled you as well...

  • tommyismyname's picture
    Jul 14 Posted 5 years ago tommyismyname

    Not off the mark at all. 

    What you're exploring are essentially the core philosophies between the two different philosophies of the company. 


    Are you what you "like?" or are you what you "share?" 


    I personally subscribe to the "like" camp, because "share" data can be misleading. 

    Reason being, this article has been shared 843 times, many of which have been by people who are saying "G+ will win!" 

    However from an algorythmic standpoint the title of the article is "How Facebook will crush google+" and unless google is tracking your comments on the site (which they can't do because they do not a unified comment platform *_yet_*) it's going to take into account that you've shared this article and the title favor's Facebook. 

    Of course, it's Google, so they probably have a bunch of other measures that will signal your own personal sentiment, but my guess is that if it's all by what you share, there's so much more of a deep analysis needed, rather than looking at your core set of "likes and interests" that will follow you around everywhere. 

    Make sense?

  • tommyismyname's picture
    Jul 14 Posted 5 years ago tommyismyname

    The problem is, while many of the features I'm talking about with Facebook are speculative, they are all rooted in researched facts.  

    While I am doing a content series that is focusing on better engagement on Facebook, it has been planned for months. It was a matter of bad timing on my part to launch on the 1st of July. 

    I'm not threatened, in fact I'm spending as much time as I can in the platform seeing how people are reacting to the "clean start" they're having, and have been more than willing to give constructive non troll feedback to the team to help make the platform better.  

    More than one glance is necessary to know what I do for business, I talk about many other things, such as landing page conversion, selling your services at a higher price Ppc, personal branding and more. This post just happened to get traction as I started getting into my content series, which admittedly was poorly timed. 

    I'd be happy to do a follow up post in 6 months, and I will use your examples as talking points. 

    The reality is, none of this converstion really matters, because both companies are working to better filter the firehose of information that is on the web.

    Regardless of who's corner you're in, what matters to me at this very point in time are where my customers are at.

    As a marketer, I will go where they are. 

  • EricMiltsch's picture
    Jul 14 Posted 5 years ago EricMiltsch

    This article is part of the reason why I frequent less & less: Hyped-up, sensational & lacking facts. Someone else previously mentioned earlier - the editors are reaching way back in the closet for articles such as this. 

    Very easy to see why you're such a FB fan-boy, one glance at your website explains it - your personal business is built around one platform and anything that can be seen as a threat must be terrible.

    Your arguments are based on hope & speculation. Monday-morning product critics are everywhere. G+ doesn't need to be bigger than FB to be declared a winner - it comes down to creating shareholder value. 

    I would challenge you to do a follow-up post on all of your points in another 90 days. It'll be a different scenario when:

    • G+ Reaches 100mm users & user experience is better defined
    • SEO benefits have been recognized
    • Google's API is open
    • The iPone app is available
    • G+ bolts on products such as blogger, picasa and others
    • Launches their business pages

    I find it ironic that you have posts within G+ praising both it's functionalities and the people using their unique qualities - while even experimenting with different methods as well as stating that you're "happy you made it on too." 

    So, why not embrace it like you did at one point with Facebook and see the forest for the trees.

  • Jul 12 Posted 5 years ago Dallin (not verified)

    One of my Google+ friends said something intereting today that got me really thinking. He was saying that one of things he didn't like about G+ was the lack of personal data, which is what made Facebook feel more, for lack of a better word, "personal". He said that's why Facebook is different from Twitter and that Google+, in trying essentially to combine the two, feels a bit awkward.


    I disagree. I think Facebook has made us feel like having all of that personal information online is necessary simply by giving us the option to enter it into their system. They've pretty much pulled the wool over our eyes and made us think that all that stuff is critical. G+ is, IMO, a way to help us see through that and realize that the only really important stuff is the stuff we are sharing and talking about, that's it.


    Am I way off the mark here?

  • tommyismyname's picture
    Jul 12 Posted 5 years ago tommyismyname

    Wow! Thank you for taking the time to leave that comment. Your points are all very valid, and I'm glad you took the time to leave it. 

    Honestly though, the whole Google+ vs. Facebook debate is irrelevant, because it's the beginning of web 3.0 you might not agree with this article either, but I would love to hear your thoughts on it :-)

  • Jul 11 Posted 5 years ago DeeCee (not verified)

    And it also seems you do remember when people didn't think MySpace could be taken down. :)

  • Jul 11 Posted 5 years ago DeeCee (not verified)

    I remember very well when people thought MySpace wasn't going anywhere. I had a Facebook account at least a year before most people I knew had one, I never used it because barely anyone I knew was on it. Then it seemed like suddenly everyone I knew migrated over to Facebook over the course of a few months because they were tired of the buggy issues, horrible eye-searing custom HTML, etc on MySpace. That said, about 30 people I know are already using Google+ pretty regularly and not all of them are techie early adopters, one just canceled his Facebook account. It remains to be seen what will happen but people are going to use what their friends are using, that's what I feel is the bottom line. You can have the best social network in the world but if no one you know is using it consistently, you won't either, the "social" being the key word in "social networking".

  • Jul 11 Posted 5 years ago Neal Jansons (not verified)

    All of your arguments are predicated on what Facebook might/could do in the future, with future roll-outs of features. You compare what is essentially not even's imaginationware, software features you imagine might come into existence based on what you know; these aren't even things that FB have promised (other than their rather anemic vid chat anouncement a week after G+ blows everyone away with Hangouts), they are things you have imagined based upon the technologies and developers FB has at its disposal.

    You then compare this imaginationware to an actual, rolled out product, and then your analysis assumes that FB will make all of these changes and make your imaginationware their real software while, what exactly, Google just sits there with G+, not adding new features, not refining old ones...just waiting for Facebook to catch up? Why exactly would Google do that? You make a huge deal out of FB "having deals" with Skype and having OMG THREE whole ex-Googlers. Google has ALL of their devs...why are those three over at FB so important, again?

    Power users use lists on FB. I have asked around and most people I asked didn't even know friends lists existed. And can I post to a friends list I have made only? No, trust me, I've tried. I can post just to a group, but the groups feature also has some real problems (like my friends being able to add me to groups...WTF is THAT about?) and I have to go to the group's page to do so, I can't do it from my FB homepage. By making Circles the core of the friend adding process in G+, your lists are built in from the beginning, and the posting system on G+ allows me to narrow down who I am talking to, stop reposts or close comments, etc...very simple features that FB still hasn't gotten a handle on.

    Plus we have to address the reasons people are starting to hate FB. Game spam and all the noise that comes from it. Page spam (just because I "like" Punky Brewster doesn't mean I want the latest updates from a page determined to cash in on 80s kid nostalgia). People importing every feed in the world and spamming the stream. Sure, you can block apps, block pages, etc, but why should I have to? Why shouldn't people's goddamn Farmville stay on their own damn page and leave mine alone? Oh yeah, because the only viable business model FB has are ads and these stupid games, and so they want the spam to show up in people's streams by default to attract more players.

    And then the endless UI and UX changes, apparently for the sake of changing things. I mean, how are you going to justify your job if the site just stays the same and runs reasonably well? So you have to CHANGE things constantly, adding features the users don't want, taking the ones they do want away, moving things around...just stupid changes that we have little or no control over. It's like that supermarket strategy of changing where everything is every couple of months, just when people figure out where everything is and start shopping comfortably. It turns out comfortable shoppers are in and out and don't do much impulse purchasing, but the more you keep them wandering around your store, the more frustrated and less rational they become about their purchases. It's the same with FB...they want to keep their stats up, so they keep changing things so that something that could be a "jump on, post, jump off" activity turns into 30 mins or more of hunting, experimenting, etc. So it looks like people spend huge amounts of time on FB, but how much of that time is spent just figuring out where some feature disappeared to THIS time.

    And let's address the difference in company attitudes. FB says people don't know what they want, that you have to force it on them for them to realize they want it. G+ devs are on G+ asking us what we want every day, doing open Hangouts, etc. When was the last time Mark or one of the project leads had an open chat on FB asking what we want and how we want it? Oh, that's right...never. Their user bill of rights was BS, a PR maneuver to distract from the increasing security issues, and they make unilateral changes that affect the users at the dictates of Mark and the dev team all the time, something that was supposed to be off-limits.

    You're right about one thing...Facebook is predatory. And predatory people AND companies are assholes. People as a whole will avoid them, and the moment there is a not-quite-so-douchy alternative people will use it. Microsoft was the big "predator" not too long ago, and people hated them for it, and many of them turned to Apple (myself included at certain points) because Apple had a different agenda going on at that time. Now that Apple is getting more and more predatory themselves, people are turning to Google and other companies. The moment Google offers a desktop OS people will be all over it, especially if it has the same minimalistic, effective, and customizable design as Chrome. Can you honestly say anyone would want such a thing from FB?

    What it comes down to is that social media is a social phenomenon, and that means social cuing is a big part of it. Socially, we don't like assholes, and if we start to feel like a site/service is run by assholes, people stop wanting to use it. FB's problem isn't really technical, and it's not on the technical stage (everyone has technical flaws and issues) that they will be defeated and go the way of MySpace. It's a social problem, a problem of attitude that comes from a corporate culture that looks at and does things a certain way that the users often don't like.

    I have never seen a FB page, or even a blog, dedicated to attacking Google or some change Google was implementing. Every single UI overhaul, every security issue, and every new unilateral feature change or deletion has been met on FB with protests, pages, and petitions. People have made videos about "Why You Need to Get Off Facebook" Find me one about getting off of Google? There is the post you find every now and then from SEO blackhats, spammers, sploggers, and scammers that want to get their bad entries that expose their activities out of the index, but you won't find anything where people explain why Google is inherently bad.

    Essentially my argument is that your analysis is couched in techical details. No one is leaving FB because of techical issues, not really. They are leaving FB for G+ because FB's attitude towards their users sucks. They think of us as chattel, a commodity, a self-selecting market research group, and a target for advertising. Sure, they are a company and they are out to make a profit, but so is Google and somehow they don't have this attitude, and neither do a lot of other companies. People aren't going to go to G+ because it is techically better, they are going to go there because it's not Facebook, and there are a lot of people out there who really want a social network that isn't Facebook (the same way as in 2006 when they came to my college we went to FB mostly because it wasn't the horror that was MySpace).

    It might not be G+, though with so many people using Google for everything else I think it will be, but it's going to be someone, and that's because FB pissed of the users by forgetting that it's the users that matter, not them.

  • Jul 11 Posted 5 years ago Prathamesh Shanbhag (not verified)

    Google is being trying hard(Plus is the third time) to cut a piece for itself in the social media. beta version keeps us agnostic whether its trying to win the battle without fighting..! 


    @shanbhagp on Twitter :P

  • Jul 11 Posted 5 years ago Anonymous (not verified)

    You didnt mention all those people that are getting upset and over facebook. the constantly unwanted and often security threatening changes facebook had done in the last 1-2 years, upset many people. If Myspace wouldnt try so hard to become another facebook, they probably would have gained more people back. So some friends and i are counting hours to start, well, I managed to receive an invititation and so far, I like it. Privacy seems to be privacy !

  • Jul 11 Posted 5 years ago Frank Pinch (not verified)

    I don't think Facebook will come out on top exactly for that reason, the "predator" way of thinking. I think that you're forgetting to look at the real next step, the operating system... Google has just about all the tools to make a nice OS that people are locked into: OS, docs, browser, emails & social network. While FB still is just a website. Cheers

  • Jul 10 Posted 5 years ago Jaye Richards-Hill (not verified)

    I find it rather ironic that Google + is position itself as the disruptive technology to Facebook. Whilst it might appeal to some as the new kid on the block, I don't think it will sound the death knell for facebook. Not yet anyway !

  • tommyismyname's picture
    Jul 10 Posted 5 years ago tommyismyname

    HAHAHA! I love it!

    I'm surprised I haven't gotten a Who's Tommy reference on the internet yet! 

    Your A. and B. points are probably two of the most valid I've heard yet. As far as search goes though, I truly believe that your "likes" across the web, combined with your existing "likes and interests" in your profile are the way to truly deliver customized results. Google owns search no doubt, but Bing really isn't so far behind in search where a serious integration with Facebook wouldn't make it a viable competitor. 

    Provided, this is only for the .com traffic and doesn't take into account all the toolbars or chrome searches, but with vs there isn't really a huge gap in traffic. And is on the rise while Google has been pretty steady... 

    I think your points on SEC and Europe being ready to jump are valid though, and something that merits more investigation on my part. 

    But please, before you criticize my smirk, be willing to upload an avatar picture yourself ;-)

  • Jul 9 Posted 5 years ago Patrick Dacre (not verified)

    Ahh..Tommy..tommy...can you hear me..Tommy can you feel me???



    FaceBlizzard will fall for three reasons:


    A. The SEC investigation into misrepresentation on members and advertising reach.

    B. The dark hand of MSoft will play out with data mining of personal data, and Euroland is ready to pounce, starting with France.

    C. FB has ZERO search reach, and Google owns it. That translates to much more qualified CPM and value.


    Get your head out of the FaceBlizzard and realize that you can't hide behind a smirk forever. 


    I'm putting ALL my cards, burnished after seeing almost 40 years of FB wannabees, on Google.


    Place your bets, folks.


    Patrick D.

  • tommyismyname's picture
    Jul 8 Posted 5 years ago tommyismyname

    My fiancee get's on me about that all the time. Thank you for the compliment :-)

  • Jul 8 Posted 5 years ago Vj (not verified)

    One of my first thoughts as well. As a user, my FB is become more spammy (is that a real word) and less useful. As Digital Marketing Technologist, I'm constantly looking at creative ways to establish / expose my brand with the most relevant user context possible. If G+ keeps itself sane and out of the hands of Marketeers, it will be lauded by users like me. 

  • tommyismyname's picture
    Jul 8 Posted 5 years ago tommyismyname

    Nope, everything is supported by developments Facebook has had in the works for a considerable amount of time and that have been talked about publically, the original articles were posted by techcrunch, Gigaom, and others are linked to throughout the body to support my arguement. 

    Read beyond the opening. 

  • tommyismyname's picture
    Jul 8 Posted 5 years ago tommyismyname

    Totally agree with you on facial recognition. 

  • tommyismyname's picture
    Jul 8 Posted 5 years ago tommyismyname

    Oh I believe we've only seen the beginning of some paradigm changing stuff. 

  • Jul 8 Posted 5 years ago marciano (not verified)

    Is it just me or is this article biased? Most of the points you are making are based on personal opinons and not facts. For example:

    "Every feature Google+ touts, Facebook has likely been developing for much longer than we realize"

    Wow! I'm sold!

  • Jul 8 Posted 5 years ago jbx (not verified)

    I agree with you that facebook will catch up with Google+.

    The trouble is, while they're doing that, Google+ will be unveiling a lot more additional stuff.

    The question is, will Facebook do some cool new thing that will shift everyone's attention back to them?

  • Jul 8 Posted 5 years ago iNet SEO (not verified)

    "Every feature Google+ touts, Facebook has likely been developing for much longer than we realize."

    I am sorry, but what is being missed here is that Google+ is new and still in Beta. Facebook has become old and cumbersome and looks outdated and there is loads of room for improvment... that never happens! It gets ever more awkward to use.

    Give it time and rather than people being forced to take a ride on the dinosaur, they will find there is a racehorse to travel on instead.

    Patience is a virtue rather than casting aspertions at an early stage.


  • Jul 8 Posted 5 years ago Will Paccione (not verified)

    1. It's still in beta- like I said. These ar the things they're working out.

    2. That's a drop in the bucket compared to facial recognition.

  • tommyismyname's picture
    Jul 8 Posted 5 years ago tommyismyname

    Come on now, I needed a hook to keep you reading :-P 

    I'm glad you saw the article for what it was, and could appreciate the "and this is why" when I wrote this I knew there were going to be a million other articles that came out stating nothing but opinion as fact, so I wanted to make sure that the research was in place to support my arguement. 

    Really, it can go either way. 

    I read something on this yesterday that said the difference between the two companies has a lot to do with it's internal culture

    Google is a more academic culture, everything is a science, built from the backend forward. 

    Facebook is exactly the opposite, they're a hacker culture, they build from the frontend inward and it's reflected in a lot of of their offerings.

    And I think because of this subtle difference, in the long run, Facebook help usher the world into the next era of media all together...

    Imagine a Facebook esque ad software that generates your television ads while you watch tv. 

    Or search that shows you content that people just like you have also found interesting. 

    With the level of access Facebook has to your "likes and interests" data a whole world of customized content can be made just for you. It's only a matter of time.

  • tommyismyname's picture
    Jul 8 Posted 5 years ago tommyismyname

    I agree with your statements, both interfaces are very slick.

    However I have to say the Google Docs argument is my favorite. Facebook has been included with Microsoft's for quite some time, and has the same functionality.

    And neither platform, as far as I know anyways, are actually fully integrated yet, Google just gives you the link at the top of the nav.

    Good point with Calender, but events does basically the same thing.

    And 750 million users was never part of the article. Users will migrate at the drop of a hat given the experience gap is wide enough. 

  • tommyismyname's picture
    Jul 8 Posted 5 years ago tommyismyname

    Lol I'm perfectly willing to accept both. I don't work for either company, nor do I represent every user.

    The headline is catchy yes, but my arguements are supported, and I did put a considerable amount of time into researching my statements.

    You're right, we are quick to put "killer" in front of everything that's new, but the truth is, most things fade off into obsurity before they ever had the chance to kill anything. 

    Honestly, I hope Google+ does well. For a number of reasons, but one of them being to keep Facebook in check. Now that there is a viable alternative, Facebook needs to play it's cards right to keep it's users or risk migration, just like friendster to Myspace, or friendfeed to twitter.


    (p.s would you like an invite?) 

  • tommyismyname's picture
    Jul 8 Posted 5 years ago tommyismyname

    Realistically, I actually feel the same way about this as you do. In the end it will be up to the users. And it's good for people to have a legit alternative to Facebook.

    In some ways, when I'm on Google+ I wish that myself and my marketing type buddies wouldn't go in and muck it up, because it is a pretty cool platform. 

    Didn't even know I got editors pick (because I don't subscribe to the emails, but that's pretty cool)

    I just wanted to make a compelling arguement that got people's attention. Because there is so much "ooh shiny" factor that goes around in this space, it's easy for people to lose site of what Facebook as a company has been doing. 

    So, I agree with you really. and I'm glad you put it this way. 

    lol and yes, I am a native English speaker, but spent nearly 12 hours writing this article, it doesn't suprise me that it gets a little repetive and probably rambly in places. 

  • Jul 7 Posted 5 years ago Hans de Kraker

    Another note: Both Facebook and Google+ can exist. People are waiting for Facebook to die - just like they are waiting for TV to die. TV never died - still exists and is now merging and becoming a PC.

    Everything is a hybrid.

  • Jul 7 Posted 5 years ago Hans de Kraker

    Hi Tommy, you invited comments and so here we go;

    I am first greatful for a platform like this that allows people to share and contribute - regardless of professional prowess.

    Having said that, I am surprised that your article was and Editor's Pick and came as the featured article in my inbox with your headline in the email subject line. It was certainly catchy and I picked it out of hundreds of other options of information. The editor was probably looking for a good subject line and your more sensationalist title made it. For me that is a pity and reflects poorly on the editor.

    That is where it stopped for me. The article is structured as an "analyst view" but then is a pile up of gut feelings (which is fine) instead of balanced comparisons. The article has gone into a lot of details - borrowing the analysis from Mashable and giving gut feeling views based on insinuations that appear largely motivated by your future plans in and around Facebook. And to your credit - you do acknowledge this - when asked.

    As far as bias is concerned. All comments are biased. This whole site runs of people sharing bias and opinion and your article specifically is a really good example of opinion and bias.

    Google+ is not really hyped - because it is still not available to the larger public. Sure - it may be hyped in the Social Media Circuit and Silicon Valley or other equivalent tech hubs in other geographies - but if you do not work in the social media space or tech, you would not have heard of Google+.

    It feels more like you have made a big investment into doing something that is Facebook centric and now you find yourself asking; "geez - is this something else I need to take into account?".

    My answer to that would be first give it some time. Proof is in the pudding. People are fickle and they will change as they see fit - and move to a better experience - we all do. I am not making any claim about Facebook vs Google+ and have an account on both.

    The paradigm really is different now. You need to meet people on their turf - new or old. Some people hang out at the Milkbar - that looks ugly as anything - but it is so popular. Some people hang out at the Paris Go-Go cafe because it is so cool. Some people hang out at both. Same way - when a new social networking tool starts up - the beginning is always a wait and see. 

    Right now Google+ is in private beta - so it is not racing against Facebook yet and honestly - I am not sure that is exactly the case.

    The thing to keep in mind is that there are an awful lot of people that are on Gmail, YouTube, Picasa etc etc. If Google puts a better social layer on these tools - they are just coming up to speed with the new and better way most of us expect to do things. Add this Google+ layer to business -or Google Apps for Business and Education - and you have a killer proposition for an internal social layer over Google Docs, Gmail etc.

    My 79 year old mom is on Facebook and probably will never move to Google+ - unless there is a compelling social reason. I love some of the Google+ features - but again the proof is in the pudding.

    Other comment is that the writing is repetitive and awkward but I am not sure if you are a native English speaker.


  • Jul 7 Posted 5 years ago Anonymous (not verified)


    Facebook gets busted trying to smear Google.  

  • tommyismyname's picture
    Jul 7 Posted 5 years ago tommyismyname

    Go to any profile and under the "in circles" click on "see all" 

    Create a circle and call it "Spam" for all people in that person's circle and add every user in that friends list. 

    Go to stream, send link to whereever you want and limit the "Spam" circle and voila, your link has been emailed to

    every person on that list.  

    Take it a step further, and change your photo and profile name to the person who you've gotten your spam circle from.

    Then try doing the same thing on Facebook. 

    Nobody is talking about the security issue of Google+ yet, but it's much bigger than anyone realizes. 

  • tommyismyname's picture
    Jul 7 Posted 5 years ago tommyismyname

    How are you able to share documents directly through Google+?
    I haven't seen that feature yet. 

    If you're talking about getting a group of collaborators together with Google Docs, then bringing them onto a hangout... has allowed you to share and edit documents with your Facebook friends for over a year now, and while it's true Hangouts does have the group video chat feature, If Facebook get's the impression that it's users are wanting that, I guarentee you when the F8 conference happens in August, they're going to get it. 

    No doubt about it, Google+ is impressive. It's UI is pretty slick and it does pose the first viable alternative to Facebook. But aside from Hangouts, there's not much about it that's game changing. 

    Circles is really a reskinned groups, and it's an untapped haven for spammers. 

    Don't believe me? Go to anyone's profile and see who they have in their "circles" open "see all" then add them all to your own circle, call it whatever you want.

    Then send a link of whatever your choose to that circle. Now you have direct access to their email... no questions asked. 

    Yes, they can hide you, or block you. But what's to stop you from creating another account, and doing the same process over again? Well, if you're not a spammer, morals. But spammers don't have those. 

    This will be an arms race and G+ is worth watching, I agree with you there. But Google+ is a week old and the first viable social offering to come out after several failed attempts. 

  • Jul 7 Posted 5 years ago Bojan (not verified)

    Everyone here is either either... Obsolete this, obsolete that... If that was the case, all of us would drink only Coca Cola and eat only in Mac Donalds, and KFC, Pepsi and multiple different brands wouldn't exist.

    I don't want to be on Facebook, I want to have a place where I can actually hang out...

  • Jul 7 Posted 5 years ago praveen (not verified)

    Funny article. I liked the comments better than the article itself.

  • Andy Thornton's picture
    Jul 7 Posted 5 years ago Andy Thornton

    I have to disagree with a lot of your arguments. Google + is a game changer. I can't use facebook to share a word document and then discuss it with clients in a hangout while we all make direct edits. Google+ is worth watching, it will surprise everyone, even the facebook die hard fans.

  • JEBworks's picture
    Jul 7 Posted 5 years ago JEBworks

    You may be right, you maybe wrong, but it's just another one of these many articles with a catchy headline playing off the latest shiny tool that is then either trashed or lauded before it's really out of the gate with this or that "killer" being hoisted on it as well.

    Not being deemed by Google to be among the top geekerati I yet have to get my invite to play with Google+ so I for one reserve judgement. Based on my present use of both Facebook and Google, I expect to be slightly biased towards Google but we shall see.

  • Jul 7 Posted 5 years ago Camilo Olea (not verified)

    I've tried Google+, both on the desktop and the mobile version. The mobile version for my iPhone is pretty cool, I liked how it integrates with Google's other services.

    In my opinion, this will be Google+'s strongest point: how well it integrates with the other Google services that have been available for years and that millions of people already use (Google Docs, Google Calendar, Gmail, etc)

    Facebook does not have an equivalent of Google Docs, for example. Or the equivalent of Google Calendar.

    Sure, Facebook has 750 million users... How many millions does Gmail/Google have? Again, the better they integrate their other services into Google+'s experience, those millions of users will surely join and take the time and effort to use Google+ for sure. 

    I'd do it. :)

    Regards from Cancun!

  • Jul 7 Posted 5 years ago Steve Hart (not verified)

    I think you are kind of missing the point (And, as others have mentioned, fail to take into consideration Facebook fatigue and comparing actual Google+ features with "potential" Facebook features").

    I'm not sure beating Facebook or "being the champion of social networking" is the primary goal for Google+. Every product Google develops (or purchases, like YouTube) is about strengthening their search and having access to more content and data.

    This write-up sums it up well:

    "Google has a different goal. It needs all of this social data about what people like, how they are socially related, what content they share the most, what context they share it in, and more in order to power its search engine and better organize the world’s information. That means Google’s social motivations have little to do with driving people back to It’s ultimately about enhancing search and not allowing Facebook to hoard so much of the world’s social data." 

    Ultimately, more (and better) search = more ad impressions/clicks which = more $ for Google.

    But that's just like, my opinion man.

  • Jul 7 Posted 5 years ago Pup (not verified) I've always felt FB has succeeded despite its poor design and goofy features, and that once a decent competitor came around, they might fade. So many people complain about not wanting to share the same stuff with their close friends as they do with work friends, etc. and yet are confused about the privacy settings. I'm anxious to try out the "circles" concept because it seems more intuitive. And FB's reputation has always suffered from its roots of being a place where college kids post drunken pictures. I'll be interesting to see if workplaces block Google+ the same way they block FB or if it can be seen as respectable, like Linkedin.
  • Jul 7 Posted 5 years ago Will Paccione (not verified)

    Nice in-depth article, though I disagree on some points.

    Facebook didn't have the right formula for years- and still screws up on their changes. The fact that you're comparing Facebook to Google... which isn't even officially out to the public and is still in invite only/beta, shows you it may have a chance. An example is - you talk about instant uploads... they can change that tomorrow- who knows? It hasn't been available for more than a couple of weeks and they've already made drastic improvements. All of these "problems" can be fixed. How do you know they won't refine Sparks?

    Here's why I think Google will have a chance- Facebook hears all of the chatter about privacy and doesn't care. How do we know this? Just the facial recognition example-  without officially announcing it and opting everyone in automatically. Yes, Google has had their privacy issues, but this in my opinion is too over the top. People are tired of this with Facebook. They're also not allowing us access to our own friends email addresses because we may export them.

    You're on Google+, you'll see they're asking, listening, and doing. This is what we look for in businesses on Social media- "Are businesses listening?", yet we allow the Social Media platform to NOT listen (or make themselves accessible in any way). Facebook has gotten away with this because they are (were) the only game in town. Not any more. Will Google beat Facebook? If so, it won't be for a while- but everything I'm seeing- I'm liking.

    Way too early to point out the problems, though I appreciate your point of view.

    You should revisit this article in 6-8 months from now to see how the "problems" are, and how they compare. Time will tell...

  • Jul 7 Posted 5 years ago J Philip Faranda (not verified)

    I am not sold that any company impregnable. 

    I agree that Facebook is insulated by inertia- tech savvy people are already registering on + at a mad pace, but getting your buddies from school to migrate will take a looong time. And as much as they may dislike FB's foibles, they stay for the company they keep. But eventually G+ will develop critical mass because they have resources as vast as Mr Zuckerberg's, and a far deeper commitment to user satisfaction. 

  • Jul 7 Posted 5 years ago Anonymous (not verified)

    You write well, but you should learn when to use it's and when to use its. There's a difference. I tell you this as a favor.

  • Jul 7 Posted 5 years ago John Brett (not verified)

    What one continues to overlook is that I am a customer of Google 10x more a day than Facebook.  

    I have to physically go to Facebook and login to use it.  When I get notified externally that someone has said something or friended me, I still have to go physically go somewhere to respond.

    With Google, they are always browser, my address bar, my search bar, my calendar, my docs, my email.  Single sign matter the platform.

    While I'm not sold that Google+ is the Facebook/Twitter killer, I can't write off the fact that I'm already a huge user of their products, even subliminally, and if they can integrate my social into everything else...I'm there.

  • Jul 7 Posted 5 years ago DTS (not verified)

    This sounds a lot like the articles I saw from Blackberry lovers when the iPhone came out. They enumerated how their blackberry did everything iPhones did, and often better - BUT, they just didn't 'get it'. The actual features aren't nearly as important as the user experience.  The fact that you can drag those little thumb-sized icons around on your screen is the - repeat - THE reason iPhone dominated blackberry and the phone market early on.

    Same thing with Google+, if you look at the interface, it is SMOOTH and feels intuitive, clean, and easy to interact with. That will mean everything.  Add on top of that two more factors: (a) Google is integrated with so much of our lives already. Sure, facebook might have a deal with Skype, etc, but that's just not going to do it for people, and it's not going to be able to integrate fast enough or seamlessly enough. Google already is omnipresent and it's all practically together already in one place. (b) People HATE Facebook with a passion - especially those who use it all the time. They Sooooooooo want a vaiable alternative with a shot at getting all their friends onto it.

    These three things together are what me think Google may have a chance. All that technical argument you laid out might seem like a big deal to techies and rational people - but pure rationality *rarely* drives these things. That is simply not the 'way' of the world :)

  • Jul 7 Posted 5 years ago debbieg (not verified)

    People, please! Lighten up! I say, "give it Google+ chance." And I agree with some of the other comments about this possibly being for those folks who don't like Facebook. Besides, there's room for both. Does anyone know if Google+ will have some kind of way to "migrate" friends from FB to Google+, in terms of inviting them to join? 


  • Jul 7 Posted 5 years ago Cassandra P. (not verified)

    Well, I take issue with the "Facebook is a predator" line because, frankly, Google is too so there is no real difference there.  But I really liked this article because of two reasons.  The first is that it listed reasons for its conclusions.  So many people just make statements with no "and this is why" attached.  That alone made this a joy to read.  The second reason I liked it is that I am tired of hearing everyone swear that Google+ is going to bury Facebook.  Nice to see an opposing opinion written by someone who has given it some thought.

  • tommyismyname's picture
    Jul 6 Posted 5 years ago tommyismyname

    Not at all actually.It's funny, the other day I heard someone describe Google+ as "Facebook for people who don't like Facebook" I'm thinking that's pretty accurate.  

  • Jul 5 Posted 5 years ago DeeCee (not verified)

    You forget how many people dislike Facebook as a platform, with all its bugs and convoluted privacy issues, and only use it to stay in touch with people. I cannot stand Facebook and hope that Google+ gives us a better alternative. Remember when no one thought MySpace could be taken down?

  • David Amerland's picture
    Jul 4 Posted 5 years ago David Amerland

    Sure, speculation is fun but I think in the interest of fairness when you make a judgment call like the title of your article you really need to compare ornages to oranges rather than oranges to the possibly genetically modified apples which might come along.

  • Kaloyan Banev's picture
    Jul 3 Posted 5 years ago Kaloyan Banev

    I don't think that Google Plus and Google circles are trying to compete with Facebook, the idea is much deeper that that. Same as Facebook and before Myspace, social network purpose is to contact with friends, not with thousand spammers that try to sell you something.

  • tommyismyname's picture
    Jul 3 Posted 5 years ago tommyismyname

    Because it's fun to speculate on how the company will respond using the technologies within their reach :-)

  • Jul 3 Posted 5 years ago Rasha Suleiman (not verified)

    It seems like we're only hoping that Facebook will develop these features in the future...


    I quote:

    "Facebook already has its existing groups and lists feature. By using some smart automation they COULD be a million times better."

    and then the skype and the beluga features are not really out there yet.


    so y praise features that will (and might not) be developed in the future when Google+ has them already.

  • Jul 3 Posted 5 years ago Rasha Suleiman (not verified)

    It seems like we're only hoping that Facebook will develop these features in the future...


    I quote:

    "Facebook already has its existing groups and lists feature. By using some smart automation they COULD be a million times better."

    and then the skype and the beluga features are not really out there yet.


    so y praise features that will (and might not) be developed in the future when Google+ has them already.



  • tommyismyname's picture
    Jul 2 Posted 5 years ago tommyismyname

    Well yes, I have started a free content series that revolves around using Facebook for marketing purposes, and yes that content series will be followed up by a series of paid webinars, but this has been in the works for the past 3 months. And I'm doing it my readers have been asking for quite some time. 

    With that being said, I have been enjoying my time with Google+ but for the reasons stated in the article, once the launch buzz settles down, I don't believe they will be the long running champion of Social networking. 

    I realize this isn't the popular opinion, especially because of all of the buzz, and I very well could be wrong, but based on what I've seen from Facebook's history and feature rollouts in the past, their partnerships lead me to believe they have been preparing themselves to be more than a social network.

    The only way I can sum up what I think they're preparing to do is like this.

    You're not going to just get the news, you'll get the news written in a way that resonates to you.

    You're not going to just get music reviews, you'll get them from critics who have musical preferences similar to yours.

    But really, it's all just speculation. Who knows what's actually going to happen, right? 

  • Kfreynolds's picture
    Jul 2 Posted 5 years ago Kfreynolds

    I checked the sources. Also, it's obviously biased since you announced a site of yours the same day you posted this article. Clearly that new site revolves around facebook and a future business model you are putting into play.

  • tommyismyname's picture
    Jul 2 Posted 5 years ago tommyismyname

    Read the article again, everything I've stated is based on moves Facebook has been making over the past two years. Deep integration with Bing, Microsoft aquiring Skype, and technology that currently is being underutilized on Facebook itself are the facts, and the sources are linked. 


    But I do like Google+, I've actually been enjoying myself very much on it. But based on what I've seen from Facebook, and knowing they and Microsoft have the common enemy of Google, I imagine it will be a matter of about 6 months or so until they revamp the platform feature by feature of Google+ and do it better. 


    Check the sources in the article, and you may see where I'm coming from. It's not biased, it's just where the research leads me to believe. 

  • Jul 1 Posted 5 years ago Kfreynolds (not verified)
    • “Every feature Google+ touts, Facebook has likely been developing for much longer than we realize. They’re just waiting for the right moment to pounce.” – This is an assumption with nothing to back it up.


    • “Just because I like independent movies doesn't mean I'm into every single independent movie known to man. – Isn’t that what Facebook does? Present information that they think you would be interested in based on things you like?


    • Exactly what Mashable says, even though it's cute doesn't mean it's going to make people want to make yet another group. From what it looks like, much of the Google+ experience hinges on Circles+, and while they're giving incentive with cute animations, if people don't go through the process of organizing their contacts again, the entire Google+ experience could fall flat on it's face. – It takes two seconds to toss someone in a circle. It is far more difficult to set up groups in Facebook. Also, just because people share in your interests does not mean that you want to share everything you post with every person with like interests. Circles are for more than just grouping by interests; they’re also for limiting what groups of people are able to view.




    •  Facebook has been integrated with Skype since October 2010, and it keeps getting better. If you're a Skype user, you can access Facebook directly through the software.- Nothing really to say here until we see how skype video chat functions in facebook. Which they are going to announce next week.


    • Judging from this article I am willing to bet that the Google execs decided one morning to make a field trip to your place of residence. While there, you were forcibly restrained while they each took turns pissing in your morning bowl of cornflake goodness. This is the only thing that could possibly explain your hatred of Google+. Did facebook pay you to be this biased?

Webinars On Demand

  • May 09, 2017
    With all of the technologies available to marketers today, have we lost that personal touch? Join VP of Content Marketing for ON24, Mark Bornste...
  • April 05, 2017
    In the ever-changing world of digital marketing, operational efficiency, quick turn-around times, testing and adapting to change are crucial to...