The debate continues. Unabated. Nay, I should say, the cacophony. About whether Google+ is finally the one challenge for Facebook, in it’s dominating Social Networking presence.
If you think the noise will die down, rest assured, it would not. At least not for a while. And perhaps, this piece is only adding to the various views already submitted on the subject.
At the very outset, I am glad that there is a challenger to Facebook. My views on what extent it can trouble Facebook follow later in this piece. But it is always good to have a challenge. That way, the leader is on alert, and is motivated to deliver even better innovation and value offerings to its consumer base.
But how much of an impact is Google+ really having, or how much will it have?
My observations on the subject are based more from the consumer behavior pattern, and less from the technology point of view here.
Let’s be clear. Facebook, Google, Ebay, Amazon or even a GroupOn, Rediff or others are now, as much of a consumer product and a consumer brand, than being technology plays. Technolgy is what’s behind the making of these, but to the consumer, they may as well be experiencing an LG television, as they are experiencing Facebook, or perhaps enjoying a movie in a PVR cinema.
So the way to look at the Social Networking space and this current market battle, is to understand the consumption pattern of social networks, and the characteristics of the same, and how, and if, will market share change.
So we have Facebook with it’s gigantic user base, an absolute dominating market leader, having got there in a few years, but on the back of providing amazing value to it’s users, and constantly “being more and more” and “to more and more” people.
Being more and more is in terms of value propositions that Facebook kept offering over time. From a social network, which could help connect students at a University with each other, to being a platform to connect to almost everyone you ever knew, to gently peak at the goings-on in your friends’ lives, to share your own, and while doing so, also share pictures, videos, play some games, keep tab on birthdays, chat, form groups of interest, follow your favorite brands, etc., Facebook kept becoming more than just another social network. That all of these activities had a lot to do with sharing and being with friends and groups, made it a logical reason to evolve around a social network. I mean, there were obviously better photo sharing sites, for example, but Facebook ended up having a multiple of photos shared than the biggest specialist photo-sharing site, Flickr. The reason of course, was that when you share photos, you want to show them to your loved ones – your friends and family, colleagues and classmates. And what better place to do so, than Facebook, where they all were anyway!
Your friends’ presence pulled you into Facebook, and then your presence, pulled in your other friends, and so on. It was a viral movement like none other. And which is at the heart of it all, more than technology. Yes, there is some sleek technology that makes all of this happen easily, but that is behind the scenes.
It is the occupation of the position of being a unique “social utility” that has given Facebook the position of domination that it enjoys today.
In the journey to domination, Facebook went past earlier leaders like Orkut (in India), MySpace and others. Some of the reasons why this shift happened was that, while Facebook kept innovating its range of offerings, and doing more and more, for more and more people, platforms like Orkut stopped innovating, and MySpace remained constrained in terms of it’s areas of focus. Leaving the space open for a better player like Facebook, to catch up and then move ahead!
And then comes Google+.
No wait, prior to Google+, Google came with earlier attempts like Buzz and Wave. Launched with nearly as much fanfare as Google+ has been launched this time. But both of those did not go too far.
So what is the difference this time around?
Well, with Buzz and Wave, Google was attempting to change the way people will experience social networking. While both had social networking fundamentals in place, they were asking users to experience social networks, much differently than they were used to doing. If Wave or Buzz had come in pre-Facebook era, perhaps, consumers might have got used to those structures. It is like someone introducing a cell phone, which is spherical in structure. Where perhaps you have to open up the sphere to dial, and then hold the ball to your ear, etc. As an innovation, it may generate intrigue but people are just too used to, and too comfortable, with the flat rectangular piece. If the first phones were spherical, then maybe, the world might have been moving around with balls next to their ears, rather than flat squares!
This was the challenge that Wave and Buzz faced. And perhaps due to which reason, they did not go far. Technology or merit of the platform apart.
And now comes Google+. Is it different this time?
Yes, the one clear difference that Google+ makes is that it stays closer to what people are already used to. While we will talk of specific features that Google+ offers, if you see past the names, it is clear that Google+ is similar in structure to Facebook, and in particular, attempts to address the few perceived gaps in Facebook. For example, the ability to share selectively with groups of friends, rather than with all of them together. It also innovates in the faster and easier photo sharing, and few other features.
But at the core, this time, Google has stayed closer to social networking features that users are already comfortable with. And then tried to fill the gaps, or do some of those things, better.
If anything, this is their best chance to succeed.
If like Wave or Buzz, they needed to get people to do something different, they should not even call it a social network. Or let anyone call it that. Yes, get into a completely different Blue Ocean, in that case.
Facebook got into a blue ocean. So did Twitter. And so did Foursquare. All of them, more or less occupied different spaces to begin with. After they all got some critical volume of usage, we find a lot of things common across the space. If however, Foursquare had come out saying, “we are a microblogging site that also allows you to put your location data”, they would have not got traction against Twitter.
Google+ though, goes into more or less, direct competition. It’s like one more soap to take on Lux, or a new butter to compete with Amul. Yes, the soap may leave a slightly better feel on your skin, or the butter may have a salty taste, or whatever. But at its core, it does not pretend to be something different!
So then what does it take to compete head-on with a market dominator?
In the world of soaps or butter, it can happen. It takes doing, but it can happen. Because in that physical world, due to issues like distribution network and geography, multiple brands can survive together.
The challenge is bigger online. Everyone’s a click away. If Ebay is one click away, do I need an upstart auction site, with lesser traction, to try out? No, I don’t!
So how does that explain the huge initial that Google+ has got, and the fan boys shouting themselves hoarse??
For one, Google being Google, whatever it does, generates a lot of interest. Yes, it has been the poster boy of the Internet era (okay, ONE of the poster boys, lest the Apple fan boys feel betrayed). Just for that reason, when Google talks of the new, new social networking initiative, and plays hard to get with limited invites, there is genuine intrigue. And there is a virtual stampede to get the invites, and try things out. That clearly explains the large initial.
The questions though are:
- How many of those initial registered users continue to use it longer, beyond the first day / week?
- How many have updates other than “someone or the other followed them” on Google+?
- And most importantly, how many have reduced their usage of Facebook, or God forbid, STOPPED their usage of Facebook, and are spending more time on Google+?
Without adequate answers to these questions, it is inconclusive. Just yet.
I spend a lot of time online (my family thinks I spend ALL my time online!), and I have some observations. Yes, a lot of my friends have signed up for Google+. Of course, I have signed up too. And every day, I do keep getting the few new sign ups or follower updates.
However, except for 1-2 regulars who post a lot of updates on Google+ (like one would do Facebook status updates), I do not see any other ‘action’ on Google+.
And gradually I have started spending less and less attention to the red number at the top of the screen, when I am checking Gmail. I allow it to pile up and clear it once in 4-5 days.
As against, looking at similar red numerals on top of the Facebook screen, few times a day.
Meanwhile status updates, friends’ requests, photos and videos continue to keep coming and increasing, on Facebook. So no perceptible slowdown there.
So what’s happening here? Let’s look at the consumer behavior analogy. Just because it is tech, things don’t change, in terms of consumer preferences.
Think of it this way. You have your favorite pub, where you hang out. And whenever you go, there are always friends. Like the famous Cheers bar, this is the place where “everybody knows your name”. And then one day, a new pub opens up nearby. Puts out flyers with your newspaper, puts some hoardings out there, offers a better brew of beer. So like many others, you walk in one day. Don’t see any familiar faces. There are smiles, but not very personal, since they don’t really know you. You have a beer. It’s good too. And then you leave. Next evening when you are ready to hit the pub again, you think. For a moment. Okay, new or old. And then you reckon, “let me go where everyone knows my name”. And you go there, meet your pals, do a few high-fives, hug a few, and settle down and gulp away your old favorite brew. Even as the folks keep coming by and greeting you, your favorite music keeps playing, and in short, “life’s good”. So who cares much about the new place anyway? And since all your friends think the same, life continues like before.
That’s your Google+ vs Facebook situation. Now, in case your old pub had changed, stopped playing your favorite music, charged you extra for the chips, or something like that, THEN you might be tempted to give the new place another try. But otherwise, you stay put. Yes, that is what’s happening here too.
Let’s look at one of the big features that Google+ has. Circles. The idea is that, unlike Facebook where all your friends are clubbed as one (well, there IS the groups feature, but not many people use it much), Google+ says that you may like to share things selectively. Different stuff with your school buddies, something else with your neighbors, and likewise, with your relatives, wives’ relatives, colleagues, etc. etc.
Correct. Makes sense. Except for the effort to maintain those various groups!
It’s a different world we live in. The number of “connections” that a person has today is a multiple of what one typically had, say, 10 years back. Work, school, college, neighbors, relatives, twitter friends, Facebook friends, LinkedIn connections, and folks you meet at events, etc. etc. The list is large.
Maybe a lot of these kinds of connections were always there, earlier too. But when the world was not so small, some of the people you knew disappeared over the horizon, due to lack of contact for a long time. When people were at a distance, and they did not travel as much, again, the physical meetings did not happen. Again, the connections got irrelevant, after a point. And there were no “pure virtual” friends like we have today. People you have never met, but who become great Twitter pals, or some you connect with, on LinkedIn, etc.
So in this scenario of a very large number of connections, sometimes we wish to meet some of these people. And the utopian wish list is to meet the individual set of friends separately. In smaller groups maybe. But with maybe 20-odd “groups” that you may have, across your different slices of life, you would need a lot of time, to manage meeting these different people separately. So what happens then? When the urge to meet these folks becomes a bit too much, you finally throw a nice party, and invite all of them. And then just walk around, chatting with smaller groups. But the conversations are open enough, and the rest of the folks there, can also overhear. But you are fine with it. Because at least you managed to meet all of them.
THIS is the reality!
What is the Twitter thing? You broadcast your thoughts. Let the whole world know. You know some folks; they may listen to your tweets. Others are not. You don’t care. This is today.
So is there no need to do private communication? Sure, there is. But that part is handled by Direct Messages on Twitter, or Messages on Facebook, or via good old emails or phones, or even a face-to-face.
For the rest, we are good with the broadcast mode. Let whoever is interested “hear” what we have to share, and we will pick up things we need to know, from the various activities that our friends share. That is the ONLY kind of time we have. Imagine, looking at 10-12 different sets of groups, to check what people are saying and doing, and also going and posting different messages there. We just do not have the time for something like that!
We have seen brands lose out from dominating positions, online.
The search engine story. From Yahoo and AltaVista and others, to Google now.
The email game. From Hotmail and Yahoo and others, to Gmail now.
The reducing relevance of the portals. How dependent are you really, on Yahoo and Rediff, as a starting point now?
And then, you see the continuing dominance of Ebay and Amazon, in their respective categories.
If at all Groupon is looming large for an Ebay, it’s by doing a ‘blue ocean’. By not competing in traditional auctions or areas of Ebay’s dominance, but creating a new category altogether, in Group Buying.
So where does Google+ vs Facebook fit in?
In the cases of search engines and email, it was fundamentally ONE service. That had to be bettered. Like a better brew of beer. You get that. And you are one up.
So a search engine that delivered better results, an email service that worked little better. All of these were enough to upstage a leader. Sure, there was huge technology behind building that better mousetrap, but to the user, it was another mousetrap. A better one. Period.
In the case of the portals, it was different.
They had their legacies in the AOLs and the Prodigys of the world. Where they were the gateway to the World Wide Web, in a sense. And when people needed that hand holding to their ultimate goal. Of finding interesting things for themselves on the web.
Those days are gone. People have matured on the Internet; know what they want, and how they can get there. This is the reason for the reduced relevance of portals as portals. Rediff email may still have relevance, or Yahoo Finance may do too. But their relevance as portals has gone down.
So where a Facebook offers multiple things, does it face irrelevance like portals? No, I do not think so. Facebook is not just a motley combination of unconnected stuff put together, for each person to help himself. In a way, it is. But on the other hand, most of the stuff there, HAS a connection to connecting / sharing with others. And which is the key to a social network. The various features of a social network ‘live’ together, and work together. Quite like the way, one lives with one’s many relationships, many equations and interactions in society.
A social network, which helps me best to complete in the virtual world, what I am unable to do in the real world – keep up with my relationships – is valuable to me. And that is the preeminent position that Facebook has occupied in our lives.
As you can see, from a consumer behavior point of view, I do believe, it is a huge and uphill climb for Google+, no matter the initial registration base it has built. As a user, I am happy to see options, I am happy to see the leader challenged. And yet, in this particular battle, I do not see the challenger making much of an impact. I would be happy to be proven wrong, in the long run!