Are people really using Google+? During one of my intermittent visits I noticed the threadbare nature of my “stream”. Whereas my Facebook account has a never ending flow of news, the last update from friends on Google+ was four days old.
Admittedly I don’t have many friends in my “circle”, just 23. But still, I would expect a little bit more chatter, particularly among people who are so talkative on Facebook and Twitter.
So, while adoption rates have been impressive (25m+ and rising), are the new users just a collection of the curious, the nerdy adopters and people like myself who work in the internet industry and feel compelled to check it out? And if so, can Google really build a community out of rubberneckers?
Hot with a fever to find the truth, I conducted an entirely unscientific straw poll among colleagues to see how engaged we are with Google+. Here’s what I found:
Penetration
Google+ has an impressive 73% penetration rate among iQ Content employees, although perhaps this isn’t so surprising given what we do for a living. The Facebook penetration rate is 95%.
Activity
Activity-wise, 43% of us have posted newsworthy content (ie, something that appears on your news feed) on Facebook within the last 48 hours. For Google+ the figure was 12%, (hence the barren nature of my stream).
Tellingly, 41% of us had posted something on Google+ within the last month (when the service first launched), but after that initial flurry our ardour seemed to wane.
Likes and Plusses
36% of iQubers “like” something frequently, and 41% of us have done so once or twice, making a combined total of 77%. The combined total for “plussing” is 35%.
With a total survey sample of 22, the results are about as scientific as Kung Fu Panda, so I’ll avoid making any firm conclusions. But a couple of thoughts do come to mind.
Engagement is more important than adoption. The adoption figures on their own aren’t really that impressive. Google is a global giant, if it didn’t have 25 million users it would probably be disappointed. And it’s what they’re doing that really counts (and they mightn’t be doing much).
Do people really need a new social network? What is the gap in our lives that Google+ is trying to fill? I can’t think of any. As Dylan Collins recently put it, Facebook and Twitter “seem to be working pretty okay for about 800M people”.
And if there’s not any gap, is it creating demand by offering something radically new? I can’t think of anything there either. Yep, it has some superb UI features, but is that enough to overcome the network effect of 750M Facebook users?
August 15, 2011 at 10:38 pm
When Mao was asked if the French revolution had been a success he paused, then answered that it was too soon to tell. The same applies here.
Here’s a quote from 3/4 years ago…
Last spring, Facebook reportedly turned down a $750 million buyout offer, holding out instead for as much as $2 billion. Bad move. After selling itself to Rupert Murdoch’s Fox for $580 million last year, MySpace is now the Web’s second most popular website. Facebook is growing too – but given that MySpace has quickly grown into the industry’s 80-million-user gorilla, it’s hard to imagine who would pay billions for an also-ran.
Where’s MySpace now?
August 17, 2011 at 2:57 pm
In my mind, Google+ circles allow you to organise your communications better than Twitter and Facebook.
From what I have seen and contributed so far, posts seem to be shorter and less reflective than blog posts but longer than Twitter’s 140 characters. I have only found Twitter useful for announcements or as a back channel at conferences. I’ve never become much of a Facebook fan either – as I rarely want to share the same messages with family, friends or colleagues.
August 24, 2011 at 2:32 pm
Agree with Lar, it’s probably too soon to say (not sure we need to wait 200 years to find out though, Lar). FB and twitter may be “working okay for 800m people” at the moment, but then plenty of search engines worked fine for people before Google came along. And VHS worked fine before DVDs.
2 critical questions for Google+ in my mind are:
a)is it sufficiently innovative for it to have a meaningly point of difference for people vs FB? The circles idea is great and is likely to become more relevant over time as FB users start to grapple with how to handle the ‘how to be friends with mum/dad/boss/etc’ issue on FB.
b)Will it hit a critical mass or ‘tipping point’ quickly enough for it to become a meaningful proposition. It will presumably hope to target internety geeky early adopters and hope to engage mass market appeal following that. Most internety types I know are quite exited about it, but I agree that some of this looks like rubbernecking.
At a hunch though, I’m not feeling it…but then again, I’m still on Bebo!