Facebook is to social media what Google is to web searching. Each entity represents what is arguably the most user-friendly, technically proficient, popular, successful brand in its field. Each creates industry trends and sets industry standards, and each has a massive portion of its market share. Recent changes, however, show that Facebook and Google seem to be blurring the lines between their distinct functions a bit.
Facebook’s incredibly popular Facebook Connect (being standardized into “Log In With Facebook” and Facebook login buttons with faces of the searchers’ contacts who have visited the site in question) now allows users to sign in on other websites via Facebook login, linking site activity back to Facebook, reducing the number of logins for people to remember, enabling users to create a personal web presence across a multitude of sites, and (of course) keeping Facebook at the forefront of web consciousness no matter where a user goes online. Google is similarly branching out, as most easily evidenced by its recent Beta release of Google+. Where Facebook’s login applications are succeeding, however, initial user reactions to Google+ have been tepid at best.
Google+ is currently an invitation-only, beta release social network with a couple of interesting features and some extremely familiar formatting. Quite aptly dubbed the “perfect anti-social network” by guardian.co.uk, Google+’s most popular feature is its “Circles.” Every contact is included in one or more circles, and then, when the user posts an update, shares a link, uploads a photo, or engages in other site activities, s/he can determine which Circles can view that activity. So, it’s social networking, but it’s also “anti-social” networking in that Google+ makes sharing information and limiting access equally simple. Some people have several lists (colleagues, family, friends, acquaintances, clients, service providers, etc.) while others keep things extremely basic (share, don’t share). On Facebook, this level of customization is currently only attainable by those who maintain more than one Facebook account (i.e.: personal vs. business).
That’s the good news: it’s easy to control the flow of information. The bad news is that Google+ does little else that Facebook doesn’t already do. Yes, Google+ has “Huddles,” “Hangouts,” and “Sparks.” But these elements, designed to enhance the user experience and encourage interaction, are of limited value to most users who really still see Google as a tool, not a destination. Aside from those elements, Google+ is currently little more than the latest Facebook knockoff. The “+1” functionality is essentially the same as “liking” something on Facebook, but now we can “like” search engine results, too (giving a bit of a passive endorsement to the article or company listed) which honestly seems like overkill and ultimately may prove to be too broad in scope to hold any weight with searchers. Not everything we do online needs to be documented for every online contact we have, and unlike Circles, those +1s are visible to all.
Clearly designed to capitalize on users’ existing knowledge of Facebook, Google+ utilizes the familiar three-column, icon-dependent visuals Facebook users are accustomed to without being quite so blatant a rip-off of the original that they’ll get sued. It doesn’t truly bring anything new to the table other than Circles, and if history is any indication, Facebook will be integrating that capability in short order. The big problem with Google+ is that it doesn’t address an industry gap. It doesn’t fill a need, and it isn’t unique. Conversely, Facebook’s login applications are popular because they bring something useful and desirable to the mix.
We took a very informal poll of a dozen Google+ users in the technology and marketing fields, and found that everyone we spoke with found Facebook infinitely easier to use, more intuitive, and more business-friendly. In fairness, Google+ is, of course, still new and in beta release. But without that one big “value add,” it’s extremely unlikely that Google+ will ever actually compete with Facebook. In fact, all of our respondents said that while they are interested to see where Google+ goes, they are refraining from investing much time in building a social network there because it’s simply another social media stream to maintain and it’s currently of limited value.
Where you post is just as important as what you post. Utilizing social media properly through a limited number of channels is far more effective than proliferating data streams across every possible platform. So, while Google+ is an interesting idea, at the moment, Facebook still gets our vote. Looking for an invitation to try out Google+? Leave us a comment, and we’ll send you an invitation so you can check it out for yourself!
