The thing about Google in social media is that they just keep swinging the bat no matter how many times they strike out. Yesterday, they killed Wave, which turned out to be merely a ripple and today they came back to announce acquisition of the prolific and talented Slide social media apps group.
Google keeps trying in social media, keeps failing and then comes back again. Jokes about them in social media have become both more prolific and funnier. Silicon Valley Watcher editor Tom Foremski recently speculated that Google is a one trick pony.
Of course, Foremski overstated the case as Android watchers will tell you. And if it matters, Orkut, Google’s aging social network remains big in Brazil. But more than that Google is among the most influential and well-positioned companies on the Internet.
It essentially invented online contextual advertising and created a model that users will accept and advertisers find valuable. More than that, Google knows more about Internet users than any other company, more about us than our governments know. Google knows what we look at and when and where we look,
While it has had its share of gaffes and attacks, overall most people who understand what Google does have come to trust it with our personal data.
That of course brings us directly to Facebook, which has soared to become the most visited social networking site. It claims to have 500 million active users, a more than one in every 14 people on earth.
The more people know about Facebook, the less we trust them with our data. And in that fact I see a huge market opportunity.
All Google needs to do is to build something very much like Facebook has. EXCEPT it makes clear that user privacy is at the core of company priorities. Users get to decide who see how much about them. They make it easy to tweak options at any time.
Right now many people who hate Facebook use Facebook. They go to Facebook despite all its many flaws for the same reasons that more people want to go to Manhattan than say, Cody, Wyoming. It’s where people who are relevant to them can be found and where you can meet them. People go to Facebook to find and make friends, customers, prospects, recruits and voters or even Scrabble opponents.
Everything else–except of course for Twitter–offers the same social promise as Cody, Wyoming.
Google has the brand, credibility and technical and business ability to build a social network that can compete successfully with Facebook.
It will not be a simple task. There is a reason that they keep producing products with names like Buzz that hit the market with a fizzle. They do not yet have a social culture. They launch products with lots of noise then sit back and wait and hope that the type of word-of-mouth the exploded Google will happen again.
Google can lead in social networking but it needs to be social in its behavior. It needs to tap into the people who influence early adoption in technology. Those influencers are only a few thousand in number, but they have the ability to move millions of users from one social space to another.
Will Google “get it?” Will they join the community before trying to lead it? I really don’t know. Their past performance has given me doubts. But there remains a large and ripe market opportunity.
Maybe they’ll get it right next time.
{ 10 trackbacks }
{ 16 comments }
The question is not whether Google is successful (for eg at things like YouTube) but whether it’s social. YouTube could probably have been much much more than it is today. Also, the whole point is that they want the advertising dollars that Facebook is now getting because of better targeting of audiences.
Google was hardly Swinging for the fences. If they were, “projects” like Buzz would get full on development and full on marketing and full on partnerships. Instead, these low cost experiments FUD the market and intimidate VC’s from funding real entrepreneurs.
As for the baseball analogy, let’s say that Google calls for a suicide squeeze every time someone else is on Third.
So far the only effort which has scored is Android and that’s because Operators refused to support a Beta OS.
Did a show on this the other day. Let’s also not forget about Blogger [purchased several years ago -- arguably the second most popular blogging platform behind WP on the market], Google Docs, Youtube [also purchased] and Google Reader. While Docs, Reader and Youtube may be more distribution/collaboration platforms than true “social” sites like Facebook or Twitter, I’d argue they are pretty darn successful… and of course help Google do what it does best ie scoop up as much information about people and conversations as possible.
There’s a reason Facebook has succeeded where Google has not. Mark has a passion to connect the world that Google doesn’t. You really should watch the DP8 interview which I mention at http://artistsdiscuss.com/d8-conference-interview-with-mark-zuckerberg/. Mark truly cares about his users. Truth is, Facebook has simplified the security issues, and most of us have forgiven it. Shel, I do believe you spend a bit too much time looking for boogers under the bushes.
What’s up with the emoticon at at the bottom of this?
Oh dear. Have you forgotten all about Buzz? And the fact that Google was sucking information off Wifi networks not so long ago? I think where privacy is concerned the world trusts neither Facebook nor Google. But on the social front. Facebook’s DNA is social; Google’s DNA is algorithm. Facebook, which I’m not rooting for or anything, goes way beyond Scrabble today. Every big fat business has a Facebook presence. Google, on the other hand, has done diddly squat (a term i love dearly) in social. I wrote on this too, about a week ago. “Google Me if You Can” http://bit.ly/ckBetj .
Why yes Mala, yes I have forgotten about Buzz. And I will continue to forget about Buzz until it actually begins to, well, Buzz! Right now the comparison you make in your article of Buzz to an annoying vuvuzela drone is apt (as are apparently elaborate sports metaphors in this thread). It made a lot of noise and as a Gmail user was hard to avoid, but after a while you either tuned it out or it would drive you mad.
As for Facebook versus Google (insert app name), I need to ponder that on my blog.
I too have not forgotten about Buzz. It is the last sound you hear before you get stung.
…or bitten. ;)
I can’t follow Aaron or Darin and look smart. So I will just add my Finance background view. Google is now Microsoft. Not a bad place to be but potentially precarious. Basically they own a space so lucrative and generate so much free cash flow and income they feel they must find other places for income growth to justify the stock value.
Notice Microsofts stock price plateaued for many years. Yet they are the second most profitable company in the world. Walmart and Microsoft have the same profit volume. $14bil. Walmart sells $400bil to get that. Microsoft $58bil. In fact Microsoft has 2x the revenues but 3x the profits of Apple who is worth more. Google is actually much more profitable than Apple as well. $1bil more in profits yet they have over $10bil less in revenue.
So what do you do with all that money? How much does it cost to start a web initiative? $1mil? $20mil. They have $6bil in profits! What Google and Microsoft doesn’t have is a home run like Apple had with the IPhone and IPod (btw IPad is not a home run yet!)
problem with both Microsoft and Google is now what. Both could become an old decaying company if something happens to lose their areas of super dominance. Doesn’t mean their initiatives will work or are in the wright places. But they are trying.
Imagine everyone moving to non-Microsoft tablets and phones and ditching laptops and desk tops, Imagine another great way of search?
Thus Droid. etc.
You are too kind Howie.
I think you’re right “on the money” so to speak. GOOG has so much money and value that it would be against their interest to simply sit on it without reinvesting it back into the innovation only they (or MSFT) can afford to finance. Even if they are failing, they are evolving the technology for everyone else.
It WOULD be QUITE interesting to ME if they were to open a kind of social channel into their labs, such that as they fail, the lessons learned could be revealed and discussed in a thoughtful manner using facts. Instead of having a theoretical discussion here, (nice as Shel is to host it) or on LinkedIn, etc. we could all be discussing and LEARNING along side Google as their community managers engaged in the discussion to corroborate their findings from the failure. Powerful and USEFUL conversation!
Shel, great post!
I also agree with the other’s comments that its a positive Google keeps swinging for the fences. They are one of the few who can afford to keep trying, and to their credit, keep things running long enough for people to find them and test them out before pulling the plug. As Seth Godin says, “they ship”. And as Seth also says, they fail early and often. This is where the learning is. If nothing else, the company which is all about knowing everything about everything and everyone is also learning about how to do everything. How will they USE that knowledge though?
I feel that building on a success rather than trying for another “hit” is a better method. Adding on to the Google experience seems more prudent and assured at gaining wider audience. I feel that Google outsmarts themselves by trying to be too cool with cute names and odd UX conventions. Add-ons like Google Maps are easier for people to adopt than Wave, which required a whole new steep learning curve. For instance: adding a way to read comments on a subject you searched for would be an example of a useful way for Google to gain community using their core technology, from a user centric way.
Do a search, float over the link and a kind of “Wall” appears in the column to the right side showing comments and UGC relevant to THAT link. NOW I as the “searchee” can either asses whether this is the link I want to follow, or just start exploring. Once I follow the link, a clever way to ADD to that “wall” allows me to become part of the conversation, part of the breadcrumbs, part of the fabric joining the Social/Semantic web together. No new learning required. I would start using THAT kind of tech straight away. No fanfare needed to get me to become a user.
Cool discussion and thanks to Aaron for twt’ing your link so I could get involved!
Darin~
Aaron & Dennis,
You both are noticing the same very relevant aspect of Google’s strategy. They keep swing for the fences. Meanwhile Microsoft is showing you can build significant business while being content with not being #1, such as the case with Bing.
Aaron, I am always a sucker for a baseball allusion. I almost mentioned that Babe Ruth led both leagues in strike outs the year he hit the 60–but I could not find confirmation that it was true.
But we remember the home run hitters, and the teams that shoot for the wall. In the end they aggregate more fans and more revenue.
Personally, I think Google can and should aim for the fence. They just need some coaching on how this social media game is won.
Since commenting last, I’ve read Om Malik’s great critique http://gigaom.com/author/om/ that stretches the baseball metaphor even farther. His point is that Google’s problem is not the FACT that they’re swinging for fences, it’s HOW they’re swinging – like a world class cricket player swinging a baseball bat in a Major League Baseball ballpark. They get the concepts, they have the athleticism and the reflexes, but the ingrained mechanics are very difficult to unlearn. Otherwise you’d see an influx of MLB players from the West Indies and Pakistan.
So aiming for the fence is great. But maybe they should learn to aim for the ball first. Or stick to the game they already know how to win…
Great article Shel, and a nice antidote to the GOOG-bashing that has followed the “Short Wave Goodbye” as I like to call it.
I agree that Google cannot be underestimated. And there is a chance they could succeed with one of their attempts. They certainly do keep trying.
But with every new noisy launch, there’s a growing “cry wolf” phenomenon they’ll have to overcome. The problem is that they keep trying to nail the “next big thing for everybody” – with all attendant hooplah they can generate because they are Google – rather than quietly launching the “next little thing that works for SOMEBODY” and allow the right audience to find them.
Wave is a tool that some of my more highly collaborative clients and friends use, swear by, and will resent losing. But because Google bet its basket on mass market adoption rather than niche-darling status, those faithful few will be left behind – and will be hard to win over again. A shame.
Shel,
Interesting topic. While I don’t particularly like or dislike Google, they provide a fair amount of value in their products and services. I hadn’t thought of the fact that they do continue to swing for the fences irrespective of their track record which of course forces other big internet companies to innovate as well.
To continue your baseball analogy of swinging for the fences… many of the prolific home run hitters in Major League Baseball also happen to have the greatest number of strikeouts. It’s because they take an all or nothing type approach. This used to be much more highly valued in baseball but thanks to Billy Bean (the semi-famous GM of the Oakland Athletics), teams are now more inclined to look for nuance statsin a player like on base percentage, plate discipline, zone range etc.
What I’m wondering is, is at what point will Wall Street demand that Google stops acting like Dave Kingman (tons of HRs AND strikeouts) and starts acting like Brett Gardner (low HRs/high OBP). Like you, I would love to see Google come up with a competitive offering to Facebook but I’m just not sure they’ve got it in ‘em. To that end, one of the problems with companies like Google, Facebook and Twitter is that their greatest strength — their founders — is also their greatest weakness. While they’ve all come up with game changing companies/solutions, their own hubris and inward focus prevents them from looking to the very people they need to talk to in order to get it right.
Thanks again for a thought provoking post. It definitely got my creative juices flowing.
Best,
Aaron
very insightful article
Comments on this entry are closed.