Google+, Still Minus the Plus

Google+ may have a plus sign attached to its name but it’s still missing crucial features that hold it back from taking the lead. There are many opinions on what Google+ is lacking, and for these purposes I’m comparing two of them: Launch blog’s The Google+ Punch List (21 Items Google Must Add to Plus) and 7 Facebook Features Google Plus Still Lacks. The first goes into an account of not only what the author (whose name I did not see or he would be mentioned here) sees as missing but what actual Google+ users would like to see. Meanwhile, the other list, by David Cohen, is more direct and concise. While these lists differ, there are certain points they both agree must be present. Perhaps the most obvious thing that Google+ is missing is a search feature. It’s one of the main ways a user can discover content, opinions and even reviews. Basically, search is part of the glue that would connect this network’s users. Google being the search engine giant it is, can it really afford not to integrate search into Google+? Sending Google+ users to Google to find answers is ridiculous. Both of them also agree that an Application Programming Interface (or API) is essential, but for different reasons. Launch blog points out the threat of hackers, while Cohen focuses on Google+’s compatibility with other applications, such as Foursquare. The fact that there is more than one reason Google+ needs an API says it all.

‘A birthday widget,’ as Launch blog calls it, and ‘events and birthdays,’ as Cohen calls it, are also seen as a necessary add. What they forget to mention is that this is another feature Google has but chooses not to integrate. As a former member of a college group that used Google Calendar, I know it exists and that it allows people to plug their schedules in and share them with other people. This is where Google+ is making one of several big mistakes. Humans need reminders and a place to keep everything straight. Google Calendar is that feature and why it is not part of Google+ is a mystery to me. Brand pages are also a competitive feature Google+ still lacks. Google+ has a lot of unique opportunities for brands, but Facebook still leads because Google+’s brand pages are still in development. There is a place for brands on Google+ and the sooner they make space for them, and give them the kind of tools that Facebook does, the better. While they converge on these points, neither is a complete list of what Google+ is missing that Facebook already has and is doing better. Despite Google+’s lag, Facebook still feels the heat because it recently launched a small business service explaining how to utilize all of Facebook’s marketing tools (ads, deals, social plugins, sponsored stories, etc.)
http://on.mash.to/pRXzDY
. According to Digital Media’s Steven Musil, Facebook may not have much to fear after all, as they see Google+’s traffic dropping
http://cnet.co/na6cnX
. Perhaps this is just a lull, or perhaps it is indicative of Google+’s buzz leveling off for good. Whether Google+ could ever succeed in conquering Facebook, even with the additions mentioned above, remains to be seen. For now, Google+ might want to rethink that + at the end of its name.

For Twitter? A Slice of Facebook’s Pie

I have written about the competition between Google+ and Facebook, this is the next installment. Not only is Google+ going after Facebook but Twitter is too. You may remember that part of Facebook’s success that allowed it to beat out FriendFeed came from borrowing, more like appropriating, FriendFeed features. According to an older article by Steven Musil, Facebook made it so users could import YouTube, StumbleUpon, Pandora, Hula, Last.fm and Google Reader into the feed
http://cnet.co/7xs38t
. The article goes on to confirm that Facebook’s commenting system is similar to FriendFeed’s as well as the ‘Like’ button. Guess you really do have to trademark everything. It is not uncommon to hear of people copying features, it happens with or without patents and trademarks. It’s just online the rules seem a little more lax. Twitter is now coming for Facebook like Facebook came after FriendFeed. Perhaps not quite in the same manner, but their actions definitely speak for themselves. Facebook recently announced that it’s testing an update to its news feed to include space for third-party platform buttons
http://cnet.co/pkxfzw
. Here, gestures other than the ‘like’ button would allow users to more easily share information and content about products and services as well as see what their friends are commenting on and liking. This is an effort to draw more marketers and advertisers to the site. Facebook will have to be careful, because there is a line there to be crossed.  The same goes for Twitter who is launching a similar concept in its quest to best Facebook.

Twitter is also appealing to marketers and advertisers by tweaking its promoted tweets system to reach Twitter followers more directly
http://dthin.gs/pXaxtd
. However, their approach does not sound as intrusive as Facebook’s. Twitter has dubbed its new product ‘Promoted Tweets to Followers’ and its features involve brand ads in the form of promoted tweets showing up at the top of a user’s timeline the second they sign in to Twitter. Then they move down in the timeline like any other tweet, so as not to be a  permanent fixture.  This solves one of the old problems of promoted tweets because promoted tweets would happen and get buried without a lot of users seeing them. Twitter is also trying to one up Facebook by testing a new feature that operates a lot like a Facebook wall. Their version makes it easier to post on a Twitter user’s page, share content and chat
http://lat.ms/rtCVO8
. Now both of these Twitter moves directly challenge Facebook. Not only is Twitter recreating a Facebook wall, it’s using promoted tweets in a new way to counter Facebook’s expansion of the ‘like’ button. You almost half expect Facebook to roll out promoted status updates, but that would be too obvious. The dynamic here is two social media giants battling it out for all the glory. A little competition can be healthy, a whole lot can be deadly. Hopefully neither of them will go the way of MySpace as this plays out.  Each has a solid platform so this shouldn’t be an issue. Whether one wins, continually proving its superior status to the other, or not, both will stick around and endure as an example. It’s a fact of life that sometimes it’s necessary to do what Twitter is doing in order to prove you’re the best. To take someone’s idea and execute it better and in a more meaningful and useful way is a very compelling strategy. However, they have a lot to compete with when it comes to Facebook. Facebook is not to be underestimated. When it comes down to it, this is a game of wits. It’s obvious what Twitter wants, a piece of Facebook’s pie. Whether they will get it, or just be seen as a second-rate copycat, remains to be seen.

Tablets: to Tab or Not to Tab?

With so many ways to distribute content, including ads, it can be hard to figure out how to navigate what is right for your brand or publication. If you are a brand, you have to figure out which publications that serve your audience are offering tablet versions of their content. Within those comes choosing which of those publications is going to give you the best return on your investment. For publications, it’s all about deciding whether a part of your demographic can be captured via tablet. If so then making your content tablet-friendly can be a huge benefit in addition to print and other forms your content appears in currently. If not, it’s still a good idea to pay attention because the market is new and will be growing and changing in a way that could someday make sense for you to jump in too. For now, the fact remains that this is a newer market where there are no concrete rules or regulated across-the-board pay wall forms. This market is still searching for its foothold, but can be a valuable tool to utilize. Time to break down the negatives and positives of offering tablet-friendly versions of your content and advertising on this platform.

Negatives:

1) Tablet audience is not established: Currently its demographic skews 18-29 and the wealthy, with mostly a male audience
http://bit.ly/qc9LHe
. If your target demographic is not a frequent tablet user yet then tablet content is not a viable option at this point in time.

2)Lack of rules and across-the-board payment models: Unlike other forms of media the rules and payment models are not clear, they are still in development. More options can make it confusing for both consumer and publication or brand to navigate. If it’s not user-friendly then it becomes inconvenient, and if it’s inconvenient then that spells trouble for its popularity growth and benefits in general.

3) No established metrics for measuring tablet ad engagement: With new media come new forms of engagement and new ways to measure that engagement. How do you measure tablet ad engagement within a tablet publication? I haven’t heard of any definitive way to measure this kind of engagement yet. Perhaps I’m wrong and it does exist. Even so, it would not be developed enough at this point to get a complete picture of how users are interacting with your content. This could make it hard to see exactly how your bottom line is impacted.

Yet, these same negatives can also be seen as positives.

Positives:

1) According to eMarketer, tablet audiences so far lean towards the 18-29 demographic as well as the wealthy
http://bit.ly/qc9LHe
. A lot of research has shown that the 18-29 demographic is a very influential demographic. Also, one can’t forget the wealthy demographic that tablets attract, which means major purchasing power and more revenue for your publication or brand.

2) Room to experiment: On the positive note, eMarketer states that you are not restricted to a certain payment model
http://bit.ly/q8R6a3
. Bottom line? Room for experimentation means space to figure out what works best for you.

3) Ads are well-received by the majority of newspaper and magazine app users: According to eMarketer, 46% of these types of tablet users found ads to be relevant, unique and interesting. What it comes down to is this is a new way to break through the ad clutter and offer up something new that registers with consumers and attracts new ones. Although this is obviously based on survey respondents, and not a complete overall picture, it still bodes well for advertising on tablet content and offering tablet content in general. Successful advertising on tablet content and successful tablet content means more revenue for publications and brands alike.

Basically, the tablet is new, but it offers up some positive signs that it is worthy of your consideration and participation. Just look at the recent Conde Nast example
http://bit.ly/pXsb9G
. If this is any indication, tablets could be a publisher’s and advertiser’s new best friend. Now I’m not psychic and I don’t pretend to have all the answers as to whether a new trend will ultimately succeed or fail. The best I can offer are three key points that can be viewed positively or negatively. The rest is up for you to decide.