First of all, let me start by saying that something seems wrong with Google+, it doesn’t look awful. In fact, it looks accommodating and user-friendly; two words you would never have associated with a Google social project before. Perhaps the most significant feature of Google+ is that it doesn’t look like an anti-Facebook, in fact it pretty much looks identical to Facebook, but perhaps that was the best thing to do after the years of relentless social failure they have experienced.
Before I start going into more detail about the features of Google+, it might be best to discuss why it is that it looks so aesthetically pleasing, and almost the antithesis of the exceptionally bad Google Buzz. The reason seems to be one man; Andy Hertzfield. Hertzfield is a legendary software artist who found fame due to his role in the design of the original Apple Mac. Larry Page, now CEO of Google, has in the past spoken of his dislike of artistic designs and animations, feeling that they slow down other, more essential processes. However, it seems in this case that Hertzfield was afforded the opportunity to exercise complete creative freedom, and it really seems to have paid off. Animations are played when certain actions are carried out, such as deleting a Circle, and it arguably makes Google+ a more dynamic, interactive and enjoyable experience than other social-networking sites.
With that being said, beautiful visuals don’t ensure substance, take Megan Fox, for example. So, will social network users be swayed away from the comfort of their usual haunts, such as Facebook and Twitter to this new kid on the block? Or will it simply be a flash in the pan, with users coming to sample the delights of Google’s social network, before retreating back to the familiarity of ‘Tweets’ and ‘Likes’? This is dependent on user response to the features available on Google+.
In the blog post that seemingly marked the public genesis of this project, it seems that the real hook of Google+ is that it is more reflective of real-life (meaning offline) interactions; promoting fluidity, naturalness and emotion over the “rigidness of […] online tools”. Hence Google are attempting to bring “real-life sharing to software”. While certain phrases in the blog post such as “There’s just one more thing, really the only thing: You” (yes, that’s genuinely in the blog, I’ve not just taken it from one of the many self-help seminars I’ve attended), really try to enforce the positive human message, I’m still not convinced. Being a crooked, cynical soul, I can’t get over my initial interpretation that this is still just a defensive business manoeuvre in an effort to stop, or at least slow down the Facebook leviathan. Anyway, on with the features:
Google Circles
In terms of social, this is potentially the most important feature of Google+. Essentially a ‘Circle’ is a group by which you can categorise your personal social network. So, you might have a ‘Circle’ for Family, or a ‘Circle’ for Colleagues and one for ‘Friends’, or in my case I would have to create circles for ‘Enemies’, ‘Foes’, ‘Adversaries’ and ‘People who generally dislike me’. The purpose of this taxonomy is to optimise sharing ,the things you share with your friends might not be what you would share with your boss, or what you share with male friends might not be suitable for female friends etc. While this social segregation might seem like an unnecessary hassle, the way it is integrated into the UI seems intuitive, simple and when the ‘Circles’ are set up, content is easy to share.
Personally I really like the sound of the concept, although the process of categorising my friends might initially seem a bit disconcerting. But I still imagine the benefits will outweigh the initial unease. For example, I know which of my friends like similar books to me, so I could recommend a book for those friends without polluting the wall of others with irrelevant content. I could share particular search engine optimisation articles with colleagues without being lampooned as an obsessive recluse with an unhealthy interest in his profession. It certainly sounds like an interesting proposition, but whether it will live up to Google’s claims of being representative of real-life; I’m still not sure.
Sparks
This is a new feature that has a search box but is definitely (according to Google) not a search engine; it has in fact already been coined as a ‘sharing engine’. It allows you to search for an interest and Google will go and find the relevant information (but it’s still 100% definitely not a search engine), and allow you to add it to your ‘interest lists’ where it will stay, allowing you to quickly access it anytime you want, a bit like a bookmark. On a larger scale, there is a ‘Featured Interests’ section which allows you to see what others are talking about and linking to globally.
The initial reports about this service indicate that it has a lot of potential, but at the moment it’s not particularly useful, failing to return newsworthy content that is relevant to your interest lists. Still, as Google+ is still in a very early stage of testing and development, I’m willing to wait out this initial patchiness.
Hangouts
‘Hangouts’ is the Google+ answer to one of the few things that other notable social networks are yet to conquer: video messaging. Apparently, this product was built around a real-life scenario in order to give it that humanistic approach that Google are really striving for on this project. The analogy used by Google is a bit American and involved ‘porches’, so I’ll try and ‘British’ it up a bit. Imagine your outside your house washing your car, and then your neighbour comes outside and starts to wash his car. It would be rude not say hello, and at least try and strike up a bit of friendly banter. This is what Google is going for with ‘Hangouts’, by making it obvious to people in your ‘Circles’ that you want to have a conversation. You can even watch or share a piece of content, such as a YouTube clip with the people you are hanging out with and comment on it as you are watching.
Again, it sounds like a great concept, but whether it will be picked up and used by the public is where this product might stall. A few sites have tried to successfully integrate video messaging into their service, and so far none have succeeded. It will be interesting to see if Google can make it work.
Huddle
Huddle is a mobile based group messaging application service that works across Android, iPhone and SMS platforms. It is essentially a way of having a group (or ‘Circle’) of relevant people all in one text messaging based forum in order to make plans. So instead of having to text message lots of different people to make them aware of events, they are all in this one group. It’s kind of like a text based conference call. The example Google gives us is for a group of ‘Gastronauts’ who use the Huddle service to arrange a lunch date.
Again, it sounds like a workable and enjoyable concept. However, Google have made another application in the past called ‘Disco’, and it flopped…badly. Maybe the Google+ platform will transform the concept into what it could have been, but I’m still not convinced on this one.
Will the people come?
That’s the real issue, the potentially billion dollar question. Will the people come and use this new Google service? The key, I believe, is in the concept of the ‘Circle’. Facebook have tried several times to create Groups and Friend Lists, putting the failure down to the fact that people just don’t want to group their friends. If Google can manage to achieve their goal and replicate real-life sharing on the internet, then they can begin to hook users away from Facebook and Twitter. If however, the ‘Circle’ concept doesn’t attract users on a mass scale, then I imagine the people will flock back thinking, ‘Why would I do something here, that I’ve doing over there for years?’
The launch process also seems much more organised than Google have managed before. Starting off with a small group of invites to who a select few, who still have a great deal of influence within the internet marketing community, ironing out the kinks, before rolling it out on a larger scale. This element of exclusivity has created a lot of hype around the product and left lots of people eager to begin working with it.
My main problem with it is not due to the features, but it is down to the way they are targeting it against Facebook, despite it being a near carbon-copy of the FB model. It looks like they have really shown a lot of innovation without trying to reinvent the wheel. However, they have created this veneer of philanthropy and humanism, but in order to monetise the project they are going to have to advertise and sell personal information on to marketing firms. This is the reason that, allegedly, hundreds of thousands of users are leaving Facebook, and to think Google are going to be doing something different strikes me as a bit naïve. Still, I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on the matter, have Google finally cracked social?
This blog was written over 6 months ago and Internet Marketing and is an always changing industry which means the information within this blog may be out of date. Use caution when using any methods or suggestions within it.
