How Google+ Failed & Succeeded

TLDR: No it is not a complete failure

I have been thinking about the different social networks and why some of them succeed and some do not. Granted there are many variables like the team, execution, timing and luck, there are also strategic and product reasons. Why did Pinterest, Linkedin Instagram and Twitter succeed and carve out their own corners of the world vs facebook when Google+ and many others did not?

First, Why did Google create a social network?

Here is how I see it, Google launched Google+ with 3 main goals:

1. A Social Network play
2. Be the thread connecting users across suite of Google products+
3. Generate more ad revenue

The Social Network Stats

Source: Leveragemedia, Dec 2013

At first glance, one might look at the Google+ stats and wonder why so many people are calling Google+ a failure? Any business would love to have 400 million active users.

How is Google+ a Failure? It failed as a Social Network (point #1)

Google can claim 400 million monthly users, but that does not mean much when they are making pushing people to sign up and interact with Google+ through all their other products. Products that push users onto their service have lower engagement & retention than products that can pull them because they are awesome products with great viral loops.

Active users can easily be pumped up. Does Google count me as an “active” user even though I don’t actively spend time on the social network? Sure they will, when I need to read the occasional article someone posted on their Google+ for the sake of SEO for their business. Sure, they will, because I use Google Hangouts at work to hold meetings. But I don’t spend time there because I want to engage with friends, discover content etc. I come in, do what I need to and leave. Then I go to facebook, twitter, linkedin and Quora for those things. Google+ is not a habit forming product yet (in the words of Nir Eyal).

I don’t want to see bloated metrics about Google+ like Active Users, number of friends. I want to see deeper engagement metrics and see how Google stacks up:

1. Median number of sessions/DAU
2. Median session length
3. What % users interact with each feature
4. New user retention curves

(there are many, many more metrics that would quantify real engagement)

How Google+ is Successful — The Thread Across Google (point #2)

With Google+ sign in required across its products like gmail, youtube and eventually even hardware like nest and similarly with commenting sprinkled across its network, there is no doubt that, it has and will succeed with #2.

As of last month, I have single sign on across all my Google apps on mobile with the same account. That is pretty cool!

And this is the rocket fuel for how it can generate more ad revenue…

How Google+ is Successful — Generating more Ad Revenue (point #3)

Facebook ads are so valuable for the very reason that, for the first time in the history of the internet, brands and companies can target users based off demographic data like age, gender and location and based off hobbies and interests. Google needed a social network, so it can improve ad targeting with demographic data. Getting brands to have pages and interact with customers on your social network is also a win but I won’t delve into that.

In fact, I believe Google can build a much deeper user profile than facebook ever can. Imagine if Google knows all your restaurant history from Zagat, shopping history from Google Express, payment history from Google Wallet, home data from Nest, entertainment preferences from youtube, not to mention chrome browser, gmail, your android device and search, it will be able to target users in a way that facebook with its social graph cannot even dream to.

Why did Google+ Fail as a Social Network?

Twitter and instagram have carved out separate user behaviors than facebook, the utility social network. Google+ was initially designed to be like facebook, a utility social network, just with a different UI e.g.:

1. Circles instead of friends
2. Communities instead of groups
3. Photos and not as different as instagram

For a social network to carve out its place, it needs to provide a different utility than facebook. There are many ways of doing so, here are some:

1. Focus on different media formats e.g. twitter & its 140 characters updates, instagram and its pictures. Different media formats will drive different type, frequency of content being shared
2. Focus on features geared to different user demographics, women are 4x more likely to use Pinterest according, 37% of Instagrams population is between the age of 18-31 vs 27% for Pinterest
3. Focus on different user needs. Even though 53% of the twitter users use Instagram and vice versa, it is not hugely cannibalistic as each satisfies some different needs. Food photos = Instagram, real time news = twitter. Of course there is overlap too e.g. following celebs. Similarly, Pinterest has photos but its focused on commerce, cooking etc. Quora is focused on knowledge. Next door is a hyper local social network focused on your neighborhood. Sadly, Google+ cannot be used for very different things than facebook.

With some much distribution power, talent and money, Google+ can find its focus. One of Google+ most differentiated (and loved) feature is Hangouts/video. Sure, Vine is video too, but its a different format and use case. None of the other large social networks have won the video battle and there is where Google+ can shine. Why not bring video/hangouts front and center like instagram did with pictures when they pivoted from burbn? Why not bring in live video streaming e.g. friends streaming (powered by youtube) the superbowl and chatting about it on Google+? I have noticed that the network is evolving and focusing on what works, but there is so much more to do.

I would love to know what others think about this? Shoot me an email (hikramh@gmail.com) or message me on twitter/linkedin.