Twitter Wins & Google+ Loses on Libya & Major News

As the rebels in Libya pushed into Tripoli and the endgame was in play, the news and commentary went full throttle. On Twitter. Not so much on Google+, the new social network from Google that many pundits have said threatened Twitter, and I was one of them. Until a major story like Libya’s rebels succeeding broke and within a few hours it was clear that Google+ had missed the mark. We provide insights to clients in the international aid, peace operations and development world when crises like these happen, a number asked us through long day yesterday if they’d be better off using Google+, sadly we had to say “stick with Twitter for now.”

As we ran an analysis on the mentions between Twitter and Google+ we found there was one mention on Google+ for every 20 “tweets” on Twitter over a three hour period. There was little debate or discussion on the issue to be found on Google+ while there was significant re-tweeting and snippet discussions on Twitter. It’s much easier to assess a stream on Twitter to determine whats happening and whats hot. But lets also be practical about this – Twitter has been in the market for far longer than Google+, by years. There is also an entire eco-system of apps and services behind Twitter that cover sentiment analysis, influence scores, trending topics, heat mapping and geolocation and so on. Such apps are still very nascent for Google+ as it is still in its infancy.

But what became apparent is that Google+ is extremely good at enabling tight controls of social groups and information within those groups. But unless you have a slew of journalists or media types in your circles and your paying very close attention to your full stream, you’ll likely miss major news stories unless someone in your circle brings it up, and given the “noise” we note in the stream (as have others.) The other problem is the ability to search. Twitter doesn’t do search well either, but it’s still better than Google+.

Our conclusion from comparing the two services is that if Twitter does one thing very well, it is provide a good flow of information on what is happening around the world and down to local news (keep in mind you should be following at least 100 people, news services among them, to gain this benefit). Something Google+ is weak at, but as Google works on it, I suspect they’ll figure something out. We like where Google+ is going in our company, but when it comes to keeping your finger on the pulse of the Web and the world…well, Twitter is the warp and woof of the Internet still.

The Constant Rebellion Towards Channels

YouTube became successful in large part because people wanted an alternative to boring old tv broadcast stations that dictated what you could watch and when. Internet radio was largely the same reason and blogging etc., because people could tell their own stories, create and share their own ideas. Throughout history, whenever someone creates a media channel to broadcast, someone looks for a way around it because they have another view or find too many restriction imposed by the gatekeeper of that channel.

This is always happening. With Facebook effectively now a “channel” it was no surprise over their leak of Project Spartan with the intent to deliver apps within the Facebook channel. Some media channels are looking at developing apps in HTML 5 to be delivered in the Safari browser in iPad and the iPhone and other smart-phones, bypassing iTunes and the Apple gatekeeper. Sure they’re a tad slower, but they work. More importantly, they avoid Apple’s control.

As we indicated in an earlier article, it’s the Hippies who created the Bulletin Boards and the The Well back in the 70′s and into the early 80′s. Steve Jobs was one of them, he knows the aversion to enterprise systemic control – and yet is creating an Apple-centirc channel today. We’re always, as humans, looking for an alternative…technology always disrupts, just as the printing press eliminated scribes and the car the horse and buggy.

We see the issues of Apple, Google, Microsoft and Facebook as basic economic cycles. They are disrupting and in some cases creating, entirely new forms (i.e. app stores), of channels. People will certainly use them, but at some point, people will find a way around them when they want a different form of content and new channels will evolve. Google+ threatens Twitter more than Facebook, yet now Google and Facebook are trying to outdo each other by adding new features to encourage people to stay within their channels.

At its inception, Facebook was intended for a narrow audience with a channel that did not exist in the form desired. YouTube, DailyMotion, Break.com have succeeded because people wanted other forms of video content than what broadcast television was providing. Social media channels are simply alternatives or new forms based on either a want or need of the market. Therefore, disruption will be the norm and people will always look for ways to communicate that fill a new perceived desire, decrease friction and cost.

Google+ vs. Facebook: A Human Approach

Being as we are constantly researching social media use and activity for clients, I guess we can’t help but weigh in on the Google+ and Facebook battle that opened up with last week’s announcement of Google+ (with my trial so far, I’m exceedingly impressed with Google+)…so as we spoke with our team members who are sociologists and anthropologists one glaring fact came to our attention: Google has taken the time to look at how people use the web and adapted Google+ in this manner. Facebook does not take this approach, they force people to behave a certain way. This is a vital, perhaps critical, difference and why Google+ may take the win in the long run.

The Privacy Battle
Facebook’s constant battle on privacy issues is a boon to Google+ who’s sorted out this issue well with Circles. On the ease of use for privacy on what is or isn’t shared, Google+ is a clear winner. Google learned a lesson from the launch of Buzz and no doubt closely looking at Facebook’s approach to this issue. Every time Facebook launches a new service or tweaks their system, there are howls of protest. Facebook is one of the top 10 most hated companies in America. Google stepped back from the trees and thought this through carefully.

The Opposing Philosophy of Privacy & Sharing
Seemingly, Facebook just doesn’t care about your privacy. if it does, its actions certainly don’t portray this. Not to say Google hasn’t had its slip ups as with Buzz, but it would appear that Google has a different approach to privacy at a fundamental level. Zuckerburg wields influence much like Apple’s Steve Jobs…and one can see that privacy is not something Zuckerburg is concerned with to any serious degree. When it comes to sharing, the “Wall” on Facebook has become one sorry state of affairs. Yes, you can manage who sees what, but it is insanely difficult, where Circles is easy and intuitive. Facebook just doesn’t understand human communications and how people want to share. This is a critical point in social media channels. Google has spent some time to understand how people share information and lifestyle communications; they are interested in how humans naturally behave. A vital, opposing philosophy to Facebook.

Segments & Lifestyle or Social Behaviour
What Google understands is that as humans, we have different social groups we connect with. Workers, family and hobbies or interests. Therefore we share different information with different people in different ways, at different times and frequencies. Facebook does not understand this, or if they do, they haven’t made it easy. The new sidebar for “easier chat” is not an answer to Circles, it is squirrely attempt at a new feature that adds little or no value.

Natural vs. Forced Behaviours
On our team we have sociologists and anthropologists who weigh in on almost every research project. This because how people behave in a social network provides critical insight for market research and public policy research. What we can very clearly see with Google+ is that as they spent time to understand privacy and sharing behaviours, they used their vast amount of data from other channels they own (Blogger, YouTube etc.) to understand how people behave online…and here’s the real kicker in Google’s approach – they built Google+ around how people naturally behave online, whereas Facebook forces you into their system. This fact alone is what we suspect will lead to a very good end product from Google. They’re just getting started with Google+ and we can’t wait to see what’s next.

Google Vs. Facebook And My Address Book

Google’s deploying their now well-known tactic for dealing with threats; assemble a gaggle of doctorates into a room while simultaneously cutting cheques left right and centre. Meanwhile Facebook just rolls out another game…weddingville anyone?

But here’s the issue I see, backed up by three years of research: It’s about the address book. Not games. Not features. It’s my address book with all my connections…added to that is all that really valuable stuff of social networks – videos, messages, photo’s. The stuff that makes up human experiences of social groups. Our “social history” if you will.

Sure, Google’s got lots of people with Gmail accounts. But Google Buzz has failed. Mostly because it completely misses our “social history”…it’s just not easy to share what is easy to share in Facebook – photo’s, videos and the comments added to photo’s that we may go back and look at. Buzz just bombs there. It’s essentially just a hyped up version of Gmail.

In our view, if Google really wants to take on Facebook, they have to figure out how to compellingly make it easy to port over not only ones address book connections, but all those photo’s and the history attached to them.

But perhaps they aren’t bothering with that at all? Perhaps they’re just going to offer a bunch of games to play. That’ll be about as successful as Wave and Buzz.

Google isn’t batting a good average right now. I’m curious to see what they come up with in this latest venture. Somehow I suspect it may not be a social networking app. It’s too bad, since I like what Google does much better than Facebook.

Social Media & Growing Privacy Issues

The buzz was abuzzin over Google’s launch of Buzz last week. The initial debate seemed to be whether or not Buzz would slam Twitter. Our quick monitoring on sentiment was 10:2 against Buzz winning that one.

Privacy however, quickly became the issue. Prompting Google to announce in just 2 days that they were making changes to the privacy setting.

Which sets up the whole issue of privacy, which occasionally bubbles to the surface of mainstream attention, simmers and boils again. As a connected “always on” society, well, we’re starting to deal with a whole lot of issues beyond just privacy.

Issues on such a broad societal scale that we’ve never before had to deal with.

One privacy issue out of Buzz that struck me was a woman trying to hide from an abusive ex-husband; Buzz was kind enough to connect her instantly again to him. Fail.

Then there’s companies like us, listening to the chatter to help companies and agencies engage in better marketing opportunities – we do however, strictly observe privacy laws in Canada, USA and UK where we operate. Just felt I should hang that out there.

So here are some of the issues we’ve seen bubbling to the top over privacy today:

1. Some people really don’t care

2. Some folk suggest that privacy is an illusion nowadays anyway

3. Others think you need to be exposed to some degree or you’ve got something to hide

4. Then there’s those who refuse to engage in being online at all. Are they missing out?

5. And then some are starting to lock things down; they’re there, but aware and learning to lock it down.

It’s a big issue. No clear cut answers.

What do you think? What are your privacy concerns? or are you?