Google+1 Goes Critical, But Not In A Good Way

I was in Minneapolis' Mall of America and happened to wander by the new Microsoft store. The layout, the look and the feel were a near-exact clone of the very popular Apple Stores, one of which just happened to be directly across the concourse. Here, in the largest mall in the world, I had the opportunity to compare and contrast the physical embodiments of two of the most ubiquitous brands in the world.

If not for the several floor staffers in the Microsoft store, it would have been almost empty. Only one person was wandering through the aisles showcasing the latest from Redmond, significantly outnumbered by the two staffers glued to his side, as well as two more looking on over the potential buyer's shoulder -- and still one more, whom I took to be the manager, overseeing the scene from a more discreet distance.  

I then swiveled 180 degrees and saw how the Apple store stacked up against the Microsoft challenger. To be fair, the store wasn't nearly as busy as most locations I've been to, but even a conservative estimate would put the customer count at 15 to 20 times the sole Microsoft customer.



This brought to my mind the importance of critical mass. We humans are notoriously impressionable -- especially so when being asked to adopt new things. On the average, we have more in common with sheep (or lemmings) than "lone" wolves. So critical mass becomes well, critical in determining the success of new things.  It's called social proof, and it makes or breaks markets. All things being equal, I'm going to choose Apple over Microsoft just because I have proof than other people have done the same. Then, this movement becomes self-perpetuating. The more people who follow the herd, the more that others want to join it. It's how we're wired, and all the Kinect games in the world won't be enough to fight it.

Critical mass is also vital in social networks. In fact, the concept is central to the health and continued viability of any online community. When the momentum drops, the community is on its way to being a ghost town. When's the last time you logged onto MySpace? Or Friendster? Or, unless you live in Brazil, Orkut? 

Which brings me to Google's+1. Just a few weeks ago, Rob Garner, one of my fellow Search Insiders, was pondering what Google's new social offering might do for search.  Millions signed onto Google's service as soon as it went public. Critical mass seemed well on its way. If the trends held up, this could change everything. 

And then it died.  

It's been 2 weeks since I received a Google+1 invite, and that came from a Google employee. There has been no reason to check my +1 circles. I really haven't given it a thought prior to writing this column. Each and every day, I receive one or two LinkedIn invites in my inbox. I generally receive 4 to 5 Facebook invitations a week. But Google+1? Crickets. 

Apparently the only ones using +1 are Google employees who are forced to if they want their bonus, wannabe programmers from India and journalists who are researching the Google+1 obituary they're writing. 

The rapid demise of Google+1 is not new in the world of social media. Other networks have followed a similar path into oblivion, although perhaps not with the same speed. It's the dilemma of social networks, managing to get beyond the predictable burst of the early adopters and cross the chasm to mainstream usage. To date, Facebook, LinkedIn and perhaps Twitter are the only ones to have managed the chasm crossing successfully. Google+1 sputtered before it even got to the precipice. 

What this means is that Google doesn't have the critical mass of social usage to provide a signal to noise ratio clean enough to impact search rankings. Both the reach and frequency of usage is simply not high enough to make a credible social graph. Eric Schmidt tried to say that there was more than enough online social activity for everyone, but it seems we simply don't have the patience or free time to maintain multiple social destinations. We'll kick the tires of a newcomer, but unless it offers something substantially better than the competition, we won't come back with any regularity. 

Google desperately needed a win with +1. But based on current traffic, it seems doomed. 

Just like that Microsoft store stuck across the concourse from Apple.

4 comments about "Google+1 Goes Critical, But Not In A Good Way".
Check to receive email when comments are posted.
  1. Rob Garner from Author of "Search and Social: The Definitive Guide to Real-Time Content Marketing Wiley/Sybex 2013, October 6, 2011 at 3:06 p.m.

    Thanks for the mention, and another interesting column, as always. I would clarify though that the aforementioned column was actually looking at the algorithmic impact on social networks, rather than social's impact on search. Seems that Google+ showed a number of weaknesses in the current state of social networking. And as a regular user, Google+ is far from dying off. My experience has been different, where I am getting circled much more frequently. Critical mass has hit with certain audiences in Google+, but may take longer for others.

  2. Craig Mcdaniel from Sweepstakes Today LLC, October 6, 2011 at 5:33 p.m.

    Interesting. You missed on a very important point and wouldn't know it unless you owned a very big website like mind,

    This is we were on Google test site selection for Google Plus+. At first it was ok we thought. Then we had to take it off. Why? Google Plus was eating up our bandwidth. With over 32,000 sweepstakes we went through our 30 percent bandwidth reserve in no time. Our site went to a crawl. Maybe we did something wrong. Maybe we didn't. I tried asking Google 3 times what the problem was. No answer whatsoever.

    So in the end, we had to take off Google Plus. Google should do more to work directly with it's big publishers instead of the unprofessional no response. We wanted to see Google Plus work. Apparently they don't care. Pass this along to Google for me if you would.

    Craig McDaniel, President

  3. Melissa Lande from lande communications, October 6, 2011 at 6:38 p.m.

    Interesting column but I would say give it a chance. I thought Craig's comment on the bandwidth issue is interesting- but Rob's column is a lot closer to what I see and I am by no means one of the brilliant early adapters- I've barely scraped the surface. I think it's a new kind of social networking that brings value added to it and that is the ratings impact on social networks. This is a new animal, much as was Apple in the beginning. But it is Google after all -- and while so this industry moves faster than a speeding bullet, some things take time. We are int he early stages, no? So I hope you're wrong - since Apple managed to keep its quality in high order despite the naysayers in its earliest days. I personally was an Apple freak from Day 1 and only the need to be in total sync with corporate clients brought me to using a PC at the same time.If Google patches some issues and has not become too big to be original, it will be a winner. It will just take awhile. Because it's NOT Facebook, it needs to be promoted very differently than relying on viral word of mouth -- VERY DIFFERENTLY. On this I am an expert. Anyway, time will tell. And promotion of a different sort will help. Put some money in THAT, Google!

  4. Caitlin Halpert from iSearch Media , October 6, 2011 at 7:06 p.m.

    By incorrectly referring to the social network with the name “Google+1” you have confounded two very different components of Google’s new products. Google+ is a profile, +1 is a button that is integrated into sites, search results and Google+ accounts. While I tend to agree with your opinion of Google+, +1 is a totally different story. +1 will only grow in power especially as Google uses +1 to impact organic search rankings.

Next story loading loading..