Google+: Hype and The Basics

Google+ will revolutionize social media. Google+ is a Facebook-killer. How can anyone use Facebook after using Google+? Google+ will change how brands interact on social media.


Do any of those comments sound familiar? Google+ discussion dominates my Twitter and Facebook streams. I can't go a day without seeing a story about it popping up on TechCrunch, Engadget or Gizmodo. People are convinced Google+ is the proverbial social media promised land.

People, Google+ is not even a month old. It's still invite only. How can we make these grand statements about it? Do you not remember the Google Wave hype? Or Color? Did you use Google Wave or Color the day after their release?

We all need to take a deep breath and let Google+ organically find its niche in the social media world (I mean, Google+ is currently almost 90% male, it's not really an accurate picture of social media).

So let's cut the hype and actually talk about Google+ for the average Joe and Jane, whom will ultimately determine if Google+ receives widespread adoption.


The Basics

Google+ is Google's answer to social networking. It incorporates Google's product lines under one umbrella.Your Google profile is now the hub of everything. Google Chat (or G-chat), the chat function of Gmail, is part of Google+. Hangouts, a new feature, allows you to video chat with several friends. You can post, comment and +1 on content. Does this sound like Facebook to you? Well, it's incredibly similar.

The biggest difference between Google+ and Facebook though, lies in who you share content with. When you add a contact to Google+, you put them in a 'circle.' These circles determine who gets to see your content. Circles are completely customizable (aside from the Public circle, which is what everyone can see), so you can categorize people how you like. When you decide to share content on Google+, you choose which circles can see it. This can be a little hard to grasp for people who haven't used Google+, so let's use an example:

John is one of my friends. Jack is a work colleague. Jane is a friend who also works in my industry. I would put John and Jane in my 'Friends' circle, while I would put Jack and Jane in my 'Professional' circle. Let's say I want to share some vacation pictures. Obviously, my professional contacts really don't need to see that content, so I would choose to share it just with friends. John and Jane would see my content, but Jack would not.

But let's say I was at an industry convention and took a picture of a really innovative booth (Company XYZ is using Fire Dancers at their booth!). I'd probably want to share that with both my 'Friends' and 'Professional' circles. John, Jack and Jane will see my picture. But Jane is in my 'Friends' and 'Professional' circles! Won't she get my content twice? Nope! If someone is in two circles you share content with, it only shows up once.

Hey, can't you do the same thing with Facebook privacy settings?

Not really. Facebook is very limited with privacy settings compared to Google+. On Facebook, you can only edit set levels (Everyone, Friends, Friends of Friends, Custom) and just determine what someone can or cannot view. On Google+, you just drag and drop people into circles. Controlling your content and making sure you 'talk' to the right audiences is very easy.

Will the average user abandon Facebook for Google+?

As much as I love the ease of content sharing on Google+, I really can't think of a MySpace-level exodus from Facebook anytime soon. Facebook has had some controversial privacy issues, but it hasn't alienated users to their breaking points yet.

Already, early adopters are having some gripes with Google+, such as issues of online identity, privacy questions and lack of a way to import contacts from existing social networks (Facebook, for example). Are these insurmountable hurdles? No. But they raise some significant questions about the network.

Plus, it's just a huge pain to migrate content over from Facebook to Google+.

Businesses

Businesses will soon get their own way of using Google+ (testing will begin soon for selected businesses), so I will try not to speculate on what means for them. However, if circles act the same way for people as they do for businesses, segmenting your audience into circles and being able to have different messages for each will be fantastic.


I understand the excitement behind Google+, it has many possibilities. But we should not pull the cart before the horse. We have to let Google+: 1) Open up to the public, and 2) Organically flesh itself out. Otherwise Google+ is going to crash harder if it doesn't meet lofty expectations.

What do you think of Google+? Do you think we should be hyping it up?

Klout and Social Media Measurement

A little over six months ago, I talked about the so-called 'social media bubble' and my lack of faith in Klout. My argument came out of hearing people proclaim Klout as the only authority on social media engagement and influence. Upon further reflection, I was too heavy-handed with my thoughts on Klout.

Don't get me wrong, I still believe Klout is not the be-all, end-all of social media influence. Instead, Klout is just another tool (in addition to others) for social media measurement.

Why did I change my mind? Some of the recent additions and major adopters of Klout have started making it more than a passing fad.

• Klout now has crowdsourcing elements instead of just hidden algorithms determining score and influence. The +K tool now allows users to identify those who are influential on certain topics and assign points. So if I think someone is influential on social media measurement, I can +K him/her. The +K I gave is now calculated into his/her Klout score. Update: Upon further research, +K does NOT calculate into your Klout score, but it allows users who view your profile to determine what other people think you are influential in. This is just another reason to look at Klout as a part, but not the whole picture in terms of social media measurement. I still feel +K does have value.

• Klout now allows your LinkedIn account to be another variable to generate your score. In the B2B world, LinkedIn dominates. This lets Klout expand beyond the B2C sphere ruled by Twitter and Facebook.

The list of influential topics does need tweaking. For example, Klout says I'm influential on dogs. This is all because I tweeted a picture of a dog my family found and I reached out to media outlets to help me find the owner. Does this mean I'm influential about dogs? Of course not.

Twitter chats are another issue. Klout says I'm influential about #u30pro just because I participate in the chats every week. If you don't actively managing your Klout profile (Klout allows to delete items you feel you aren't influential about), your influential topics list could be completely out of sync.

I mentioned major Klout adoption, but what do I mean by that? Well, certain companies are taking Klout very seriously and are inviting influential users to receive perks:

• Audi targeted influencers in design, technology and luxury to come to San Francisco and test drive the 2011 Audi A8.

• Plum District gave influential moms a $50 credit for the daily deals. The moms also were able to give out this credit to friends and followers.

• DreamWorks gave influential moms and dads early access to see King Fu Panda 2 with their kids.

Klout's widespread adoption is making it a major social media measurement tool. But it is not the only tool. Here are some others:

• Google Analytics now allows social interaction measurement. 

• Speaking of Google Analytics, you can add tracking codes to links posted on social media and measure how well they perform.

• Google is rolling out +1 (which will integrate well with Google+, no doubt).

• Radian6 offers various social media analysis. 

• Heck, you can still measure mentions, likes or comments on a post (NOT FOLLOWERS OR PAGE LIKES!) by hand!

Social media measurement is still very new and not all of these tools are going to be appropriate for what you want to measure. If you want to measure influence, Klout is a good tool. If you want to track social media conversions, you'll use Google Analytics. If you want to measure your company's thought leadership on social media, a mixture of Klout to track influence and Google Analytics to see how well your links perform are your tools.

Each tool has its own use, it's up to you decide what you really want to track and measure (and, ultimately, what defines social media success).

The social media bubble: Does it exist and will it burst?

I never thought I'd be interested in hearing about social media from General Motors.

GM's Christopher Barger sat down with ZDNet's Jennifer Leggio and talked about how he handles social media and his thoughts on the future. The interview is a great read, but Barger's comment about a social media bubble really piqued my interest.

Barger says the social media bubble is going to burst just like the dot com bubble a decade ago.

But do we even have a bubble? Is it going to burst?

I completely agree with Barger when he talks about social media "gurus." Most of their advice is absolutely worthless. They define engagement as constant linking and retweeting without any engagement of their followers. These people also believe having thousands of Twitter followers or Facebook fans is the path to success.

These egomaniacs have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. They take advantage of businesses and people to make themselves look good. Those awful books about how to increase your presence on Twitter? These people write them. The 'RT me and get 500 followers' scams? Yep, these gurus are the culprits.

Barger argues the "gurus" will cause the social media bubble to burst.

I don't buy it.

The number of followers, likes and the ridiculous Klout score mean absolutely nothing. Having one million followers means absolutely nothing if there is no interaction and engagement (unless you're already a celebrity in person). But five hundred followers who regularly interact and engage are of great value.

The "gurus" will fall apart when people see through their charade. Sure, some people will fall into their trap and end up not utilizing social media properly. But this happens in business and real life regularly. There are people who think they will get rich fast by selling knives for Vector. I don't think these people are so much creating a bubble as they are taking advantage of unknowledgable social media newbies.

And how awful is the Klout score? If you think the Klout score matters, I'm here to tell you to stop drinking the Kool-Aid. Boiling down social media relationships and engagement into a score makes no sense. You can't put a number on relationships. It's like giving a girlfriend/boyfriend/wife/husband a score based on dates, intimacy and overall relationship.

"Susan, honey, the relationship score-o-meter says we are only at a 42. We need to boost our sex life, have one more kid and travel to Australia in order to increase our score."

Klout is just ridicuous.

There is no bubble. Even if there was, Barger's only argument for the burst is the proliferation of "gurus." This is hardly enough to make the bubble burst.

However...

There are social media specialists who are actually the real deal, though. These are people who encourage discussion and engagement within the community. They realize social media ROI can't be assigned a simple numeric value, but rather is an analyzation of relationships and discussion monitoring. These specialists provide compelling content and spark discussion with thoughtful ideas.

We shouldn't discount all social media specialists because they are outnumbered by "gurus." There are many specialists who can help people and companies do great things with social media. Just stay clear of those who say you will be a social media opion leader in a week. And the ones peddling a book.

My B2B and social media approach

We all know B2B and B2C marketing and public relations require very different strategies. Most B2B companies can't simply sign up for Facebook and Twitter and automatically attract a legion of loyal followers. If a B2C company has a good product, they'll easily attract fans. If a B2B company has a good product, that can mean nothing in the social media sphere.

Why? Well, if Susie has loves muffins from Muffin Company X, she's very likely to follow them on Twitter and like the company on Facebook. If Susie works for a clothing store and uses a program to help her do inventory in five seconds, while she's happy inventory takes her no time, she won't run off and find the company on social media. Hence the B2B challenge with social media.

I work at a B2B software company right now and I had a big social media dilemma. The consensus I've read is B2B companies aren't sure how to make social media work for them. B2B companies can't give discounts at checkout because pricing is very situational. B2B products often don't get much mainstream attention.

How am I, an entry-level employee right of college, going to use social media to help my company? Besides monitoring industry news and discussion on LinkedIn, how else do I use social media?

It took me a while, but here is how I am approaching social media (LinkedIn is exempt from this strategy since it's already being utilizing):

1) Use social media channels as two-way communication.
This is all about relationship management. I want my company to use social media and engage prospects, current customers and industry players. We need to interact with them and be a good social media neighbor (retweeting, sharing information from others, etc...). Obviously we're not going to promote our direct competitors, but we'll pay attention to the industry magazines, government agencies and other players.

2) Provide compelling content.
There's only so much talking you can do without providing the goods. I want my company to post relevant articles related to our industry. I also provided links to new classes and resources our company provides to customers. New customer case studies will also be content to share.

3) Position company as an opinion leader
My company is pretty well-known in our industry, but we have no social media presence. One of the ways we're going to change this through blogging. I've stated my feeling about blogging before, so I am going to make sure my company doesn't fall into the trap of updating the blog once in a blue moon. My company has people with a ton of industry experience and have fantastic insight to share.

A company can't half-ass their social media effort and expect it to grow overnight. My focus is on cultivating relationships, sharing content and giving our take on the industry. I want the return of investment (ROI) of our social media approach to be better customer, prospect and industry relationships.

This is just the start of my approach. I'm sure it will evolve as time goes on. Does anyone have any advice for a B2B approach to social media? Am I heading in the right direction or am I off my rocker? How do you measure social media ROI as a B2B company?

News Corp considers MySpace sale, but does it matter?

If a tree falls in the woods with nobody around, does it make a sound? If MySpace disappears, will anyone notice?

MySpace's five users should be very worried with News Corp's plan to sell the web site. That is, if News Corp. can even sell it.

I'll be shocked if News Corp. finds a buyer for MySpace. The web site is completely irrelevant in today's social media world. Consider this the death knell for MySpace.

I won't completely dismiss MySpace, though. It definitely had its place in the history of social media. It was a great way for singers and bands to get noticed. Everyone had a MySpace when I was a junior in high school (2004). It was the cool thing to have. I still even have a MySpace account, despite not accessing it for years (good luck finding it).

People filled their MySpace with lots of crazy .GIFs and loud, unmutable music greeted you on their page. Embedded flash and YouTube videos would usually freeze and crash browsers. You could be yourself or adopt a fake persona.

Facebook was always the holy grail, though. My friends and I couldn't wait until we could get a Facebook account, back when it was college only. People had to verify who they were on Facebook (via a .edu e-mail address). I'll admit I contacted my college to get my school e-mail address before freshman orientation, just so I could join my college's Facebook network. Everyone's Facebook page looked the same, creating a sense of calm against MySpace's insanity.

MySpace represented teennage angst while Facebook was maturity.

In 2005, News Corp. bought MySpace for $580 million. Seemed like a good investment based on the lack of other significant social media competition (Friendster was dying). Eventually, Facebook opens itself up for high school students, businesses and finally the world. This practically eviscerated MySpace and began its decline.

Despite rebranding, a focus on music and layout changes, MySpace is now essentially dead.

News Corp. made a good amount of money based on a Google advertising deal, so they recouped their investment. But now MySpace makes absolutely no sense for News Corp.

But who will even buy MySpace? Yahoo might since it has an identity crisis and can't figure out what direction to take. Besides Yahoo, I just can't picture any company buying MySpace. It's not exactly a good investment.

The new owner could try and reinvent MySpace, but it won't work. The MySpace brand brings back memories of bathroom mirror pictures, listening to Hawthorne Heights ("Ohio is for Lovers," to be specific), drama over who made your top 8 and some guy named Tom who always wanted to be a friend.

I'm not sure anyone wants to revisit that chapter of their life. I know I don't.