How to fix Google Plus

fix google plus

Whether you think Google+ is dead, dying, or still on the rise, one thing is certain: something has to change. This post will tell you what and why.

Google+ was meant to take on Facebook. This is an economic imperative for a company built on: a) collecting personal information that can be turned into ads and b) finding ways to have you spend more time on their sites so you can see those ads.

Facebook was capturing a disproportionate share of our personal information and Google had to do something. Their aim was to build a better social network and expose all of Facebook’s flaws. You could argue that it did that … so why is Google+ in turmoil? (And it is).

The reason Google+ has never gone mainstream is because the world does not want a better social network, It wants a COOLER social network and Google+ is not cool with the young people who could move it into the mainstream.

It’s not about tech. It’s about cool.

Facebook is vulnerable as Millenials move into other places like Snapchat, Twitter and Kik. Google is simply not on the radar screen of the folks who are going to determine the Next Big Thing. High school kids don’t give a damn about better SEO results. They want to be cool.

Instead of building engineeringly-beautiful new features and integrating with other Google products (who trusts that any way?) Google should hire Bruno Mars or Katy Perry to be the Google+ spokesperson and launch a massive media campaign to attract the hearts and minds of taste-makers under the age of 19.

Marketing its products has always been a problem for Google and I think we’re seeing this vulnerability in full view right now.

There are a lot of aspects to this discussion beyond the Google+ cool factor (or lack of it) and that is the fodder for the conversation between Tom Webster and I on the latest Marketing Companion podcast.

  • Do we really need to fix Google Plus ?
  • If the numbers on Google+ up, why the organizational disharmony?
  • Is Google+ going to be another “fast fail” or a lasting part of the company’s strategy?

All this and more will be revealed right now:

Link to podcast
Other Ways to Listen to this Podcast:

All posts

  • Hey Mark,

    The biggest advantage Google+ has over other networks is the quality of data shared. This is probably because of the age range of it’s current members. It’s all very well to say that the network isn’t cool enough but the problem is that to be cool it appears that a network has to have endless streams of meaningless content that quite frankly, I chose Google+ to avoid.

    I use the site exclusively for photography related engagement and it can’t be beaten for that.

    Unfortunately as with other sites to be seen as ‘successful’ a site has to be comparable to Facebook etc and if it becomes like Facebook then I (and probably many others) will look elsewhere for a network.

    I disagree with you about Google+ not offering a unique experience, the people on the network are it’s uniqueness, it’s just that too many others believe articles that say it’s a non starter, a graveyard or now, dying.

    If I post something on Google+ I’ll get a bunch of genuine, intelligent comments and engagement, post the same on Facebook and not much at all. When I look at my Google+ home feed, everything is what I want to see, my Facebook feed – babies, cats and like bait posts.

    With regards to there being no audience, I’m an admin for a photography community of over 250,000 members, there’s a pretty big, targeted audience right there.

    Great talk by the way, enjoyed the point both for and against 🙂

  • jeffyablon

    No. No, no, no.

    >>Google+ was meant to take on Facebook

    OK, sure. except … it does, just not as a product. In fact, something else you wrote exposes the truth in that:

    >>Facebook was capturing a (disproportionate) share of our personal information and Google had to do something.

    They did, didn’t they? Google knows pretty much everything; just yesterday they started pushing alerts to Google Now based on your location being cross-referenced in real-time to show you when you are near products you’ve searched for.

    >>Their aim was to build a better social network and expose all of Facebook’s flaws.

    I doubt the latter was ever important to anyone above grunt-level (do they even have grunts at Google?). As for the first part: I accept that the original intent of G+ was to out-Facebook Facebook, but Google evolved it to something far more useful to them than providing a billion people a playground.

    G+ is fine. It just isn’t a viable product.

  • I didn’t say Google didn’t build a better product but maybe you were EXPECTING me to say that : ) In fact I said Google probably built a better product but just hasn’t marketed it well.

    I also didn;t say there is no audience. I said it hasn’t gone mainstream. There is a difference.

    The post really didn;t compare Google with Facebook, I just pointed out a culture problem at Google — it doesn’t market its products well (with some exceptions of course).

    Thanks for your comment Barry!

  • “Google evolved it to something far more useful to them than providing a billion people a playground.”

    The problem is … for who? When you talk to teens about Google+ they shrug their shoulders. It does not solve a unique problem for them,

    I’m not saying Google + isn’t a solid network. I’m just not sure it is getting the traction the company expects and I offered an opinion why. If it expected to take on Facebook, it needed to bring buckets of marketing dollars and it did not do that.

    Thanks very much for sharing your perspective!

  • To be honest, from the post title I wasn’t expecting a glowing review heheh!

    There is quite a lot of talk in the audio about people not needing another Facebook and Google+ encouraging Facebook to compete, I interpreted this as comparison rightly or wrongly, but fair enough 🙂

    I’m not sure why a network such as Google+ is seen to NEED young people to join, maybe a network for, and I’ll choose my words wisely here, mature people is a good thing.

    I agree about Google’s marketing, for such a huge brand they aren’t great and getting new products out there…..

  • I think Google + is a great network. So do you. But does Google consider it a great network if it’s not making a dent in Facebook? And if Google doesn;t consider it a success, will it last? History says no. Will it be added to a long list of discontinued services? See:

    Google has been forced to cajole people into using it promising better search results or by linking it to other products. This seems desperate.

    At the end of the day, Google has to see this as successful or it won’t matter. And the only way to make it go mainstream is to market it.

  • Unfortunately you’re probably right, maybe this is your chance to start a network for all the Google+ refugees?! 🙂

  • I have to say that I agree with Mark. Some of you have good points, but I think you missed his message. Google + has attracted business types from my perspective. So, rather than competing with Facebook it appears to me that it is a different style of something like LinkedIn. The demographics are just all wrong from teens and early adults. Also, social continues to move toward more visual aspects. Thus the popularity of Snapchat. Facebook made their play for Instagram for that reason.

    Just my two cents. I am no expert.

  • I can’t imagine taking on Facebook. They have the resources to annihilate any competitor!

  • cwomack

    In mid-west America at least, Facebook seems to be losing popularity with teens in favor of SnapChat and Instagram. Every young person I talk to has told me they are thinking of dropping their Facebook account. Google+ seems to be more popular with the Mac/Linux crowd. I’m no social media expert or even any sort of marketing guru, but as Jonathan Mills Patrick suggested, I believe we’re seeing a shift.

  • @businessesgrow:disqus haven’t listened to the podcast yet but I would immediately push back on, “Google+ was meant to take on Facebook.”

    Many Google and Google+ staff have said directly that their purpose in creating Google+ was NOT to beat Facebook but rather create a “Social Layer” between their various products and use the activity within that layer to better understand consumer interest and behavior.

    I’ll have to listen to the rest of the podcast but on that premise alone I think a large part of your argument for Google+ being “Cool” doesn’t apply.

    They don’t care if it’s cool.

  • Pragati Bidkar

    Maybe they should talk more about those driverless cars..think that will go toward making them sound cool?

  • Gordon Diver

    I agree that Marketing and vision (for a platform like G+) is what may be lacking for Google. In my personal experience, there are a core group of folks that I interact with on G+ (mostly teck savvy that enjoy using Hangouts), but not many of what would be potential future brand advocates, their still on Facebook. I really like the opportunities that might exist in G+, but like Tom and Mark have an issue with Trust. Do I spend my time building a presence on someone else’s property only to have it go away? Not saying it will, but have to wonder.

  • The fact that we have to debate what Google+ is (or is not) points to a failure of branding and marketing communications.

    I always saw Google+ as part of the social enterprise, not as a Facebook or Twitter competitor. Google is assembling everything you need to run a business and sell products; from Communication, Collaboration and Search to e-Commerce. The combination of Drive, Hangouts, gmail, Calendar, YouTube, e-commerce(wallet), Play, etc. offers a value proposition that Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn cannot compete with yet.

    I believe Google is actually farther ahead if they can get the packaging and monetization right. LinkedIn acquiring Dropbox (or a similar service), adding in video conferencing, ramping up SlideShare video sharing, and adding e-commerce could close the gap.

    In the bigger picture, I actually see Amazon or Alibaba as a more likely competitors for Google.

  • I think you makes some great points Mark. What is left to be determined is, what does Google think of the economic impact Google + has had and does the “social layer” provide enough incentive internally, to keep Google+ afloat.

    Does it need to be better than Facebook to attract the younger crowd? Is the younger crowd the target market that maintains the economic viability of these networks?

    I actually question getting too riled up about any of these networks. Marketing strategy mandates that you don’t.

    But it would still be nice to know that all the effort people are putting into building connections on Google Plus will not be thrown away because kids dont listen to music there.

  • jeffyablon

    Mark, teens don’t much care for FB anymore, either. It’s too convoluted to address their short attention spans; they’d much rather Snapchat something, or dump a thought into any Twitter-like mechanism.

    I had to let this roll around in my head for a couple of hours to realize what was bothering my about your response. It seems to say that (teens, whomever) are too dumb to think for themselves long enough to know what to do next. OK, I’ll buy that. I’ll even extend it to most everybody. But that actually backs up my argument: the cacophonous bizarre isn’t the point. The point it gathering and using data. and G+ is doing that incredibly well.

  • Does it have to go mainstream to be successful?

  • Thanks for taking the time to comment Jonathan!

  • I’d rather see it stay out of the mainstream, at least that way it may not attract the type of content that’s ruined Facebook and the like 🙂

  • Mark, do you really think Google is or should be targeting teens? Don’t forget that not only is Google+ part of Google, it IS Google. It’s been integrated into virtually every aspect of the company.

    So as a business, who is Google’s targeted demographic? The under 20 crowd?

    I don’t think so.

    Is it possible that Google+ hasn’t gone mainstream yet because Google doesn’t need it to go mainstream? Is it possible that it is only marketers and media that want that to happen?

    Let’s put it another way.

    There’s an argument here that Google doesn’t know how to market their Google+ product. The assumption is that they would if they could, but they can’t, so they won’t.

    Yet Google does, in fact, market their other products. I have seen Chromecast commercials on TV, along with other products. With the money and resources that Google has, they could buy 10 Super Bowl commercials and reach millions every day through traditional advertising. They could partner with big brands to make sure that those brands were using a G+ logo on their commercials instead of Facebook or Twitter.

    So why haven’t they?

    My view is that they haven’t done that because they don’t have to. They don’t have to make everyone love their network… it’s already used by more people than Twitter and LinkedIn combined. Why should they waste money advertising it? And now they’ll have businesses paying to promote their Google+ Page posts, essentially paying Google to advertise Google+.

    So this, I think, is where so many marketers and tech analysts have it wrong. They are speculating about Google’s motives and aren’t seeing the long play that’s in place here. Google+ is helping to make Google’s #1 product, Search, better and better.

    Teens? They can have their Snapchats and the other flavors of the day.

  • Todd Lyden

    Mark, gotta disagree.
    Any cool kids are going to see through it in a heart beat.

    It won’t be cool by association to the kids…
    As near as I can tell, Google hasn’t made it cool for BUSINESSES en masse to care about the “product.”
    It’s free and promises better online result, blah blah, but business still isn’t jumping…

  • I have to say that I do not use Google+ at all right now. This is only because every social channel I get on is a lot more time I have to spend. With that said I was looking forward to eventually using Google+ in the future. I would be real bummed if they just threw it away!
    When you first said it in the podcast I though “Nah it’s to big to just throw away.” Then you told of all the other things they trashed and now I am worried.
    Thank you Mark for making me worried! haha

  • Pingback: Social Media, Influency, and Ever-More-Complicated Marketing()

  • Interesting to note, this article has been shared more on Google+ than either Facebook or Linkedin.

    Twitter is way ahead but I suspect that is due more to the fact that Mark is a Twitter Taoist.

  • Thanks very much for sharing your perspective.

  • This is revisionist history. There is no way Google set out to build a social network that would take a backseat to anybody, let alone Pinterest, which has eclipsed it.

    I am not saying Google + is a failure. It has reached a lot of important milestones but at its inception it was meant to take on Facebook. The analysts said so, even Facebook said so. And by the way we NEEDED them to take on Facebook to make them a better competitor.

    So I just don’t buy the argument from Google or anybody else that this was designed from the beginning to be a second tier social platform. Now that they ARE a second tier platform ( by many measures) they are reinventing their creation story.

    And I would argue with you that the coolness of the project in the social space is the ONLY thing that matters. Proponents of Google + have adopted it as part of their identity, as they should.

    Appreciate the dissent but I have to get back in your face on this one buddy!

  • It will certainly free up time to use Google products!

  • Check out the Wikipedia link on all the platforms Google discontinued. I don’t necessarily think the “fail fast” model is relevant all the time. Sometimes success takes persistence too. If Thomas Edison used the fail fast model, most of his inventions would have never seen the light of day (pun intended!)

  • Do you know of one large, international enterprise that relies on Google products to run their business? No. Too many security concerns. Which gets back to your first question … what are they?

    Always an honor to have you comment sir.

  • There is no way Google — or almost any other company — can succeed without the hearts and minds of the Millennials. By 2020, Millennials will make up 50% of the workforce. I can’t get my head around an argument that a smart company like Google actually made a decision that they do not need to appeal to an entire generation of consumers. I appreciate your dissent but it doesn’t sound like any legitimate business strategy I could comprehend.

    With a few exceptions (long distance romance ad), Google’s ads are terrible. I have watched the Chromecast commercials over and over and I still cannot tell you what the thing does. They should fire their agency.

    They have the money and ability to market G+ properly but they haven’t. Wouldn’t you consider that inexplicable unless they are having second thoughts about supporting the platform?

    What would the business reason be for little to no marketing support for one of their highest-profile products? Would you make the same decision if you were running the show? : )

  • Interesting perspective Todd. You have me thinking on that one.

  • I don’t want people to worry, but I do want them to think. : ) Sounds like you’re thinking. Appreciate your comment Blake.

  • The balance of the share numbers are fairly representative of a typical post. Sometimes Facebook is huge, sometimes LinkedIn is huge, sometimes G+ is big. I can’t always explain it. As i compose this response, G+ has 60 shares. I do not consider that a significant number, especially when the article is about G+ : )

  • Ya, I was being a smart ass.

    The numbers are meaningless other than to demonstrate that Google+ really isn’t the ghost town many refer to it as.

    Ghosts don’t share.

  • Linkedin is cool? 😉

  • Mark, you may know more about this than I do, but, I have to ask, based on your argument, companies need to start marketing and attracting an audience at an early age, in anticipation of them becoming the target audience?

    I don’t know any teenagers who are on Linkedin, UNTIL, it is time to be on Linkedin. Do you?

    When Millenials become professionals, they are far more likely to want to engage in the professional conversations going on over at Google+ than what’s currently happening on other “social networks”.

    Sure, you are correct, that Millenials cannot be ignored. But when, based on your product or service, do you start to engage, or expect them to engage back?

  • Have you ever trended those numbers over time, Mark? I wonder if there is a pattern, or if they are indeed a random walk. See, content idea!

  • I’ll take that as a compliment!
    I also have to say the graphic for the post is a perfect fit for this podcast.

  • Could probably do a correlation study but it has not been on the top of my hit parade. Every once in awhile a G+ number goes bonkers. I am guessing it is more of a function of a powerful person sharing it more than some characteristic of the post.

  • Why come on to a public blog and be a smart ass? Everything you do and everything you don;t do reflects on your brand Vincent. A blog community is a great place to meet people who can help and support you. Personally, I would hesitate to collaborate with a smart ass. I know you are a professional. I would encourage you to show up as a professional, always.

    And I did not imply that Google+ was a ghost town although the data might suggest it is, ie Google’s unconvincing definition of “engagement” or activity.

    It is a valuable platform that could benefit from better marketing. Do you have a contention with the main theme of the blog post?

  • I was punchy : )

  • “Cool” is overrated.

    Teens are abandoning FB in droves because FB is bloated. They want FAST, FUNCTIONAL, and FUN.

    Think AIM before it got all crapped up. It did chat better than anything else (compared to the likes of ICQ).

    Teens LOVED AIM.

    Teens love text, cuz it’s fast and functional.

    Teens love SnapChat cuz it is fun and works.

    Google+ gives Google unprecedented levels of access to how we work on a social level. The communities alone are fabulous. The selective publishing AND selective reading (I can choose which circles to publish to, I can choose which circles I want to read from). The privacy controls. The photo options. The easy integration with mobile. The amazing Hangouts. The beautiful UX/UI – especially on MOBILE. Oh my.

    Google has *no reason* to play Social by FB’s game. I don’t even think G+ is a “social network” so much as it’s another tool Google has to collect data to drive ads. And in that sense, they’d be BONE STUPID to give it up.

  • Let’s not also forget that Google is a network dominated by geeks who like things to “just work” – and not Gen Y geeks so much as Gen X and Baby Boomer geeks who, for what it’s worth, represent the IT departments and a portion of the fastest growing demographic on FB (boomers).

  • The meaningless part is that Google+ on THIS post is more than Facebook…because to your point, that ratio varies depending on the actual post. So all I was doing was AGREEING with you. Sorry you took it the way you did.

    Now, you asked Tom about his data, in support of Google+. At the end of his explanation, and at 4:52 in your podcast, you actually say, and I quote, “That doesn’t necessarily dispute the claims that its a ghost town.”

    THEN, at 10:42, as Tom is describing a competitive advantage of Google+ you respond, “If there is an audience.”

    Again, implying that there is not an audience.

    So, I am listening to your words. I am not in your head, so I can’t interpret what you mean other than, by saying what you said, you are actually implying, or directly stating, that the data from Tom does not mean Google+ is not a Ghost Town.

    The implication, from the sequence of your conversation, as any logical person would conclude, is that YOU think Google+ is a ghost town, OR, that you don’t see evidence to the contrary.

    THAT is why I made my “smart ass” comment, in regard to the GHOST TOWN.

    Fact, you and anyone else that says its a Ghost Town, are flat out WRONG. Wrong beyond wrong.

    You don’t do anything there, for whatever reason, so you don’t see whats happening there. Sure, you post. Who cares. You dont engage. Therefore, you cant see the conversations. It doesn’t get any better.

    And you know what Mark, where I come from, transparency is a positive brand attribute. I admitted on a public blog that I was being a smart ass. I am honest about who I am, good and/or bad.

    I didn’t attack you. I responded to the things you said.

    Since we are on the topic, I actually created a Google Post, invited people who know more than you about Google, as well as you and Tom, to discuss the merit of your post. I defended you when others are quick to dismiss you. I get your point about the marketing assertion. It was not lost on me.

    Sorry if you don’t like my approach.

    As for what I don’t like about your podcast…

    Techcrunch’s article was nothing but tabloid journalism. While Google may not have blogged about it, I have read a few public statements made by Google execs firmly denying literally everything reported by Techcrunch, and ultimately asserted in the beginning of your podcast.

    You are not just saying Google is awesome but it just needs some good marketing.

    You are saying that it is, without a doubt, in a state of demise. The tragedy is that people who follow you take you as an authority on things, and will listen to what you say. What you say, according to sources inside and outside of Google, is wrong.

    Google+ is not in demise. I want people who read this post, who listen to your podcast, to know, it is a good place to be, particularly for the types of businesses I serve.

    Additionally, and per my other comments below, cool is not a prerequisite to survival, hence, Linkedin.

    Also, Millenials will use Google+ when they are old enough to do so, just like they do with Linkedin.

    You don’t start marketing to a target audience at birth. Highschool kids don’t care about SEO, but they will when they get a job or start a business, OR, try to become an authority on something.

    It’s not all about fun and cool. It’s also about business and business conversations…and that my friend, is what is happening at Google+.

    Note also, there are plenty of cat pictures over at Google+ too.

    Google is not only about competing against Facebook. There is far more going on there than you are giving it credit for. It is simply this..the best engagement for business professionals period!

  • I noticed you got a little sassy at the end of your talk there!

  • Pragati Bidkar


  • Thanks for the explanation and dissent. In the end, it doesn’t matter what you or I think about Google +. It doesn;t matter that it is a great place for business conversations. The only thing that will matter in the end is what Google thinks of Google+ so time will tell.

  • Chef Dennis Littley

    Google was never meant to take on Facebook, you’ve got everything all wrong in this post.

  • That is counter to everything I read about the launch of this product but I appreciate the dissenting opinion.

  • From “Google+ is not a social network” to “Cool is overrated” I really don;t know how to respond to your comment. It is certainly a diverse viewpoint and that’s a good thing. Thank you.

  • My opinions are rooted firmly in brain damage 😉

  • Sue Duris

    Nope, Chef. G+ was set up to take on Twitter and Facebook. I even remember the stories of Twitter’s impending demise because of G+. This would make an excellent biz school case study about market entry/launch. They launched too soon and should have led with search. If they would have focused on search, released Google Authorship, focused on blogging and then released G+, would probably save themselves from all the re-marketing they have to do. If they keep with G+, they have to retarget/remarket. If they don’t, they won’t have to. I still go back to Larry Page and want him to reconsider blowing off his conversation with Steve Jobs where Steve said to him to focus on a few projects/products that you are good at. If G+ went away tomorrow, I don’t believe there would be a loss at all…Just sayin. Great post Mark. And your #2 is what I am talking about in these comments.

  • Hello Sue,

    How are you?

    I am not certain there is any evidence of disharmony. Vic left. But others have stated that things are fine.

    Now, we don’t really know for sure which end is up. But a few higher ups have not only discredited the Tech Crunch article, but have also discredited the notion that people have shifted roles.

    We certainly could conclude that Vic leaving is evidence that there is a problem. But we can’t conclude for sure. We also can’t conclude that the problem wasn’t just with Vic, vs it being with Google+ as a whole. What if Vic just didn’t want to work there anymore? Is that evidence that Google plans to phase out Google+?

    Conjecture is not the same as facts.

    I can’t comment on Google’s ability to market their own products, or their intentions going forward. I never worked there. I have also never marketed for a large technology company.

    That said, very few companies get it right the first time around. Not all of them miss the boat, and are given a second chance to get it right. This might be Google’s chance, if it in fact needs to be gotten right.

    But, if Google+ went away, there are a lot of people that would be unhappy, myself included. The loss would be felt tremendously by those who have developed networks there, and those, like me, who are developing networks there.

    There is more happening there than people think.

    Besides, where would all those photographs next to blog articles in the SERPS come from? LOL

  • Sue Duris

    I think G+ will morph into something else. I will say that G+ helped with creating a stronger ecosystem, one that rivals that of Apple. As to your “the loss would be felt tremendously by those who have developed networks there, and those, like me, who are developing networks there,” the numbers speak for themselves – the difference between those who use G+ vs. those who don’t, is large and the G+ users are in the minority. Numbers speak for themselves. As I noted above, they launched too early. I think G+ in some other form, other than its current one, may work as long as it focuses on the search/blogging piece. But if history is an indicator, many Google projects – Buzz, Reader, etc. – have been wrapped so I would not be surprised if the same happens here. Regarding refuting news articles. My God, people have refuted them since the beginning of time – typically because they weren’t ready to provide truth (see Clinton/Lewinsky).

  • LOL…yes indeed. This is precisely why I didn’t go overboard with it.

    I sent you an article via twitter that you will find interesting as it is a fairly detailed write up regarding all of this, but in a much more detailed way.

    I say you will like it because it addresses the need to morph. It also though addresses something that might surprise you, and that is, how Google+ is different than other products that were “wrapped”.

  • Sue Duris

    Read it. Thanks for sharing.

  • Google Plus does not have a killer app to make it essential and profound. There is not one application Facebook could not copy if it wanted to. It does not solve a unique problem for most people. There is no cool factor to make a dent in Facebook’s audience.

    People flock to G+ because they are afraid of Google, hate Facebook or long for SEO. That’s not enough to sustain a mainstream community.

    I want G+ to succeed and thrive but they need to pivot.

  • Are your opinions strictly geared towards large international enterprises? And if so, what type?

    I ask for two reasons. One, it would make your opinions a little more understandable. Two, it would help me understand the statement that NO company can survive without paying attention to Millenials.

    Seriously, are we taking B2C or B2B? Are we talking social networks or Big 4 Accounting Firms.

    Does Accenture market to Millenials now? Does IBM?

    Maybe I shouldn’t care. But you are a marketing expert stating that Millenials should be the defined market for any company wanting to succeed.

    What am I missing?

  • : )

  • You are really taking this down a weird path. The Millennials are not simply a demographic per se. It is a GENERATION that will make up 50% of the buying public in six years. B2B, B2C, big companies, little companies, CPG, services … it doesn’t matter. These young folks will be our customers and our employees. If you have an opinion that it is smart for companies to ignore a generation of consumers then I really don’t know how to respond to that. I’m speechless actually.

  • At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter if you like Google+ or I like Google+. Google has pulled the plug on many successful, dominant technologies that people love with little notice or explanation. It is hard to say where Google is going with the network but I think we can agree that the recent moves were not a vote of confidence in the current direction.

  • Andy Crestodina

    “Personalized search isn’t the future”
    “There’s no need to connect content to authors”
    “We shouldn’t unify the commenting across our products”
    “Reviews of businesses shouldn’t connect to reviewers”

    …Google would have to believe all of these things before retiring Google+

  • No Mark, since you referenced the Millenials as teenagers who want Google to be cool, YOU are labeling them as a demographic.

    I did NOT say ignore Millenials as a generation. I’m asking if you are suggesting that companies start marketing to them at birth.

    I will make it simpler for you. Why should any company start to market to a Millenial while they are in highschool, IF, the product or service is NOT meant for a kid in highschool?

    My opinion is NOT that a company should ignore a generation of consumers. But in making such a suggestion, you did at least partially answer my question. You are clearly talking about B2C.

    Because if you are talking about B2B, you are not talking about teenagers. And therefore, you cannot say “all” companies.

    But that aside. You are making statements suggesting Google should appeal to the young crowd and get Katy Perry to participate.

    I simply suggesting that I am speechless when confronted with a marketing expert who thinks companies, in order to succeed, need to start marketing to their target market, prior to them becoming their target market.

  • I regret that I have not been a clear communicator and thank you for the passion and time you have put into your comments. I need to suspend the time I am devoting to this dialogue. Thanks.

  • LOL, ya me too, about 5 comments ago.

    stupid Disqus comments kept coming in my inbox and I am powerless to let them come and go.

    your a good sport.

  • I hope you are correct!

  • While I agree that Google should do more to spread the Google+ word, I have no doubt that the platform will survive, and – for professionals – go from strength to strength. And @andycrestodina:disqus’s comment is very insightful and real.

  • Thanks very much for adding to the discussion Michael.

  • Google+ remains unknown to the majority and confusing to the rest. I have four aunts, they all read and shop online. I have a 13 year-old. She too spends a lot of time online. None of them are even aware that Google+ exists.

    I don’t see any compelling reasons on the horizon that this will change any time soon. In my opinion, it’s a fine product that came along way too late. And for that reason, Google+ can’t die because frankly it was never alive.

  • Thanks for your perspective Will.

  • Pingback: How to fix Google+ - Schaefer Marketing Solutio...()

The Marketing Companion Podcast

Why not tune into the world’s most entertaining marketing podcast that I co-host with Tom Webster.

View details

Let's plot a strategy together

Want to solve big marketing problems for a little bit of money? Sign up for an hour of Mark’s time and put your business on the fast-track.

View details


Send this to a friend