Analysis: Google+ won’t kill Twitter

Ok, I’m still new to Google Plus, but I’ve explored it enough to have formed some initial opinions. I definitely think it has the potential to rival Facebook. I’m pretty certain it won’t replace Twitter, though.

I LOVE Circles in Google+. Circles are a way for you to create different groups of people for sharing purposes. It’s what I said Facebook should implement in my blog post last year, The Holes in Facebook’s Strategy, “make it easy, obvious, and effortless to share different pieces of information and content with different circles of people.“ Google has got sharing right in Google+.

So, Google+ might be a real rival to Facebook, though as Mark Schaefer blogged about, it would take a lot for the average Facebook user to give up the investment he or she has made in Facebook and move to a new platform. (Tip: If you’re reading this blog, you aren’t the typical Facebook user–you’re a social media geek and an early adopter.)

Regardless of what happens with Facebook, Google Plus won’t beat Twitter

Twitter is scannable; Google Plus is not

Google has adopted a Facebook-like user-interface for their stream. They have implemented a MUCH better user interface in general (which isn’t that impressive since Facebook usability is soooo low). But the Google+ stream looks very much like Facebook.

Google+ allows long status updates. You can include links with thumbnail images or videos and a paragraph of text. People can comment on your update and the comments appear below the update. This makes for a rich sharing and conversation experience, like Facebook.  However, it means that Google+ will suffer from the same problem as Facebook: it’s not very scannable. Just compare it with Twitter’s stream:

More and more, people scan their feeds or streams, looking primarily at the pictures and headlines, and only infrequently clicking. Twitter is FAR more scannable than Facebook or Google+.

Twitter is an information network; Google Plus is a social network

One of my earliest studies was to compare the user data for Twitter with that of Facebook and social bookmarking sites like Digg. I found that Twitter users looked more like Digg users than Facebook users.  Later, Twitter recognized this and began dubbing itself an information network rather than a social network. Although lots of us use Twitter to converse and socialize, I don’t think anyone can deny that it is largely an information source. 25% of tweets contain links. Many other tweets are questions people put ask on Twitter or are tweets about the content that has been shared.

Twitter also has that 140 character limit, which makes people share content in a headline style. They are forced to summarize the content in a concise headline. That’s part of what makes it scannable. It also makes it a better “information network.” Combine that with its real-time nature. You have a very scannable stream of real-time headlines, with the ability to click for more information. That’s the perfect information network.

While Google+ may be used to share content and talk about it, I don’t see it replacing Twitter as a primary way to quickly scan and find the latest and hottest content.

Google Plus Doesn’t Emphasize Reach

Mack Collier commented on Google+ that it is apparently limiting users to connecting to 5000 people in their circles. He suggested this is a good thing, and it is if you are looking to engage and socialize. It’s not if you’re looking to publicize and gain reach.

By default, Google+ has a Following circle you can use to follow people “you don’t know personally, but whose posts you find interesting.”  Also, you can view someone’s profile to see how many Circles they are in, equivalent to a person’s follower number on Twitter. The count isn’t nearly as prominent though.

We in social media often decry the whole “follower” model, and we all know that having a lot of followers doesn’t necessarily translate into a valuable audience for your particular business purposes. Cultivating a smaller but more targeted audience in Google+ or Facebook or Twitter can be a better strategy.

Nevertheless, Twitter’s focus on followers and tweeting to those followers creates a social network focused on reach. If you’re a business, a blogger, or using social media for personal branding, reach is important.

It’s not just the Follower count, either. Twitter RT’s, which started as a convention but eventually became a feature, let you quickly share links or tweets, usually with the creator’s name included. It spreads their name and therefore increases their fame. When your tweets are re-shared on Twitter, your name is usually prominent in the retweet and it often leads directly to your gaining more followers, meaning more reach, creating a virtuous cycle.

Google is attempting to do this with it’s “originally shared by” tag on re-shared content. I don’t think it’s prominent enough, though. It comes down to the display, again. There’s so much blue competing for your attention in Google+ that the sharer isn’t easily noticed. See how quickly you can identify the person who shared content in each context:

Twitter is a reach machine. Google+ is a conversation machine.

Where’s that leave us?

Of course, Google+ is brand new, and they are already making changes in response to user input. It could evolve into a better Twitter-killer. Right now, though, I don’t see is as a Twitter replacement. It is easy to use, fun to converse in, and the hot new toy the season. I’m still pretty enthralled with it. But we’ll see how long the shine lasts…