Think You Know What G+ is all about Just because those Wall Street guys told You?

41 replies
I'm so tired of seeing fellow Internet marketers being duped by the media!

Since when do we let journalists tell us which free tools have value and which don't? Their job is to sell papers and headlines like The Mounting Minuses and Google Plus - A Ghost Town do just that.

They don't tell the whole story or even show a reasonable understanding of the long-term direction of Google, Google Plus and its significance for marketers.

Do your readers have a YouTube, Picasa, or gmail account? Do they use Google docs or android marketplace? If so, then they already have a g+ account and you're missing an opportunity to position yourself as a leader with your readers!

Stop allowing journalists to feed you only part of the story!

Read this:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/?tab=XX#...ts/Y87ke1DNv9K

or this:
One More Time, Google+ Isn't a Social Network

Or circle me. I will share my WF and other active circles with you and you will begin to see a different side to Google Plus.
#guys #street #told #wall
  • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
    Banned
    I have an account I opened just to see what it looked like. It looked like Facebook only with out all my friends and relatives. I don't have any use for it.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5846623].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Tiffiney Cowan
      Hi Suzanne! Love your profile pic!

      I think a lot of marketers would agree that they "don't really have a use for" g+ - but I think that's a shortsided thinking. Read those articles I linked to. They offer a broader picture of what's happening.

      I'm going to circle you and share some active g+ circles with you. Add them to your account. I'd love to hear about your g+ experience a few days later.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5846641].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author King444
        Originally Posted by Tiffiney Cowan View Post


        I think a lot of marketers would agree that they "don't really have a use for" g+ - but I think that's a shortsided thinking. Read those articles I linked to. They offer a broader picture of what's happening.

        I'm going to circle you and share some active g+ circles with you. Add them to your account. I'd love to hear about your g+ experience a few days later.
        What I am reading here and in other major web forums seems to indicate that this the new Google marketing strategy and online promotion for G+
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5849622].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author WriterWahm
    Hi Tiffiney, I'm on G+ and it's been so-so mostly because I don't really spend a lot of time on it. I know it is fantastic for followers and a way to become a niche leader but... I circled you though.
    Signature

    PM me if you want a romantic fiction ghostwriter.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5848685].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Chris Worner
    I didn't bother with G+ because I found no compelling reason to switch over, and those that have, don't seem to be spending much time there either;

    The Mounting Minuses at Google+ - WSJ.com

    three minutes a month on G+ compared to six to seven hours on Facebook (both on average)

    Talk about a classic case of shiny object syndrome.


    -Chris
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5849345].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author John Romaine
    Originally Posted by Tiffiney Cowan View Post

    I'm so tired of seeing fellow Internet marketers being duped by the media!
    Im just as tired of Google shoving its social media network down my throat every 5 minutes. Now it seems we have WF members doing the same.

    Each to their own. Lets just leave it at that.

    Just because there are WF members here that aren't interested in Google + doesnt mean that they're not entitled to an opinion.
    Signature

    BS free SEO services, training and advice - SEO Point

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5849362].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
      Banned
      Originally Posted by John Romaine View Post

      Im just as tired of Google shoving its social media network down my throat every 5 minutes. Now it seems we have WF members doing the same.

      Each to their own. Lets just leave it at that.

      Just because there are WF members here that aren't interested in Google + doesnt mean that they're not entitled to an opinion.
      Have to agree with you John.

      @Tiffany: I appreciate you sharing the circles, but I don't use social media in that way. I had a Twitter account that I auto-followed a couple thousand people and watched the stream of spam flowing before my eyes.

      I thought Twitter was a vast wasteland of spam. I unfollowed every one of them and handpicked about 30 people to follow and now I visit Twitter every day and really enjoy it.

      Same with Facebook. I deleted my account completely and started all over. My profile is private and I enjoy the photos my friends and family post and the messages we send each other.

      In order to add anything from your circles to my circles, I would have to do it individually based on whether or not I enjoyed what they post and I'm just not going to put that kind of time into G+. If I want to read WF people marketing, I get plenty of it here.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5849379].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Tiffiney Cowan
        Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

        Have to agree with you John.

        @Tiffany: I appreciate you sharing the circles, but I don't use social media in that way. I had a Twitter account that I auto-followed a couple thousand people and watched the stream of spam flowing before my eyes.

        I thought Twitter was a vast wasteland of spam. I unfollowed every one of them and handpicked about 30 people to follow and now I visit Twitter every day and really enjoy it.

        Same with Facebook. I deleted my account completely and started all over. My profile is private and I enjoy the photos my friends and family post and the messages we send each other.

        In order to add anything from your circles to my circles, I would have to do it individually based on whether or not I enjoyed what they post and I'm just not going to put that kind of time into G+. If I want to read WF people marketing, I get plenty of it here.
        Thanks for getting back to me and sharing your experience Suzanne!

        I really enjoy g+. The majority of my interactions have been community building and info sharing - which sounds similar to your experience with Twitter. I haven't yet found Twitter to be as easy to use as g+, but I need to play around with it a bit more.

        PS - I subscribed to this thread, but somehow missed all these posts. Arg! Sorry about my delayed response.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5902268].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Terry Crim
          Originally Posted by Tiffiney Cowan View Post

          ...and those smart phones will soon come preloaded with circles. My readers - and yours, will be on on g+ one day. I want to have a presence there long before they join.

          Why didn't you focus on this in your OP? If you had this would of been a more interesting thread. Instead the only thing I get from this thread is it is cool have a G+ account but there is no practical use and is more a waste of time than anything.

          From what I get about the content you linked to, which I have not clicked on, apparently you have to be signed into a google account to read them. Not interested in doing that.

          Instead of linking to linking content, woudl be nice if you had taken the time to write something meaningful yourself focusing on the only ONE thing in this intire thread that remotely peaked my curiousity. The rest of it is just whining about big brother google and "me too" stuff about some facebook spinoff thing.

          Long story short, nothing in this thread but that little section of one of your sentences had zero interest to me at all.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5902777].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Tiffiney Cowan
            Hi Terry,

            I'm glad I did (eventually) word my point in a way that was more clear. I thought I had said that (sort of) in the OP.

            [Quote]They (the media) don't tell the whole story or even show a reasonable understanding of the long-term direction of Google, Google Plus and its significance for marketers.

            Do your readers have a YouTube, Picasa, or gmail account? Do they use Google docs or android marketplace? If so, then they
            already have a g+ account and you're missing an opportunity to position yourself as a leader with your readers![Quote]

            My whole goal is for Warriors to consider the long view when it comes to Google/G+. I'm not posting comments at the end of news stories on the topic. I'm talking with marketers and challenging them to think beyond the headlines. I've even said to those on g+ basically, "So what if the media thinks g+ is dead? We know it's not so what are we doing about it?"

            I agree with unSubie that it would be foolish to put all your eggs in one basket. I know Google has broken trust with marketers in the past and I wouldn't be surprised if it happens again in the future - but my point is more aligned with Joseph Seeley in that I too believe "Google will win" in the end and that it is worthwhile to at least considering what impact that will have on our businesses.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5903006].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Tiffiney Cowan
      Originally Posted by John Romaine View Post

      Im just as tired of Google shoving its social media network down my throat every 5 minutes. Now it seems we have WF members doing the same.

      Each to their own. Lets just leave it at that.

      Just because there are WF members here that aren't interested in Google + doesnt mean that they're not entitled to an opinion.
      Hey John,

      I've seen you on a few of the g+ threads. I think you have a lot of good things to say. I'm confused though by your remark about WF members shoving g+ down your throat. ??

      The point of my thread was to encourage Warriors to check g+ out from the inside. It can be hard to get started when you don't know anyone and so I offered to share circles - which I did with both Suzanne and Sharon.

      Google owns YouTube, Picasa, and the worlds leading smart phone operating system. I've noticed a g+ button on YouTube, a link to start a g+ hangout directly from YouTube, and those smart phones will soon come preloaded with circles. My readers - and yours, will be on on g+ one day. I want to have a presence there long before they join.

      My goal was not to shove g+ down anyone's throat, but to encourage my fellow Warriors to consider a broader view than what the media is selling, to think beyond whether they like the social platform or not - and to think about how it could impact their business long term.

      I've also seen you on a few PayPal threads and you had some smart things to say. I appreciate your input and am happy to "agree to disagree" but if you decide to give g+ a try my offer still stands - I'd be happy to share a few circles with you.

      You can circle me here
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5902381].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author King444
    Originally Posted by Young And Opulent View Post

    I spent a little time on Google Plus. While it's not really an attractive site, you'd be surprised how well content posted on there ranks. You'd also be surprised how many visits I used to receive through G+.
    Just a fairy tale, we never got even one visit from our G+
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5849672].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author onSubie
    Originally Posted by Tiffiney Cowan View Post

    Hmm, Google won't let me read this unless I bow to their G+ superiority and sign up for an account. I guess these articles don't show up in the Google index either?


    Well, that's what it was intended to be, so maybe that's why so many people view it as a "failure".

    Why I left Google - JW on Tech - Site Home - MSDN Blogs

    It isn't that Google+ offers no opportunities, it's that it hasn't lived up to the hype that preceded it, and it hasn't gained any real momentum in growth without Google actively flogging it.

    facebook had lineups of people begging to join before they allowed public sign-ups.

    Pinterest is all over the news about how rapidly it is growing. There was nary a peep about Google+ growth when it was launched.

    I think Google has ruined the trust of the consumer. How many free tools and apps has Google created only to delete a few years later?

    Would you put all your eggs in Google+ after losing all your work and content from Google Wave or Google Notebook?

    Google Graveyard: List of Failed Google Products | TechWelkin | Technology | Software | Internet

    Mahlon
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5902552].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
      Originally Posted by onSubie View Post

      Hmm, Google won't let me read this unless I bow to their G+ superiority and sign up for an account. I guess these articles don't show up in the Google index either?
      Since it's public, and the general G+ attitude is "public means public," here's the text of that post.

      A Message to the Media and Bloggers That Continue to Harp on G+ Usage

      We are all aware that its very trendy to compare usage between the social sites these days, but as you keep illustrating, "trendy" and "meaningful" are not always the same. And while we're all aware some of you just write just to produce something without concern for meaning, it still wouldn't hurt for you to take at least a few considerations into account. For starters:

      <1> You can stop telling us that G+ hasn't caught up to Facebook. We're not idiots. But stop acting like anyone expected it would after 8 months of existence. Implying that it should and then blaming it for falling short is insulting. While that approach may be intended to rile up the masses, it really only serves to diminish your credibility among those of us who choose to give it more than a passing thought.

      <2> Before going on and on about how G+ is doing, how about figuring out at least some semblance of an objective measuring stick. You don't seem to have any objective measuring stick at all. We get the feeling that no matter what G+ does, some of you will have a reason to say its failing. It's been reported over the last month that G+ unique visits have reached just over half of Twitter unique visits...after only 8 months of existence. Are we really supposed to believe that is a sign of failure? What exactly would you need to see inside of 8 months to consider G+ a success thus far? The impression is that you'd simply raise the bar on what is needed to be able to suit your own agenda. Now maybe that's not true, but your lack of any objective measuring stick sure makes it seem so.

      <3> It's a little ridiculous that you continue to think your usage assessments based on G+ public posts represent total usage. I know less and less people who post publicly on Facebook these days, yet I don't hear any of you using this barometer to assess its network. In fact, if you looked only at the public posts from many people's FB circle of friends, many of them would appear to be a ghost town too, but we know that's not reality. Do you really expect us to believe that no one uses G+ to share privately, especially when many of us do? Posting publicly on a social site might mean something, but its a ridiculously poor method to determine the success or failure of any social network.

      <4> What's with all the usage statistics with the fine print about not including Smart Phone usage? Really? You post about trends and the future of social yet you don't think leaving out Smart Phone usage significantly skews your assessment. Wow. Google owns the leading Smart Phone operating system and that's just an afterthought? OK we get it, maybe you don't have access to that information, but most honest folks refrain from making judgments when they don't have all the facts. So what's your reason?

      <5> All your drum beating about G+ usage that dismisses usage across all Google products just shows you lack vision, or at least that you don't seem to want to hear what Google has been telling everyone for the last 8 months. Google is in the slow process of combining all its services into one, and that significantly impacts the future of G+. So while you overlook this and are intent on only analyzing present day G+ usage to make a point, you completely miss the big picture. Would you ever consider reporting on the usage of Facebook games and Facebook messaging separately? Of course not. Yet you can't seem to grasp that usage across Google products like Gmail and Youtube will be meshed together with G+ in the not too distant future. You won't even be able to determine the difference, because they will be inseparable. That's not inside knowledge from Google, that's what they have been telling us from the moment G+ began...only you had to listen. Yet here you are reporting that Google is misleading you because it has begun to report usage across its products where G+ implementation has begun, a metric Google knows is what matters in the long run. Good grief. If you want to report on something meaningful, understand that although there is a difference today between logging in to any of the array of Google products, in the future there won't be, and G+ will be the hub of all of them. So while you think your assessment of G+ usage today matters, the real barometer for comparison will be Google usage. Continue to overlook this at your own peril because people will only treat your content seriously for so long.

      <6> Your reporting on inactive G+ users to drive home a point is both tiresome and lacking. Its tiresome because you don't use this barometer to assess any other network (are we to believe no one is inactive on Twitter or Facebook?) But really its lacking because it misses the core strategy that Google has for G+. G+ is not a stand alone product. In fact, Google only needs to have steady growth in total G+ users to establish long term success, regardless of activity. Why? Well consider this example for a moment. If you were a leading manufacturer of GPS devices and wanted to assess your future, you'd obviously be concerned that Smart Phones come with GPS devises built right in. But would it matter less to you if 60% of Smart Phone owners didn't use those devices? It shouldn't, because the potential danger is that one day people might think,"Hey, I'm carrying around this phone all day anyway, maybe it makes sense to use this GPS." So consider then for a moment what it means as Google converts to using G+ as the profile for ALL its products, that means a G+ log-in is your log-in for Gmail, Youtube, Android, etc. Believe it, because Google is planning on it, and most importantly it means that every single user of any Google product will have a G+ account whether its used for social or not. So while you don't think the danger of every Android user and Youtube user having a G+ account matters, the reality is one day people may think, "Hey, I'm using my Google account for all this other stuff, maybe it makes sense to use it to share." This is why total account users, even if they are inactive, matter, something you seem to continuously overlook.
      And here's the paraphrased version:

      "It does so make me cool to use Google+! Does so, does so, does so! Waa! Stop making fun of me! MOOOOOOOOM!"

      Which is just hysterical when you realise that he made that rant on Google+ where nobody else could see it.

      I keep imagining Chris Kattan on the SNL skit Goth Talk complaining that they made him work an extra shift at Cinnabon because they don't understand his darkness.

      Look, I use G+ and I love it. It's a fantastic little place. I enjoy the crap out of being there. But I do not feel the least bit slighted or offended that so many of my friends don't care and won't even sign up for it.

      Just like when everyone abandoned MySpace, I didn't, and you can still occasionally find me there enjoying the latest stupid homemade video by some crappy indie death metal band from Iowa because death metal in a cornfield is hysterical.

      Does it bother me that all my friends think MySpace is GeoCities for bands? Nope. Because, you know, it kind of is. Just like Facebook is where old ladies play Farmville all day, and Google+ is where the geeks pretend they're all edgy and assertive off in the corner.

      I mean, honestly, this post reminds me of when Napoleon Dynamite kicks the floor in front of his locker after the jock barreled into him. He'd never actually step to the jock... but he'd like to believe he would. You know, except for he can't. Because of the thing. But there's an arseload of gangs around here, and a couple of them want him to join because he's pretty good with a bo staff.
      Signature
      "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5902708].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author onSubie
        Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

        Since it's public, and the general G+ attitude is "public means public," here's the text of that post.
        I could have probably found it if I made a bit of effort. But this is where I read it. Thanks.


        "It does so make me cool to use Google+! Does so, does so, does so! Waa! Stop making fun of me! MOOOOOOOOM!"
        LOL

        I don't think the 'anti-Google+' is based entirely on pure anti-Google sentiment, and any method of gaining traffic will help some marketers; but I think the feeling of people deriding Google+ comes from Google's own pre-hype and then invite-style launch. Not to mention the continued effort to entice

        The link I posted to the ex-google exec blog post is a pretty good view of Google's corporate changes. Naturally his rant is a biased and he does take ribbing in the comments for saying he fled Google because of corporate restrictions to work at...Microsoft.

        But it does reflect a lot of the speculation here about the changing focus from search to Google's own content and a preference for corporate ads over online businesses.


        I keep imagining Chris Kattan on the SNL skit Goth Talk complaining that they made him work an extra shift at Cinnabon because they don't understand his darkness.
        That made me laugh. You have a million of 'em and they get me every time.

        Mahlon
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5903720].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author josephseeley
    G+ will win in the end as long as Google stays the king of search engines. It may take a few years, but Google seems committed to leveraging it's search engine clout into affecting other markets it's in, it gives them a huge advantage.

    Already the authorship is a huge advantage and requires a G+ account. I was getting 55% CTR on some #2 and #3 rankings last week where my picture showed. That's just stupid CTR even for #1. Everyone in IM has to use this. If you end up the 1 result without a picture competing with 9 others who have pictures by their's... you won't get clicked on at all.

    Now you'll start seeing G+ stuff in results too. You know what they did with YouTube and Google images and Google marketplace, putting videos, images, and products all over in results whether they deserved the ranking or not... same thing will happen with G+ stuff. I already see it sometimes in the sidebar. (And like ads, which they claimed should only be in the sidebar back in the day...they'll move them to the content column sooner or later...)

    Google is playing with loaded dice in all these markets. They'll win out eventually.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5902765].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
      Originally Posted by josephseeley View Post

      Google is playing with loaded dice in all these markets. They'll win out eventually.
      I remember when we were saying that about Microsoft back in the mid-1990s.

      And about IBM back in the mid-1970s.

      Hmm.

      So almost 40 years ago, we thought one company was going to control the whole damn thing, and then... after about five years of turmoil, everything changed.

      And almost 20 years ago, we thought another company was going to control the whole damn thing, and then... after about five years of turmoil, everything changed.

      And now, we think still another company is going to control the whole damn thing... so...

      By my math, we'll have another event much like this during the latter half of this decade. Starting around 2015, Google's stranglehold will start breaking, there will be widespread chaos and panic, the pandorica will open and silence will fall.

      And here's me on December 19, 2011:

      My gut tells me, for reasons I cannot explain, that everything is going to hell in 6 to 8 years. And the hardest hit are going to be people who depend on a third party for income, and cannot easily replace that source of income.
      I was talking to another Warrior yesterday who expressed the opinion that it was all going to hell around 2015. Which is also right around the same time we hit that 20 year mark from where IBM and Microsoft lost their strangleholds over the industry.

      So I'm thinking 2015-2020 is going to be rough, and we'd all better start thinking long and hard about how we intend to weather it.
      Signature
      "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5902890].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author josephseeley
        Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

        I remember when we were saying that about Microsoft back in the mid-1990s.
        I'm not saying Google is going to take over everything. I do think that having such a large portion of the search market means they will be able to turn G+ into a top social platform. There is just so much synergy between the platforms.

        And Microsoft was able to successfully leverage their advantage in the OS space into the browser space and (more on merit) office software, as well as others. And they continue to be very strong in all those areas.

        I agree with you that someday someone else will come along with a new platform that changes what platform is most important...
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5902949].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
          Originally Posted by josephseeley View Post

          I agree with you that someday someone else will come along with a new platform that changes what platform is most important...
          If you take all the places Apple, Microsoft, and Google are spending their money... and you average the spending each company is doing in a particular area... where are all three of them spending the most money?

          - Mobile computing
          - Cloud storage
          - Media streaming

          Hm. I wonder what that means.
          Signature
          "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5903051].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Tiffiney Cowan
        Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

        By my math, we'll have another event much like this during the latter half of this decade. Starting around 2015, Google's stranglehold will start breaking, there will be widespread chaos and panic, the pandorica will open and silence will fall.
        Hey CDarklock I've seen you on a few threads too. How could I miss that profile pic? Are you that crazy in real life?

        So, ya you may be right Google's success in this area may be short lived, but what will the impact be on your business during the 3 or so years (by your math) it is a success?

        This is the only thing I'm advocating: Consider the impact and decide how you want to position yourself.

        Saying, "Pfff, it's going to be an epic fail...someday" doesn't seem like much of a plan.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5903090].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
          Originally Posted by Tiffiney Cowan View Post

          Hey CDarklock I've seen you on a few threads too. How could I miss that profile pic? Are you that crazy in real life?
          You have no idea.

          So, ya you may be right Google's success in this area may be short lived
          You're not hearing me.

          Nothing is happening to Google. All of Google's stuff is going to be fine.

          It's all the people who think they can rape and pillage Google for money who are going to suffer.

          If you're on Google Plus because Limor Fried finds awesome electronics and Wil Wheaton posts great homebrewed beer recipes and Guy Kawasaki has great marketing insights, you are going to be fine, too.

          Which means me. I'm going to be fine.

          But if you're on Google Plus to make money, you're going to have problems.

          So what's the impact on my business? Jack squat! My business doesn't rely on Google for traffic or revenue, any more than it relies on MySpace or Facebook or Biznik or Twitter or Tumblr or Ning or whatever. And I recommend you start figuring out how yours can stop relying on third parties, too - how you can make your business sufficiently self-reliant that if all your services went offline all at once, you could have your entire operation back up and running in less than 24 hours.

          I'm not there yet. But I'm a whole hell of a lot closer than I was three years ago, and I'll probably be there before the end of the year.
          Signature
          "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5903231].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Tiffiney Cowan
            Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

            I recommend you start figuring out how yours can stop relying on third parties, too - how you can make your business sufficiently self-reliant that if all your services went offline all at once, you could have your entire operation back up and running in less than 24 hours.

            I'm not there yet. But I'm a whole hell of a lot closer than I was three years ago, and I'll probably be there before the end of the year.
            CDarklock, not to seem dense, but are you saying I should figure out how to make money online in a way that, should it all bite the dust at once, I could continue making that same money off-line?
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5903322].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
              Originally Posted by Tiffiney Cowan View Post

              CDarklock, not to seem dense, but are you saying I should figure out how to make money online in a way that, should it all bite the dust at once, I could continue making that same money off-line?
              No, just how you could use different online services to make the same money.

              Let's say you rank really well on Google. Google slaps you. Do you rank just as well on Bing? Do you have other sources of traffic? Do you have other avenues of sales? Can you get some, within 24 hours?

              Or let's say you have a system that makes you boatloads of money with Facebook ads. Facebook decides you're a dick and pulls all your ads. Can you put those ads on MySpace? Do you have other places you can put these ads? Do you have other advertising venues? Can you get some, within 24 hours?

              If your web host was hit by a meteor, and your domain registrar was demolished by a tornado, and PayPal froze your account... all on the same day... could you have your products back up for sale within 24 hours?

              Now, granted, you can always take that to the extreme of "what if the internet blew up" - and you'd have to have an offline solution - but there's a point where it just becomes ridiculous.
              Signature
              "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5903364].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author mojojuju
    Originally Posted by Tiffiney Cowan View Post


    Do your readers have a YouTube, Picasa, or gmail account? Do they use Google docs or android marketplace? If so, then they already have a g+ account and you're missing an opportunity to position yourself as a leader with your readers!

    I have a YouTube account, a Picasa account, and lots of gmail accounts, but I don't use G+ ever, and I don't want to! I suspect that lots of people are like me in this regard.

    Just because people have a G+ account by default doesn't mean they're actually going to use it.
    Signature

    :)

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5903117].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Tiffiney Cowan
      Originally Posted by mojojuju View Post

      I have a YouTube account, a Picasa account, and lots of gmail accounts, but I don't use G+ ever, and I don't want to! I suspect that lots of people are like me in this regard.

      Just because people have a G+ account by default doesn't mean they're actually going to use it.
      Hi Mojojuju!

      Very true - but some will. Most? Maybe. I do think it's worth considering whether all those commercials and all the different places g+ is showing up will eventually convince the majority of our audience to join g+. And if so, how will that impact our business?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5903171].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Usmile
    Hi Tiffiney ,

    I'm also a google plus users, I found this website cozy and quite. I have already several people in my circle. Well, regarding the issue, it just an indication that we can't really please people especially their opinions.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5903221].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Tiffiney Cowan
    Thanks for clarifying CDarklock! I think what you say about diversifying makes a lot of sense. I have a long way to go before my business is able to absorb those types of challenges without much impact - but I'll get there.

    I've enjoyed the discussion and I look forward to seeing your crazy face on a future post! I'm off to hit the hot tub with my dear hubby and then crawl in for the night. Have a good one!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5903465].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Kunle Olomofe
    Very unlike me but I've not read through all/most of the posts before posting my view on this so sorry if this has been said but is anyone noticing how the feelings towards G+ here are reminiscent of the initial feelings and reactions on here and in IM in general back when Twitter first made its debut years ago?

    I seem to remember Twitter never getting the time of day in many cases especially by marketers... it looked like, sounded like, and was used as a toy and most people didn't seem to "get it"... I know I was one of the latter for a long time.

    Then in 2009 I watched this video article that made it clearer how to benefit from Twitter and I became interested and tried tweeting only to find I had been missing out on a ton of easy traffic and branding etc. Now I'm not saying Twitter rocked my world and blew my income sky high but it did give me a boost in some ways and it was about that time that everywhere you looked everyone was begging people to follow them.

    A lot of this is what happened with facebook too. It was built for fun and later turned into one of the world's most marketable hang outs and this happened gradually over years.

    I think many people are disenchanted with G+ primarily because of what they did with GBuzz where they eventually let a lot of people down but...

    Having said all of that, I'm not predicting G+ is or isn't the new social "IT" tool, but you gotta admit Facebook and Twitter slowly and reluctantly (for many) became world wide favorites and G+ could very possibly go the same route so I'd be careful of out and out discountenancing it just like that.

    Yes, the media may be playing it up, down or side ways but lets see what the market forces say despite any propaganda. I for one will be taking a look at G+ a little more closely over the next few weeks at least.

    It has potential but some of its features that are supposed to make it the best thing since sliced bread are making it less than attractive as well... by that I mean the circles concept is nice, but the fact I have to MANUALLY add each and every single person to different or multiple circles especially without their prior knowledge is kind of off putting... but then again maybe I'm just missing something and will catch up in due course.

    Fact is, no one can really say what will work in social media these days, not even the best web inventors and prognosticators can always tell you 100% what will or won't fly these days. Let's just see how this thing plays out eventually whether or not it is media-driven or marketer-driven, or market-driven, as far as I'm concerned, the jury's still out on this one.

    Cheers

    Kunle
    Signature
    Celebrity Marketing Formula - How To Quickly Become A Celebrated Authority In ANY Industry/Niche... Coming Soon.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5903700].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author idoitbigtime
    G+ is great and probably soon he will be an impotanat part of Search results
    so anyone have to take care about
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5903727].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author FraserC
    I've been a huge fan of G+ right from the beginning, and thrown the majority of my efforts at the network. I've been having a great time, and met some really cool people. I've had more business success with G+ than I ever have with FB or Twitter.

    In my opinion, SEO right now is about content + links.

    SEO in the future will be about content + links + personal authority. Until FB and Twitter open up their data, Google will measure personal authority through G+.
    Signature

    I'm the publisher of Universe Today and co-founder of the Keyword Strategy content marketing tool.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5903774].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author nicolelwriting
    I guess I don't pay too much attention to the news when it comes to them reporting about technology. I have a G+ account and I do use it. However, I haven't met too many people from there compared to Twitter and Facebook. I think it all comes down to personal or individual tastes.
    Signature

    Nicole Leon - Professional Writer -
    I write blogs, articles, ebooks, PLR, reviews, reports, etc
    My Blog and Portfolio My LinkedIn Profile

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5903794].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author theebookcavern
    There's some great points in this thread. I'm a relatively light user of G+ at the moment although I am trying to explore it a little more and get used to using it.

    Until October 14th 2011 I wasn't very big into social marketing at all. I didn't have a Facebook fan page, I didn't have a Twitter account and I didn't use my Google Plus account. I used my Facebook profile to interact with and share photos with my offline friends but that was about it for me when it came to social networks.

    However, on October 14th 2011 I got hit by one of Google's infamous Panda updates for the first time in 5 years. Before this hit I was confident that Google would continue to bring me steadily increasing search engine traffic. I know it sounds like a pretty stupid assumption but because I'd never been hit by a Google update EVER, I needed it to actually happen before I could believe it.

    Anyway, after this Google slap I quickly came to the realisation that I needed to start using a range of online services to generate me traffic so that if one or two traffic sources decided they didn't like me any more, I still had a few more sources to call on. One of my steps towards this was to build a good following on Facebook, Twitter and Google Plus so that I wasn't as heavily reliant on Google search engine traffic.

    Currently, I'm nowhere near that goal. I've been far too inconsistent and until last week I hadn't posted to my social profiles in almost 3 months. Additionally, of the three platforms I've probably had the least success with G+ in terms of direct traffic to my website.

    However, I still think it's worthwhile having G+ as one of the eggs in your basket. Even if you don't use it much and it's not part of your main strategy, the SEO benefits and the connections you can make are well worth spending a bit of time on there.

    Tom
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5904398].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author LifeIsGood
    Many of us tend to 'strenuously' resist (or proceed with high caution) anything from the land of Goog/Magoog and their self-righteous imperialism. Somehow being force-fed G+ … "Eat this, it’s good for you, or else! Here, little kitty, kitty" ... leaves a bad taste, even if Big Brother tells us otherwise.

    Not sure what ‘circle me’ refers to, but somehow it resonates: ‘impending treacherous backfire’ … or like something that Custer did to the Indians just before he met his last stand.


    Or maybe that's just me.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6100502].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Crew Chief
    Tiffiney, in the interest in letting everyone see all of the sides of Google +, here is a side some WF members and most individuals may not be aware of.

    +1 = Google engineer, Steve Yegge slams Google+ as 'pathetic afterthought' Steve's post was around 5000 words of drubbing that can be summarized by reading two of his most scathing statements:

    "Google+ is a prime example of our complete failure to understand platforms from the very highest levels of executive leadership (hi Larry, Sergey, Eric, Vic, howdy howdy) down to the very lowest leaf workers (hey yo),"...

    Yegge wrote. "Google+ is a knee-jerk reaction, a study in short-term thinking, predicated on the incorrect notion that Facebook is successful because they built a great product."
    +1 = Head engineer of Google + abandons the Google + ship because the he states that Larry Paige has ruined the culture of G.
    If what Yegge publicly stated wasn't enough embarrassment, fellow former Google employee, James Whitaker, the top brain trust of the + thingamajig, fired off this salvo after he decided that Google + was actually a Google -.

    "My last three months working for Google was a whirlwind of desperation," wrote Whittaker, who headed an engineering team for social network Google+. "The Google I was passionate about was a technology company that empowered its employees to innovate. The Google I left was an advertising company with a single corporate-mandated focus."
    Did you notice what Mr. Whitaker said? Zero in on the phrase: "single corporate-mandated focus." Whitaker is speaking about Larry Page's obsession to overthrow FaceBook >>> at all costs!

    Here is a startling and irrefutable truth. If you tracked Google upper management employees like Yegge, you are going to find that THEY DO NOT USE GOOGLE +. That emphasis becomes apparently clear if you look at Yegge's Google + page since his scathing review of Google +.

    What is this? Larry can't even force his own employees to like Google +? Wait? Even the people Larry has commissioned to design and engineer Google + don't use it? What's worse, no one on Wall Street uses it either.

    This inner turmoil has not went unnoticed by Google investors. So what did Larry Paige and company do? They responded by implementing what they classify as, "Triple Class Structure." This, in layman's terms, is a nifty legal maneuver that gives Larry and his crew absolute control over Google. Meaning, they can never be pressured by stockholders in any shape, form or fashion to stop pushing Google + or any other ill conceived product, even if said product causes a backlash on Wall Street.

    Here is what some IMers may not realize. Google + is not the first product Google has attempted to thrust on the public.

    Many of those products have unceremoniously ended up in the Google scrap heap. Here is a partial list of those products and I'm pretty sure that G will be adding Google + to this list pretty soon:
    • Google Buzz
    • Google Wave
    • Google Aardvark
    • Google X
    • Google Jaiku
    • Google Sidewiki
    • Google Knol
    My point being in this extended write-up is twofold:

    (a). Enjoy Google + while it lasts
    (b). Don't invest a lot in Google + because between FaceBook going live on NASDAQ next month and the natural rise of Pinterest and the natural rise of some of the other social networks, Google + does not stand a chance in overtaking FaceBook, IMHO.
    Signature
    Tools, Strategies and Tactics Used By Savvy Internet Marketers and SEO Pros:

    SEO G.O.L.D. = Genuine Overall Link Diversity
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6101161].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author bchez
      Originally Posted by Crew Chief View Post

      Tiffiney, in the interest in letting everyone see all of the sides of Google +, here is a side some WF members and most individuals may not be aware of.

      Here is a startling and irrefutable truth. If you tracked Google upper management employees like Yegge, you are going to find that THEY DO NOT USE GOOGLE +. That emphasis becomes apparently clear if you look at Yegge's Google + page since his scathing review of Google +.

      Here is what some IMers may not realize. Google + is not the first product Google has attempted to thrust on the public.

      I actually have many real Googlers in my circles. I bet most upper mgmt of a company like that doesn't waste time on Social Media networks in general. If you like what it offers, join, if you don't, don't. Marketers shouldn't join social media networks with the sole intent to sell, they should join them as people to socialize. Once they have learned what it really is, then, maybe use it to market, if it makes sense for their client base.

      I really hope G+ does not turn into a spammers haven like Facebook or Twitter. I deleted my personal Twitter, and barely check FB anymore because frankly, "marketing" has ruined it. I love G+ because for now, I don't have to fight a boatload of spam to enjoy myself.

      Anyways, if anyone wants to link up on G+ - circle me! I mostly talk about geek stuff, books, movies, pop culture etc.

      https://plus.google.com/104106591514...18/posts?hl=en

      Oh, and let me know you are from WF, so I can circle you back, and put you in the right place
      Signature

      My website - nothing to sell related to IM - but if you like style and fashion, come play. :)
      www.styleclarity.com

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6101481].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
      Originally Posted by Crew Chief View Post

      What is this? Larry can't even force his own employees to like Google +? Wait? Even the people Larry has commissioned to design and engineer Google + don't use it? What's worse, no one on Wall Street uses it either.
      I'd like to wave a hand here and say:

      - Forcing anyone to like anything is morally wrong.
      - Designers and engineers often design and engineer things they don't use.
      - Wall Street is slow to adopt EVERYTHING.

      But let's also back up for a moment. Has anyone else noticed that Tumblr is a freakin' gold mine? You know, other than Chris Munch, who did the WSO on it.

      I'm betting that Wall Street doesn't use that, either. In fact, I am betting the people who design and engineer it have... you know... their own blogs on their own servers. And chances are a lot of them go "dammit, our service is just a haven for emo chicks and web spammers and hipster faggots."

      Does that mean the service is bad? Or wrong? Or going away? Or that people shouldn't use it?

      Yeah. Whatever.
      Signature
      "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6102091].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Crew Chief
        Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

        I'd like to wave a hand here and say... Yeah. Whatever.
        My perspective about Google +, Twitter, Facebook, Linkedin, etc., is strictly from a marketing perspective. I have no personal accounts on any of these platforms. Consequently, my input about Google + does not come as one who is going to login and grab a cup a coffee and watch YT videos on Google + with my friends, LOL.

        My input comes strictly as a IMer and the question I'm asking myself boils down to this, "Is it worth it for me as a IMer to invest money, time and resources into Google +?" Thus far, the answer is, "No!" Could it change? Maybe? But based upon the current facts, stats and environment, I don't really see that happening.

        Originally Posted by bchez View Post

        I really hope G+ does not turn into a spammers haven like Facebook or Twitter. I deleted my personal Twitter, and barely check FB anymore because frankly, "marketing" has ruined it. I love G+ because for now, I don't have to fight a boatload of spam to enjoy myself.
        Bchez, your hopes are noble indeed.

        But the facts are; these platforms are designed with one goal on mind and that is to generate income through advertising monetization. These companies don't invest millions upon millions of dollars to create free social networks for members to enjoy. They create these networks to be able to show advertisements to members [at will] with the sole purpose of obtaining a more than respectable ROI on the money they invested to build and maintain their networks.

        A person is really being an idealist to believe that these networks exist for the purposes of helping them extend their social sphere. The moment any network proves that it cannot generate boatloads of cash through advertising dollars, [A.K.A. Spam] those behind that network haven proven that they will pull the plug and leave the members of that network in the lurch. A few examples of defunct social networking websites:

        Avatars United
        MSN Spaces
        Yahoo! 360°
        PlanetAll
        Backflip
        Yahoo Boards
        Signature
        Tools, Strategies and Tactics Used By Savvy Internet Marketers and SEO Pros:

        SEO G.O.L.D. = Genuine Overall Link Diversity
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6109076].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author bchez
          Originally Posted by Crew Chief View Post



          Bchez, your hopes are noble indeed.

          But the facts are; these platforms are designed with one goal on mind and that is to generate income through advertising monetization. These companies don't invest millions upon millions of dollars to create free social networks for members to enjoy. They create these networks to be able to show advertisements to members [at will] with the sole purpose of obtaining a more than respectable ROI on the money they invested to build and maintain their networks.

          A person is really being an idealist to believe that these networks exist for the purposes of helping them extend their social sphere. The moment any network proves that it cannot generate boatloads of cash through advertising dollars, [A.K.A. Spam] those behind that network haven proven that they will pull the plug and leave the members of that network in the lurch. A few examples of defunct social networking websites:

          Avatars United
          MSN Spaces
          Yahoo! 360°
          PlanetAll
          Backflip
          Yahoo Boards
          Advertising from the provider, I don't mind - they run down the side unobtrusively, etc. Its all the other sales crap that gets in from people using the social network to spam/sell their stuff within the part that is supposed to be social. (Remember all the people being tagged in "shoe spam" in FB? - thats the crap I hate)
          Signature

          My website - nothing to sell related to IM - but if you like style and fashion, come play. :)
          www.styleclarity.com

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6113694].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Tevis Verrett
    Thanks much Tiffiney for posting this.

    Arrgh, I tried PM'ing you but I am still a NOOB here so dont have PM privileges. . . and I did thank the heck out of you.

    I have read the thread and dont necessarily want to get into a pissing war.

    G+ is the big dog, and it is a new genre, and I have seen the big dog rank what gets put into G+

    Nuff said. . and YourMileageMayVary!

    Tiff, I will see you over there and thanks again for stepping up!

    Tevis
    Signature

    Tevis Verrett, Boss of Triumvirate Capital Group
    Always Looking for New Affiliate & JV Partners:
    Ever wanted to make money selling money? We teach Financial Literacy. . . for the rest of us!

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6101482].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Tiffiney Cowan
    Wow, I subscribed to this thread in order to respond to comments as they came in, but somehow I only get one or two here and there. Gotta check my subscription heading because there sure has been more activity than I knew on this thread.

    Well, I will say I am disappointed by the G+ redesign which seems to be a copy/paste of FB; however there are a lot of G+ features I really like. I've also met some very interesting people and I do think it's important to use the tools provided to rank through Google - BUT I do agree with CDarklock who noted the importance of diversification.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6113880].message }}

Trending Topics