Max Raymond

The most common question I read on any Google+ profile is always this (or the equivalent of it):

What the heck do I do here?

Since no one knows what to do with it, Google+ has had a bumpy start. It might boast a population of about 40 million users but it means nothing if a lot of these people aren’t doing anything on it; they just have it because they were invited whilst it was the ‘hot new thing’. So why has it stuttered and spluttered?

Here’s Google+ executive Bradley Horowitz talking to AllThingsD. See if you can spot something that connects these two quotes:

“We will compete on features — including simplicity. We are absolutely in a feature race, and I think we will run that race.”

[Google+ users aren't] “looking for an alternative to anything, they’re looking for a better experience on Google.”

You’re right, it’s a trick question. He outright contradicted himself. It’s both a competitor to Facebook and not competing with Facebook. It needs to be clear, both to itself and the customers, what Google+ is meant to be. Is it meant to be part of a better overall experience with Google? Is it meant to be a more security-focused alternative to Facebook? It’s hard enough launching a social network in these times and, unless you actually express clearly to a user what you are meant to be, you won’t succeed.

Besides, if it’s not meant to be an alternative to Facebook, then what makes it different? The few features that did make it unique like circles have since been nicked by Facebook for use in their own design so now we’re left with a clone. A cleaner and more attractive looking clone, but a clone nonetheless. No one is going to go through the pain of leaving Facebook to set up a similar profile on a website that does exactly 0% different. It’s unnecessary, if anything.

Maybe I’m being too harsh on Google+. It’s only been out for a few months and that’s nowhere near enough time for a social network to grow in popularity. It took Twitter a long time to find its feet but once it clicked to people as to how it could be used it became indispensable. Google have themselves to blame though for the instant backlash. If they had kept Google+ low-key for a few more months to work out the kinks and to fully develop it and figure out what would make it unique then we might have ended up with something far better and something worth sending out invites for.

For all I know Google+ could well implement some changes in the future that might make it a far more enticing prospect but given Google’s track record when it comes to this kind of thing (Google Buzz anyone?) I’m not quite so sure. I hope it does because I think it does what it does far better than the clunky interface that Facebook provides but I’m highly unlikely to use it if all my friends are somewhere else.

That is ultimately Google’s £1 million question: how do you convince people to make the jump? I’ll be interested to see if they can find an answer to that question.