3 ms·

Advertising your site as a "Facebook competitor" (instead of implying it) is a recipe for failure because you want people to look at your site as something comp

by ltamake 15y ago

Advertising your site as a "Facebook competitor" (instead of implying it) is a recipe for failure because you want people to look at your site as something completely unique rather than putting it next to Facebook immediately.

pavel_lishin 15y ago
I think that's true for small startups, but for someone like Google? Presumably, nearly everyone with a gmail address will already be a user, which means that there won't be any migration hassles - "I'd join, but Timmy and Jimbo aren't on GooBook yet!"
- ltamake 15y ago
  Apple tried to use the same philosophy: everyone has an Apple ID, so there's no migration issue. Look how that turned out. But I understand what point you're trying to make. This will get used, but I don't see it becoming a true Facebook rival because of the network effect Facebook relies on. If users were to migrate in masses, on the other hand, Facebook would be dead within a short amount of time. Sadly, that's not going to happen anytime soon.
  - MatthewPhillips 15y ago
    Switching social networks is not the same as switching email services. You don't just up and move. Millions switched from MySpace to Facebook but what they really did was join Facebook while still using MySpace. And then using MySpace less. And then not at all. So, in theory, people could "join" Google+ because they see it in the toolbar while they're searching, and if there are a few killer features that bring them back (Hangouts? Sparks?) they might use Facebook less. And eventually maybe enough of their friends are on Google+ that they stop using Facebook. Or maybe not. But they definitely don't need to make a walk-the-plank decision today.
    - ltamake 15y ago
      MySpace wasn't prepared for Facebook, and ignored it until about 2009 when it was too late. People saw their friends on Facebook, so they stopped using MySpace (hence the network effect I mentioned earlier). Facebook /will/ fight for its social dominance, but (generally speaking) there is a site out there that they don't know about and won't be prepared for (aka "the next Facebook")
      - true_religion 15y ago
        One can fight and lose all the same. Friendster fought against MySpace et al, and still lost ground because of its poor architecture. Facebook being 4th generation social networking won't fail because of poor architecture, nor because of poor UI. It may fail due to privacy concerns though since its leadership seems fanatical about reducing restrictions to information, rather than allowing its users to segment themselves.
      - calebmpeterson 15y ago
        > but there is a site out there that they don’t know about and won't be prepared for. Care to illucidate us?
        pavel_lishin 15y ago
        I think he means that there is always a competitor on the horizon.
haberman 15y ago
Is Google+ being advertised that way? I see that in the news articles about Google+, but not in Google's own materials.
- ltamake 15y ago
  That was my fault. The article gave an impression that Google was advertising it like that.
jedc 15y ago
Um, I think all of the Google people interviewed have gone out of their way to say it isn't a "Facebook competitor". I assume this is just a copy-editor at the NYTimes who sees it that way.

by ltamake 15y ago

pavel_lishin 15y ago

I think that's true for small startups, but for someone like Google? Presumably, nearly everyone with a gmail address will already be a user, which means that there won't be any migration hassles - "I'd join, but Timmy and Jimbo aren't on GooBook yet!"

ltamake 15y ago
Apple tried to use the same philosophy: everyone has an Apple ID, so there's no migration issue. Look how that turned out. But I understand what point you're trying to make. This will get used, but I don't see it becoming a true Facebook rival because of the network effect Facebook relies on. If users were to migrate in masses, on the other hand, Facebook would be dead within a short amount of time. Sadly, that's not going to happen anytime soon.
- MatthewPhillips 15y ago
  Switching social networks is not the same as switching email services. You don't just up and move. Millions switched from MySpace to Facebook but what they really did was join Facebook while still using MySpace. And then using MySpace less. And then not at all. So, in theory, people could "join" Google+ because they see it in the toolbar while they're searching, and if there are a few killer features that bring them back (Hangouts? Sparks?) they might use Facebook less. And eventually maybe enough of their friends are on Google+ that they stop using Facebook. Or maybe not. But they definitely don't need to make a walk-the-plank decision today.
  - ltamake 15y ago
    MySpace wasn't prepared for Facebook, and ignored it until about 2009 when it was too late. People saw their friends on Facebook, so they stopped using MySpace (hence the network effect I mentioned earlier). Facebook /will/ fight for its social dominance, but (generally speaking) there is a site out there that they don't know about and won't be prepared for (aka "the next Facebook")
    - true_religion 15y ago
      One can fight and lose all the same. Friendster fought against MySpace et al, and still lost ground because of its poor architecture. Facebook being 4th generation social networking won't fail because of poor architecture, nor because of poor UI. It may fail due to privacy concerns though since its leadership seems fanatical about reducing restrictions to information, rather than allowing its users to segment themselves.
    - calebmpeterson 15y ago
      > but there is a site out there that they don’t know about and won't be prepared for. Care to illucidate us?
      - pavel_lishin 15y ago
        I think he means that there is always a competitor on the horizon.

haberman 15y ago

Is Google+ being advertised that way? I see that in the news articles about Google+, but not in Google's own materials.

ltamake 15y ago
That was my fault. The article gave an impression that Google was advertising it like that.

jedc 15y ago

Um, I think all of the Google people interviewed have gone out of their way to say it isn't a "Facebook competitor". I assume this is just a copy-editor at the NYTimes who sees it that way.