4 ms·

What Google+ Could Learn From Coca-Cola

15 points by rafaelc 15y ago

redthrowaway 15y ago
I think this is a lot less of a problem than the author suggests. Domain names are increasingly unimportant. I get to G+ by hitting the link at the top whenever I'm on a google page (usually). I only ever typed "plus.google.com" when I was itching for an invite. This is Google's big play for social. Its success or failure won't depend on branding. It will depend on network effects, and they've already captured the early adopters. Now we'll just have to see if that translates to the "norms" using it. I can all but guarantee the url will have little to do with that.
- techiferous 15y ago
  This is about branding, not URLs. The author was not merely suggesting plus.com as an alternate URL, but that Google+ be branded separately from Google (not that I agree with this). For example, how many non-techies know that YouTube is owned by Google? It's separate branding, not just separate URLs.
  - redthrowaway 15y ago
    Right, but even among techies, how many care that Google owns Youtube? Youtube was the preeminent video site long before Google bought them. Its growth was organic. Google can't afford for G+ to have organic growth. It needed the couple million early adopters it got within the first week if it was to have a chance, and Google is a trusted name for average users. That trust will be huge. You can't really compare the launch of a new social network to that of a flavour of soda. G+ is not pretty much the same as facebook, and it's not a commodity whose sales will be determined bybrand recognition and marketing. It's a service whose popularity will be determined by the level of engagement of its initial users and how motivated and successful they are in getting others to join. Saying "it's from Google" is probably a pretty big selling point, there.
tobobo 15y ago
I think this comparison is slightly exaggerated, as people experience social networks in a completely different way. Going into using Google+, I expected it to have the look and feel of other Google products that I use and enjoy. I was not disappointed. A beverage company does not have to worry about UX. All it has to do is make the product look like something you want to consume.
guelo 15y ago
I think Google+ is much more ambitious than just the release of a new product. Google+ is a larger effort to unify and integrate all their products using a social glue layer that will change how you interact with and think of Google. The attempt at a single design aesthetic across all their properties is part of this initiative. The vision is actually quite dramatic and is a reinvention of the whole company, I think Google+ reflects that and is a perfect name.
superpanic 15y ago
Google+ works because it's just what it is. It's google + social. Sprite is not Coca Cola + Lime. Sprite is Sprite.
jsavimbi 15y ago
> Getting the name of a new product right has to come before any innovations on UI, product, technology, and so forth. Apples and oranges. Also, there couldn't be worse advice than what the author is advocating. Google could've called it nothing, launched and still have a modicum of success, because they already had millions of users. Google+ is not a novelty platform launched in private beta. I wish people would get that through their heads. I think the author should do some homework and try to understand that comparing a software ecosystem brought together through acquisition is a lot harder than introducing a copy of a product into the beverage market in order to take away market share from a competitor, especially when you have power over the distribution channel: > In the 1980s, many years after Sprite's introduction, Coke pressured its large bottlers that distributed 7 Up to replace the soda with the Coca-Cola product. In a large part due to the strength of the Coca-Cola system of bottlers, Sprite finally became the leader position in the lemon soda category in 1978
skarayan 15y ago
I am sure many marketers would agree with this post, however, Google is trying to reinvent themselves. They are essentially destroying their old brand to create a newer, more social, brand. There are many lessons to be learned here from Google, regardless if it succeeds or fails. I will continue to eat my popcorn and watch as everything unfolds.
JanezStupar 15y ago
I think that Google is right for narrowing down the number of brands and rallying their services around G+. Especially if they manage to continue this organic feel that G+ and currently integrated services have. I am super excited about having all their productivity apps integrated into a single big jigsaw puzzle. It will show that Bill Gates was right in 90's when he panicked about browser replacing the Windows. The whole breadth of Google's services is astonishing and FB (7up) will be hard pressed to compete. Shameless plug: http://www.janezstupar.com/the-facebook-dilemma http://www.janezstupar.com/the-facebook-dilemma

15 points by rafaelc 15y ago

I think this is a lot less of a problem than the author suggests. Domain names are increasingly unimportant. I get to G+ by hitting the link at the top whenever I'm on a google page (usually). I only ever typed "plus.google.com" when I was itching for an invite. This is Google's big play for social. Its success or failure won't depend on branding. It will depend on network effects, and they've already captured the early adopters. Now we'll just have to see if that translates to the "norms" using it. I can all but guarantee the url will have little to do with that.

techiferous 15y ago
This is about branding, not URLs. The author was not merely suggesting plus.com as an alternate URL, but that Google+ be branded separately from Google (not that I agree with this). For example, how many non-techies know that YouTube is owned by Google? It's separate branding, not just separate URLs.
- redthrowaway 15y ago
  Right, but even among techies, how many care that Google owns Youtube? Youtube was the preeminent video site long before Google bought them. Its growth was organic. Google can't afford for G+ to have organic growth. It needed the couple million early adopters it got within the first week if it was to have a chance, and Google is a trusted name for average users. That trust will be huge. You can't really compare the launch of a new social network to that of a flavour of soda. G+ is not pretty much the same as facebook, and it's not a commodity whose sales will be determined bybrand recognition and marketing. It's a service whose popularity will be determined by the level of engagement of its initial users and how motivated and successful they are in getting others to join. Saying "it's from Google" is probably a pretty big selling point, there.

tobobo 15y ago

I think this comparison is slightly exaggerated, as people experience social networks in a completely different way. Going into using Google+, I expected it to have the look and feel of other Google products that I use and enjoy. I was not disappointed. A beverage company does not have to worry about UX. All it has to do is make the product look like something you want to consume.

guelo 15y ago

I think Google+ is much more ambitious than just the release of a new product. Google+ is a larger effort to unify and integrate all their products using a social glue layer that will change how you interact with and think of Google. The attempt at a single design aesthetic across all their properties is part of this initiative. The vision is actually quite dramatic and is a reinvention of the whole company, I think Google+ reflects that and is a perfect name.

superpanic 15y ago

Google+ works because it's just what it is. It's google + social. Sprite is not Coca Cola + Lime. Sprite is Sprite.

jsavimbi 15y ago

> Getting the name of a new product right has to come before any innovations on UI, product, technology, and so forth. Apples and oranges. Also, there couldn't be worse advice than what the author is advocating. Google could've called it nothing, launched and still have a modicum of success, because they already had millions of users. Google+ is not a novelty platform launched in private beta. I wish people would get that through their heads. I think the author should do some homework and try to understand that comparing a software ecosystem brought together through acquisition is a lot harder than introducing a copy of a product into the beverage market in order to take away market share from a competitor, especially when you have power over the distribution channel: > In the 1980s, many years after Sprite's introduction, Coke pressured its large bottlers that distributed 7 Up to replace the soda with the Coca-Cola product. In a large part due to the strength of the Coca-Cola system of bottlers, Sprite finally became the leader position in the lemon soda category in 1978

skarayan 15y ago

I am sure many marketers would agree with this post, however, Google is trying to reinvent themselves. They are essentially destroying their old brand to create a newer, more social, brand. There are many lessons to be learned here from Google, regardless if it succeeds or fails. I will continue to eat my popcorn and watch as everything unfolds.

JanezStupar 15y ago

I think that Google is right for narrowing down the number of brands and rallying their services around G+. Especially if they manage to continue this organic feel that G+ and currently integrated services have. I am super excited about having all their productivity apps integrated into a single big jigsaw puzzle. It will show that Bill Gates was right in 90's when he panicked about browser replacing the Windows. The whole breadth of Google's services is astonishing and FB (7up) will be hard pressed to compete. Shameless plug: http://www.janezstupar.com/the-facebook-dilemma http://www.janezstupar.com/the-facebook-dilemma