3 ms·

But there's another factor at play here. Many of Facebook's early users didn't have anything else to engage with -- facebook filled a hole. That's not the case

by sherwin 15y ago

But there's another factor at play here. Many of Facebook's early users didn't have anything else to engage with -- facebook filled a hole. That's not the case with G+: most users already have facebook so they're trying to So like Kylekramer mentioned: G+ engagement might be lower (and that's why they're not releasing figures) but engagement for an early stage social network competing against a dominant product is not a good metric of long term product quality. Users will choose the better product, over time.

badclient 15y ago
but engagement for an early stage social network competing against a dominant product is not a good metric of long term product quality Absolutely disagree. I think user growth metrics is a bad metric for a new product but engagement is the perfect metric when gauging product quality. A large media campaign can pump up registrations--just like linking to G+ from the google.com homepage did. But it won't pump up engagement. In contrast, organic growth like facebook's early days means smaller user-base but if the product is good, more engagement than the competitor. And let's not forget, in 2006 no one in the Valley or media was talking much about facebook. It was all about celebrating MySpace.
- sherwin 15y ago
  While I think that's true, my point is that product quality in the long run isn't best represented by engagement now because Facebook is already soaking up all the engagement. Engagement is not going to grow quickly when you have two very similar products, one which has almost complete dominance, and a new one. And, yes, in 2006 Facebook was the underdog compared to Myspace but had high engagement levels, but at that point not everyone had a Myspace. There was plenty of people who have never used a social network before. Whereas today, everyone has a Facebook. So engagement shift from Facebook to G+ (if it happens eventually) will be very slow at first, but I think that in the long run, people will choose the better product.
  - badclient 15y ago
    That is like saying google.com when it launched should have had low engagement because there was also yahoo.com as the dominant player. It makes no sense. Google.com had crazy engagement because the product rocked. It did have a gradual growth because it took a while for people to hear about it but when they did try it, they got glued. Same with facebook. I simply don't see many people getting glued to google+. Now you can argue that it's because not a lot of people are on it to which I counter that 40+M people are on it; way more than enough for a good product to score engagement. You can also argue that 40+M members are too isolated groups, to which I say who's fault is that? A big part of doing social is having a growth and engagement strategy. The only strategy google seemed to have is to slap a G+ signup button on their homepage. All that has done is deliver false signs of success.
moconnor 15y ago
Users will choose the product all their friends use over time. That's the nature of this market. At this stage, almost any growth for G+ is impressive.

by sherwin 15y ago

badclient 15y ago

but engagement for an early stage social network competing against a dominant product is not a good metric of long term product quality Absolutely disagree. I think user growth metrics is a bad metric for a new product but engagement is the perfect metric when gauging product quality. A large media campaign can pump up registrations--just like linking to G+ from the google.com homepage did. But it won't pump up engagement. In contrast, organic growth like facebook's early days means smaller user-base but if the product is good, more engagement than the competitor. And let's not forget, in 2006 no one in the Valley or media was talking much about facebook. It was all about celebrating MySpace.

sherwin 15y ago
While I think that's true, my point is that product quality in the long run isn't best represented by engagement now because Facebook is already soaking up all the engagement. Engagement is not going to grow quickly when you have two very similar products, one which has almost complete dominance, and a new one. And, yes, in 2006 Facebook was the underdog compared to Myspace but had high engagement levels, but at that point not everyone had a Myspace. There was plenty of people who have never used a social network before. Whereas today, everyone has a Facebook. So engagement shift from Facebook to G+ (if it happens eventually) will be very slow at first, but I think that in the long run, people will choose the better product.
- badclient 15y ago
  That is like saying google.com when it launched should have had low engagement because there was also yahoo.com as the dominant player. It makes no sense. Google.com had crazy engagement because the product rocked. It did have a gradual growth because it took a while for people to hear about it but when they did try it, they got glued. Same with facebook. I simply don't see many people getting glued to google+. Now you can argue that it's because not a lot of people are on it to which I counter that 40+M people are on it; way more than enough for a good product to score engagement. You can also argue that 40+M members are too isolated groups, to which I say who's fault is that? A big part of doing social is having a growth and engagement strategy. The only strategy google seemed to have is to slap a G+ signup button on their homepage. All that has done is deliver false signs of success.

moconnor 15y ago

Users will choose the product all their friends use over time. That's the nature of this market. At this stage, almost any growth for G+ is impressive.