From Zuckerberg to Zealberg Part 2 Update

A simple but clever update to Google+ can better organize notifications and activity across the entire Google product spectrum and even the "Google color spectrum."

In part two I described how Facebook could compete with Google+ via an optional new feature for Facebook's NewsFeed and a "Just Me" feature that allows Facebook users to privately "Like" Facebook pages.


Roughly the same day I posted and promoted my Part 2 post, Facebook came out with a new commenting feature best described by Facebook:














Here's Facebook's photo example displaying the new feature:





















That's pretty interesting.

While the new feature isn't "fully democratized" (allowing users to selectively disable the feature entirely), I'd say that Facebook's new commenting feature is "semi-democratized" in the sense that users can remove the preview if they want.



Since I'm a pretty fair and balanced guy, here's an update idea for Google+ : A color coordinated Google+ notification counter.



Here's how the Google+ notification counter currently looks:










The number "2" represents the sum of Google+ notifications.


Here's the "simple version" of my proposed update:


First, keep the current notification count as is but change the color scheme to black and white, which would look like this:











(a white background / black number would work too)


Why black and white? You'll see in a second...


Now 2 is a rather low number for the purposes of my update idea, so let's change it to 14 notifications:












Here's how a color coordinated Google+ notification counter could help in sorting 14 Google+ notifications:


When you click on the counter/number, a drop down menu would organize each of the 14 notifications in the following manner:















Hopefully Google fans immediately recognize why I changed the main notification counter's color scheme to the black and white color scheme.


Now when you click the main notification count, you COULD receive notifications on being added to circles and updates specific to three of your top circles.


This is not the main idea behind my proposed update, however.

The main point behind my idea is a color coded notification system that organizes notifications using the "Google colors" as shown in the classic Google logo:












^ blue, red, yellow, and green = "Google colors" ^


Now while the Google+ team could take the basic premise of my update and apply it to Google+, here is how I would do it...


First, if you refer back to my Part 2 post, you'll see that Scott Locklin criticizes Google for its "knockoff competitor" products and what he believes is Google's basic business model.

While Locklin may be correct in his claim that Google has failed to monetize any of its products on the level of the revenue it generates from search term advertising, that is not to say that Google's various products aren't widely used.

Given that, I would design my color coded notification counter to be entirely customizable to the Google product user (not just the Google+ user).


Here's how I would customize my color coded Google notification counter, which would be displayed each time I logged on to Google+:


















Now I'm not sure if there is a Chrome (Google's browser) add-on that can do the same thing as this idea. In fact, I would be surprised if there isn't.


However, I'm a Firefox user and not a big fan of any Firefox add-ons other than Collusion which is worth a look


All in all, each time I log on to Google+ and see notifications only specific to Google+, I always wish I didn't have to separately check my Gmail/YouTube/Blogger account to see if there is any new activity associated with each of my other accounts for Google products.

An update on the likes of my idea would certainly be convenient and time saving for me.

However, in my personal customization example, I envision this Google notification counter update as a way to make Google+ more than just a social networking service but a "starting block" portal for users of Google's various products.

So that's that.

Lastly, one concern I have about Google+ is the potential awkwardness of the acquaintances circle for "millennial" users and the preteen/young teenager demographic.














I can understand the utility of any user generated, custom circle (using the "whatever floats your boat" reasoning).

However, for millennial Google+ users and preteens/young teenagers, I envision a definite level of potential awkwardness in adding any number of one's peers to the acquaintances circle.

Millennial users have largely known:

Myspace, with its "top friends" feature.

Facebook, with its friend requests, "mutual friends," and applications like "Friend matrix" that are a constant element of one's News Feed.

I'd say that things have largely been pretty "friendly" when it comes to social networking services (aside from Twitter).

BUT: Now there's Google+ with it's default "acquaintances circle."

While the idea of acquaintances is realistic and comfortable in REAL LIFE interpersonal relationships, the past and present nature of digital interpersonal relationships makes the idea of an acquaintances circle seem sort of old fashioned, socially awkward, and generally "I-don't-know-or-want-to-go-there-like" for the millennial, preteen, and early teenage Google+ user.


Google loves data analysis, algorithms, and everything in between.

It would be interesting for Google to analyze Google+ users who add people to their acquaintances circle with respect to their given age.

I'd envision older Google+ users as users more likely to use the acquaintances circle.

Who knows, I could be wrong.


Part 3 about Facebook vs LinkedIn coming soon.

From Zuckerberg to Zealberg - Part 2

Part 2: Facebook vs Google Plus

The recent but relatively exclusive launch of Google's social media service (Google +) warrants both Google and Facebook to seriously consider strategies that could keep Facebook competitive and innovative in response to the launch of Google+.


Part 1 of "From Zuckerberg to Zealberg" was largely a recap, tie-in, and update of my older posts in relation to Facebook along with some heavy stuff including intelligence agencies, espionage, Recorded Future's predictive analytics software, cyber warfare, and more.

Part 2 will be about what I would really do if Facebook went public and Zuckerberg handed me the keys to the CEO office.


Now I know that Facebook and Google employees get paid to ponder, consider, and give PowerPoints on the topics I'm about to discuss in this post.


That being said, Zuckerberg or anyone else is free to take my ideas and run with them.

I'm okay with that.

Don't worry. I'm not going to sue anyone who takes/modifies/improves my ideas.

I'm not like these guys:


































The following ideas are on the house:




Some might say that Google is Facebook's most formidable competition.











When comparing Facebook to Google, it is important to consider that Google currently has a greater economic magnitude than Facebook.

Here are the numbers:

MARKET CAPITALIZATION

Google: $194.17 billion
Facebook: $65-100 billion (estimated)

While an exact figure on Facebook's market cap is not available, talk about Facebook having a $100 billion dollar valuation has been circulating and causing considerable excitement about Facebook's future IPO.

Despite Google's greater present day market cap, I am skeptical about the ability of Google + to beat out Facebook in terms of being the most popular and widely used social networking service.

Additionally, I have concerns about how much future revenue Google + will bring Google.

Before I elaborate, let me give proper recognition to the writer and online magazine that brought about my skepticism:














Scott Locklin, a contributor for Taki's Magazine, wrote an article describing Google as "Fat Elvis"



While Locklin's article may seem offensive and not too "politically correct" on certain issues, Locklin nonetheless has an interesting perspective on Google.

Here are some poignant excerpts from the article:

"Google has a simple approach to business development. If there is an online business somewhere which looks promising, interesting, or nifty, Google will either buy it outright or create a lousy knockoff product, often effectively destroying the competition."























"What’s weird is that Google doesn’t make any money from these “other businesses” 12 years after their incorporation and six years after their IPO, they still make all their money from selling ads associated with search terms."


"Sure, they have email, Google Docs, Google Shopping, Blogger, their own programming language, YouTube, mapping software, a coming ripoff of pandora.com’s music service, a photo-sharing service, Orwellian Panopticon and medical-data services, a browser, an ersatz PayPal which nobody uses, a clone of Yahoo!‘s financial service, a cell-phone OS, Orkut (their version of Friendster/Facebook), and lately a Groupon ripoff, but they can’t figure out how to make money from any of these products."

"They only make money selling ads, same as they always did."

"Sure, Google has to grow, and it’s hard for them to grow much more in selling ads: They already own a substantial share of the world’s advertising market. For the last 12 years, they have certainly taken over some new markets, but they have failed to monetize any of them."

-END-

While Locklin's claims require greater scrutiny, I nonetheless think his assessment of Google is worthy of consideration with respect to the launch of Google+

First, I don't think that Google + will "effectively destroy" Facebook.

However, I do think Locklin may be spot on about Google in the sense that Google could fail to sufficiently monetize Google+.

In addition to the other products Locklin claims Google has failed to monetize, perhaps Google+ may suffer a similar fate.

Now, what does all this mean for Facebook?

Locklin's assessment of Google may suggest that the emergence of Google + is not a big deal for Facebook given its relative "juggernaut" status and success as a social networking service.

This is not the case.

As soon as competitor services emerge, people will begin to ask questions like:

"I wonder if this will be better than Facebook..."

"I wonder what Facebook will do..."

And most importantly: "I wonder what's going to replace Facebook one day..."

Answers to these questions shouldn't be left up to web techies, technology forecasters, and other speculating parties.

The above questions would be best answered in the form of action from Facebook.

Innovations, site updates, new features, and the implementation of aggressive strategies to maintain active Facebook users will be key to settling such questions.

Now before I begin I will give credit where credit is due to Google.

Out of all the technology and internet companies out there, I believe Google has the greatest capability to cultivate a loyal fan base on the level of Apple's fan base (frequently dubbed the "Cult of Apple" due to the loyal adherence and fanfare Apple users give to Steve Jobs and $APPL).

While Facebook in my opinion does not currently have this capability, Facebook will nonetheless need to initiate a series of competitive answers in response to the launch of Google +.

Here are some ideas to consider:

Adaptation as an initial response

By making several adjustments to Facebook's interface, Facebook can easily provide similar features to those provided by Google+.

For example, the "Sparks" application in Google+ allows users to essentially "tag" their favorite interests and receive separated, organized updates on each of their specified interests.







While cycling, fashion, movies, and recipes are just some of Google's featured interests, Google+ users can be as specific or broad as they like in defining what personal interests they want to receive updates on when they log on to Google+.

In essence, Google Plus' "Sparks" feature is similar to Facebook's "Like" feature, where Facebook users can "Like" Facebook pages related to their personal interests and view recent posts by "Like" pages on their News Feed each time they log on.

While Facebook "Likes" are a popular and widely used feature, an update to Facebook's News Feed interface can better organize what posts are displayed when Facebook users log on.












The picture above is what Facebook's News Feed currently looks like.



The picture below illustrates a News Feed update that Facebook could develop and allow users to activate at their own discretion:











The "Likes" tab would be an optional News Feed function that separates posts by Facebook friends from posts by a user's "Like" pages.

Most important in the implementation of this function would be leaving it up to the user. Implementing the new function in this manner would arguably represent Facebook's first "democratized" interface update, allowing Facebook users the freedom to decide for themselves whether or not they want to use the new feature.

Consider the following example of why someone would activate this function:

Currently, many Facebook users get breaking news updates on their Facebook News Feed via mainstream media and alternative media page "Likes."














































Activating the above feature could allow Facebook users to separate posts by friends from news updates posted by mainstream media and alternative news page "Likes."


Alternatively, some may wish to opt out of this function and keep their Facebook News Feed the way it is.

Perhaps some users enjoy "digital coincidences" in Facebook's News Feed like a breaking CNN news article about President Obama posted right above a "political status rant" critical of Obama by one of the user's politically outspoken Facebook friends.

Who knows?

When it comes down to it, Facebook users may simply find this function useful by being able to separate diverse "Like content" (products, services, news sources, entertainment, celebrity fan pages, etc) from "friend content" (status updates, posted links, notes, videos, etc).

However, this update would not be enough to fully compete with Google Plus' "Sparks" feature.

What makes Google Plus' "Sparks" unique from Facebook's "Likes" feature is not the fact that personal interests in "Sparks" are entirely user defined and customizable.

Facebook "Likes" are also "user defined" in the sense that Facebook users are free to "Like" whatever pages they want. Furthermore, Facebook users can also generate custom "interests" even if a Facebook page does not exist via the "Share Your Interests" section of their profile:











What makes "Sparks" unique in comparison to Facebook "Likes" is the fact that "Sparks" has the ability to constantly generate new and updated content specific to an individual's personal interests from outside of the Google+ network.

If Facebook aims to somehow compete with this feature, Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook's development team will need to be very tactful in implementing a feature similar to "Sparks" to avoid looking like a complete copycat.

Nobody likes a copycat.

However, the worst thing that usually happens to copycats is that they get called copycats.


BUT:

What's worse than being a copycat or being called a copycat is being accused of infringing on another company's intellectual property and dealing with the legal issues and expenses that come with that.

For these obvious reasons, I doubt Facebook will explicitly copy Google Plus' "Sparks" feature.

Nonetheless, here's how Facebook can avoid these issues and still compete with Google+ and its "Sparks" function:


In my opinion, what really makes Google Plus' "Sparks" feature unique from Facebook's "Likes" feature is NOT that "Sparks" has the ability to generate updated content specific to the user's interests.

On a basic level, Google News preforms a similar function and you don't need to register with Gmail or Google+ to use Google News.

What makes "Sparks" unique is that user defined, customizable interests are PRIVATE and can only be viewed by the Google+ user.

To be fair, Facebook users have the ability to make page "Likes" private:








As you can see below, my page "Likes" can only be viewed by my friends.

If someone wanted to make their "Likes" truly private, they could change the privacy settings for their "Likes" via this three step process.

1) Click the down arrow on the "Friends Only" button or the button that displays your current privacy settings for Facebook "Likes."




















2. Select "Customize"




3. Select the "Only Me" option on the Custom Privacy screen

















In reality, this could be a one step process by adding an "Only Me" option in the box seen in Step 1.


However, Facebook describes "Likes, Connections, and Other Activities" as a function that:


"Lets you express your interests and experiences, and connect with people who like the same things you do."


Doing all that isn't as easy when your "Likes" are completely private and only visible to you.

Given that, you can see why Facebook doesn't make this a 1 Step process.

A "fat finger mistake" could shut a user's "Likes" and interests off from the rest of the Facebook community and online world.

That's a user error that can cost a company money.




Technicalities aside, here's my idea:

Facebook creates a "Just Me" function.

Here's what it could look like:









Essentially, the "Just Me" function would be a private version of Facebook's "Like" function.


Facebook "Likes" are the virtual equivalent of car decals and bumper stickers (classic icons of American individualism) in the sense they showcase to others one's interests, affiliations, alma mater, etc.


However, there are some things that I WOULD "Like" on Facebook but WILL NOT "Like" on Facebook.

Having a private, "Just Me" function might change that, however.


Furthermore, this function could increase Facebook's advertising revenue and enhance existing opportunities for companies to market their product(s) on Facebook.


I am serious when I say this:

Facebook is missing out by not having this function.


More importantly:

Companies looking to market legitimate, widely used products are missing out too.



There is no doubt in my mind that there are products people use everyday but hesitate to publicly "Like" on Facebook.


I don't care if it's adult diapers, feminine hygiene products, contraceptives, dog food, kitty litter, or that TV show you love but are afraid to "Like" on Facebook because you're afraid people might judge you...

My stance is:

If it sells, it needs an official Facebook page.

Having a "Just Me" function would allow people to privately "like" pages they choose not to for whatever reason (desire to maintain a more professional profile, embarrassment, awkwardness, etc).

In fact, I would go so far as to say that competition for the highest number of "Just Me Likes" would be just as intense as current competition for public "Likes."

By publicly "Liking" a page, users are essentially engaging in free advertising considering that page "Likes" are visible to friends and other Facebook users.

If someone asked me what I thought about the future of marketing and advertising, I would quote Jon Bond, cofounder of Kirshenbaum Bond Senecal + Partners, who said:

"Marketing in the future is like sex. Only the losers will have to pay for it."



Now while I think Bond's prediction is worthy of consideration, I know that we aren't there yet and there's still money to be made for both ends when it comes to advertising and marketing on Facebook.

Nonetheless, maybe Facebook & Co. would shun the "Just Me" idea despite the potential for increased revenue and the ability to better compete with Google +.

For now, those calls might be okay.

But once Facebook goes public and people (shareholders) begin to worry about stagnation, lack of innovation, and missed opportunities to increase profits the game changes completely.


In part 3 I'll be discussing Facebook vs LinkedIn.

Stay tuned.