Tomorrow, I am chairing the Social Media in Government Conference, produced by the Advanced Learning Institute, so I won't be on GovLoop nearly as much as I should, though I will be on Twitter.
There's been a lot of coverage of Google+ both on GovLoop and around the Web. People are making all sorts of pronouncements, and though I usually try to steer clear of prognosticating, as I review my slide deck for the conference, I cannot help but come to this conclusion: I will leave Facebook for Google+ and I won't look back.
I predict that many--if not most--people in the workforce will follow me. And most--if not all--people who already use the Google suite of products (GMail, Google Docs, Picasa, Blogger, Google Public Data Explorer) will follow me. The reason why is also the heart of my presentation. In a word: Connectivity.
On Thursday morning, I'll talk about how connectivity is reshaping government, and to help government leaders and employees understand and implement connectivity, I've identified four types of connections: people to (1) each other; (2) digital assets, like photos, documents, and raw data; (3) applications; and (4) things. Simply put, Google+ acts as a single tool that enables each of those connections, while Facebook does not.
There is nothing that one can do on Facebook that one cannot do on Google+ (save, perhaps, play Farmville, but one has to assume that's not far off). Twitter is something else entirely, and I'll address that further on.
One of my slides shows a visualization of layers as they are used in various applications, like Photoshop and Flash. In Flash, users can create a base layer of graphics and then add layers like "music," "buttons," "animation," and "action script." I apply that idea to our lives, arguing that we can think of reality as a "base layer," onto which we can add other layers, like "language," "electricity," "finance," and "government." We can also add a layer called "social."
The social layer allows us to complete manual tasks more quickly ("many hands make light work") and mental tasks more completely ("none of is as smart as all of us."). The social layer helps us find things faster ("honey, have you seen my keys?" "everyone should read @digiphile's latest: http://oreil.ly/nvYkUn #GOV20"), compile and vet information more rapidly (Wikipedia) and direct action more precisely (Ushahidi: Haiti).
What Google+ represents, especially for people already using Google's other tools, is the application of a social layer onto digital tools through which we already connect to each other, digital assets, applications, and things. Where Facebook was spawned, as its name suggests, in a college setting, divorced from productivity and directed solely toward social, Google+ is exactly that: it's an additional layer over productivity tools we're already using.
In another post, I wrote that any social network would have to achieve critical mass to succeed; Google+ already has more than 10 million members, by some estimates, and even if only current GMail users move to the platform, Google will catapult to nearly 200 million members - critical mass indeed. Moreover, many organizations both in the private and public sector rely on Google for their IT infrastructure (Hello, Los Angeles). Google+ can likely count on those users to help it both define and refine its value as a social layer on top of its productivity layer.
I'm not suggesting that Facebook as a company is necessarily toast. But I am suggesting that the Facebook of 2013, if there is to be one, will look and behave very little like the Facebook of 2011. Its interface excels at only one kind of connection (people to one another) and is merely an add-on to our lives. Google (again, especially for users of its products) is central to our lives.
Not Ruling out Twitter
So why will Twitter be untouched by Google+? In a word: Tweetdeck. Tweetdeck, or Hootsuite, or whatever other compiler we may use, allows for an information-dense, easily- and quickly-customizable dashboard that the simplicity of Twitter's data allows. It's wrong to see Twitter as a "social" network; rather it's an "information" network. As Mark Drapeau writes, Twitter has become both infrastructure and content. There's plenty of room for both Twitter and Google+.
Comment
Comment by Julie Chase on July 14, 2011 at 7:14pm
Comment by Kent Cunningham on July 14, 2011 at 4:39pm
Comment by Alicia Mazzara on July 14, 2011 at 9:50am
Comment by Andrew Krzmarzick on July 14, 2011 at 8:36am
Comment by Hillary Hartley on July 13, 2011 at 11:51pm
Comment by Hillary Hartley on July 13, 2011 at 11:38pm
Comment by Jeremy Sutherland on July 13, 2011 at 1:40pm Currently, Facebook is the social network and Google's suite is the online work space ... but if Skype and Bing are being integrated now into Facebook now, how long until Microsoft 360 is also added to the Facebook combo? And if this happens, would it tip the conversation back in favor of Facebook (and indirectly Microsoft?)
As an unbiased consumer, it sure is exciting to watch these giants battle to make the latest & greatest!
- Jeremy
As a society, I agree, and I hope Google holds to their word they are trying to open Facebook for the sake of innovation, not dominate it and make it go away. Seems we are injecting the need to choose one over the other.
The point made about your son's school, a community organization, colleagues, etc... is exaclty why I made the point he put the conversation in the context of the government. With anyone in world capable of FB and G+, the government cannot and should not take the risk associated with "sharing" it's information across these platforms without extensive tax dollars being spent in diligence. With the glaring issues of security of the Internet alone, aside form Google, FB, or Twitter, the question wold be whether they will make a lot of money developing this need for government resources. Then the question has to asked, is it worth it to the rest of the tax payers for goverment employees to benefit from their own "private social network", I would say no.
The notion this discussion became about government over any commercial entity, made most of our perspectives on preference and personal lives irrelevant and opened a must more difficult debate. Unfortunately, I'm not in a position to speak for the government at large, but I think we as a nation have more to worry about than whether or not we can share photos of a convention at with our friends.
Comment by Gwynne Kostin on July 13, 2011 at 1:23pm Interesting analysis. Will need to chew on it some more. In the meantime, I wanted to offer a few thoughts on the objections that prove the argument. First, @Scott asked, "Did the world jump to Pages? No they bought Office for the Mac. Why? Compatibility." But this is why google is powerful. People rarely need all the overhead of a robust wordprocessor. They need to be able to share. With themselves and with others. That's the social piece, and fits nicely with Gadi's analysis about layers. Collaboration tools are definitely the future of work--not silo'd document repositories. If I can easily share with different aspects of myself--my son's school, my community organization, my family, my colleagues, etc,--sounds like a plus. And more compatible.
Then @mark offered that Facebook wins because of the apps. I think that google is pretty good on the app side (200K for android in May). While I don't know how they will integrate with new tools, I think they have at least as good a chance as Facebook on app integration.
© 2013 Created by GovLoop.
GovLoop is the "Knowledge Network for Government" - the premier social network connecting over 60,000 federal, state, and local government innovators.
A great resource to connect with peers, share best practices, and find career-building opportunities.
You need to be a member of GovLoop - Knowledge Network for Government to add comments!
Join GovLoop - Knowledge Network for Government