Social networking is slowly becoming a war between Google and Facebook. This can easily generate a huge debate among many professionals, bloggers and proponents of particular social networking websites, however, we shall examine the facts.
A few years ago, Hi5.com (2003) was looking to be the king of social networking as it was the first truly global social networking website. Its functionality then wowed many a blogger. It seemed to make everything look simple and "all-in-one". In fact, the membership numbers grew fonder and faster. Where as there were many social networking sites, most of which were culture, region or profession based, such as Bolt.com (1996), AsiaAvenue.com (1997) and HR.com (1999), general (photo sharing and blogging) social networking was arguably given prominence by Hi5, Perfspot and Bebo.
Facebook (2005) started off as "another" attempt at social networking but its vision was clear and perhaps the individuals at Facebook Inc took this kind of business a little bit more serious as opposed to just a simple revenue-generating venture on the web. Facebook came with Google's style of simplicity and focussed its strength on the almost real-time updating function; Facebook had very well mastered the dangers of giving some functionality as a premium service to members in social networking (this had led to the stagnation in growth of many "people" websites); Facebook employed real experts; overall, Facebook was patient. Facebook is the force it is today because of all these.
Twitter, which grew mainly after Facebook (The latter should be credited for its stability during testing times) also gained its fair share of users which is larger than most other "people" sites thanks to its micro-blogging innovation. However, it looks like Twitter used the micro-blogging strategy for penetration. In as much as social net-workers just want to write a few things on their spaces (walls), there is still need for more space in case one has a lot more to express; this explains why Twitter might end up in the path of Facebook in one form or another.
Google on the other hand already had its muscle in web search and online advertising (this, they probably knew better than anyone else). Google had email (a tool that can effectively be used to profile people's behaviour online as we've already seen) - the same can be used intuitively by any smart product manager. Google was already familiar with social networking with Orkut (2004), popular in Brazil and India which are very populous nations. Their subsequent acquisition of YouTube was such a killer. Google was and still is used to competition (it never destabilises them, in fact they always seek to compete with none if their attempts at acquiring Yahoo and Facebook are anything to go by) but most of all, Google "the name"! Google's brand did not boast being the biggest in the IT industry but was and is easily the brand that can resonate anywhere in the world. Google introduced their own social networking site Google plus which is gaining cognisable growth in numbers due to its simplistic yet graphical look, not forgetting its power to give users loads of control.
The Facebook brand could easily go head-to-head with the Google brand in the US but on a global level, Google is more profound and respected. While Facebook constantly make improvements to their tool so as to keep members in an ever-changing and exciting environment and probably maintain its bargaining chip in the online advertising business; and twitter will continue its relevance especially among socialites and media personalities, Google plus has a concrete stepping stone and a stronger membership retention base if not wider growth opportunity.
When we speak of social networking sites today, we stop at Facebook, Twitter and Google plus. A wise person once said: "there was still a lot of room for growth in social networking..." With the groundbreaking emergence of Google plus, as it is now there is only enough room left for war!
A few years ago, Hi5.com (2003) was looking to be the king of social networking as it was the first truly global social networking website. Its functionality then wowed many a blogger. It seemed to make everything look simple and "all-in-one". In fact, the membership numbers grew fonder and faster. Where as there were many social networking sites, most of which were culture, region or profession based, such as Bolt.com (1996), AsiaAvenue.com (1997) and HR.com (1999), general (photo sharing and blogging) social networking was arguably given prominence by Hi5, Perfspot and Bebo.
Facebook (2005) started off as "another" attempt at social networking but its vision was clear and perhaps the individuals at Facebook Inc took this kind of business a little bit more serious as opposed to just a simple revenue-generating venture on the web. Facebook came with Google's style of simplicity and focussed its strength on the almost real-time updating function; Facebook had very well mastered the dangers of giving some functionality as a premium service to members in social networking (this had led to the stagnation in growth of many "people" websites); Facebook employed real experts; overall, Facebook was patient. Facebook is the force it is today because of all these.
Twitter, which grew mainly after Facebook (The latter should be credited for its stability during testing times) also gained its fair share of users which is larger than most other "people" sites thanks to its micro-blogging innovation. However, it looks like Twitter used the micro-blogging strategy for penetration. In as much as social net-workers just want to write a few things on their spaces (walls), there is still need for more space in case one has a lot more to express; this explains why Twitter might end up in the path of Facebook in one form or another.
Google on the other hand already had its muscle in web search and online advertising (this, they probably knew better than anyone else). Google had email (a tool that can effectively be used to profile people's behaviour online as we've already seen) - the same can be used intuitively by any smart product manager. Google was already familiar with social networking with Orkut (2004), popular in Brazil and India which are very populous nations. Their subsequent acquisition of YouTube was such a killer. Google was and still is used to competition (it never destabilises them, in fact they always seek to compete with none if their attempts at acquiring Yahoo and Facebook are anything to go by) but most of all, Google "the name"! Google's brand did not boast being the biggest in the IT industry but was and is easily the brand that can resonate anywhere in the world. Google introduced their own social networking site Google plus which is gaining cognisable growth in numbers due to its simplistic yet graphical look, not forgetting its power to give users loads of control.
The Facebook brand could easily go head-to-head with the Google brand in the US but on a global level, Google is more profound and respected. While Facebook constantly make improvements to their tool so as to keep members in an ever-changing and exciting environment and probably maintain its bargaining chip in the online advertising business; and twitter will continue its relevance especially among socialites and media personalities, Google plus has a concrete stepping stone and a stronger membership retention base if not wider growth opportunity.
When we speak of social networking sites today, we stop at Facebook, Twitter and Google plus. A wise person once said: "there was still a lot of room for growth in social networking..." With the groundbreaking emergence of Google plus, as it is now there is only enough room left for war!
