A few months ago, Google started a Facebook competitor called Google +. At that time I predicted that it would fail.
Now it is happening. Google + is showing signs of failing.
Today, I drew another important lesson about why Google + is failing and I call this the "Google Circles Fallacy."
Google realized that Facebook had one missing feature. This was the ability to sub-divide your social circles into groups (or circles.) So Google created this as a key feature of it's Google+ social network. At first glance this ties in well with the advice given by Jack Trout who, in his book, Marketing Warfare advises firms to find an angle and make that a central feature of their strategy. The problem in this case is that Facebook simply added a variation of the circles feature to it's offering and Google's advantage disappeared overnight.
So the key lesson is that even though you find an angle, it must not be easy for your competitors to copy that angle. For example, Google Chrome has succeeded by creating a really fast browser (easy when your main competition is Microsoft's Internet Explorer!) Or Gmail succeeded by giving almost unlimited storage space on email (easy when your competitor is Microsoft's Hotmail!) But when you go to war against an entrenched gorilla with an easily copy-able feature, then you risk failure.
So what could Google have done. For starters, Google should have launched the social network under a new brand name (how about "Larry.com" or "Sergei.com"? These would be far more memorable and give the site personality.)
Next, Google should have divided the social networking market in some completely new way perhaps making search a central feature. This would have played to it's competitive advantage and Google may have had a chance.
So when you build your own start-up, remember not to indulge in the "Google Circles Fallacy".
Now it is happening. Google + is showing signs of failing.
Today, I drew another important lesson about why Google + is failing and I call this the "Google Circles Fallacy."
Google realized that Facebook had one missing feature. This was the ability to sub-divide your social circles into groups (or circles.) So Google created this as a key feature of it's Google+ social network. At first glance this ties in well with the advice given by Jack Trout who, in his book, Marketing Warfare advises firms to find an angle and make that a central feature of their strategy. The problem in this case is that Facebook simply added a variation of the circles feature to it's offering and Google's advantage disappeared overnight.
So the key lesson is that even though you find an angle, it must not be easy for your competitors to copy that angle. For example, Google Chrome has succeeded by creating a really fast browser (easy when your main competition is Microsoft's Internet Explorer!) Or Gmail succeeded by giving almost unlimited storage space on email (easy when your competitor is Microsoft's Hotmail!) But when you go to war against an entrenched gorilla with an easily copy-able feature, then you risk failure.
So what could Google have done. For starters, Google should have launched the social network under a new brand name (how about "Larry.com" or "Sergei.com"? These would be far more memorable and give the site personality.)
Next, Google should have divided the social networking market in some completely new way perhaps making search a central feature. This would have played to it's competitive advantage and Google may have had a chance.
So when you build your own start-up, remember not to indulge in the "Google Circles Fallacy".
No comments:
Post a Comment