Subscribe to this feed via RSSGoogle+ is struggling to attract the average user and induce reengagement. Why? The obvious reasons include issues of it failing to fill a legitimate need, and there is also the network effect that hampers meaningful engagement from a new user (for a new user to find value in engaging, 30 of their friends must use the site, but 30 of their friends need 30 of their friends to use it too, and etc.). Though these are issues Google+ designers probably considered early on, the question is what other underlying factors could also be hurting the process of repeat engagement?
I feel one of the important factors pertains to a fundamental misunderstanding of the social framework. Every social platform has a “social framework” by which the users interact with the other users and interact with the system. One of the goals of the social framework is to “humanize” the user experience, because this produces a “tangibly sticky” experience. When I say, “humanize”, I mean the experience is crafted with the inclusion of aspects of the human element (the human behavior and psychological factors, in various social aspects of interaction and understanding).
If the goal is to humanize the user experience, I believe the process of building an adequate social framework is to 1) figure out what the action is, 2) determine its meaning, 3) understand or decide its manifestation, 4) question if a relationship comes from this, 5) if there is a relationship question the expectation it can potentially produce within the user, and 6) understand the sense of responsibility that is created because of it. Building some level of responsibility creates purpose for the users. This behavioral activity can create an experience that not only bring users back to the service, but more importantly it brings them back with a level of fulfillment. Google+’s Circles feature fails to do this. Circles are the best way to compartmentalize the relevancy of relationships. This is its strength, but for the user that is neither a “Googler” nor “Tech-conscious”, this cool organizational tool may not create the perfect bond to bring them back in a fulfilling way.
When placing “Circles” through the process I described above, it falls apart when moving from manifestation to relationship, while Facebook’s “friending” and Twitter’s “following” models don’t. For all three, their actions are the same (subscribing to users), Facebook’s meaning is different (has to be a mutual subscribing agreement) while Twitter and Google+’s are the same (subscribing can be asymmetrical). The manifestation for Facebook is that you have now “friended” someone, for Twitter you are now “following” someone and for Google+ you are placed in a circle; but while with Facebook you are now a friend and with Twitter you are now a follower, with Google+ your relationship is not defined. You don’t know what you have become to each other. This is why when notified you have been added to a persons “circle”, it has no meaning or curious based importance, neither does it elicit emotional value. In most cases you’re more likely to be taken aback in a slightly ambiguous way, especially when someone you don’t know adds you.
This means that expectation may be low or non-existent, which means responsibility may be low or non-existent as well: neither of which will benefit Google+’s social framework in providing a “tangibly sticky” experience. This, I believe, is one of the underlying factors for why the average user isn’t heavily using and reengaging with Google+ on a consistent basis. I don’t believe this is “THE” reason, but I do think it is one of the many.
(The diagram I created below is a visual aid for the process I explained above.)
Older Post
