还记得Google+吗？每个创业者都该从它的死亡中吸取这些教训

    上周，科技巨擘谷歌悄悄宣布，用户不再需要Google+账户来登录Youtube，其他谷歌网站最终也会取消这项要求。同时，Google+分成了照片和流媒体视频两块儿业务。然而，和谷歌期望的综合型龙头社交平台相比，Google+还差得很远。作为谷歌应对Facebook的手段，Google+一直都没有闯出什么名堂。这样看来，谷歌做出这样的决定并不意外。

    Statista.com收集的数据显示，Google+的月度活跃用户为3亿，Fackbook为14亿。其他方面的统计结果显示，Google+仅有400-600万活跃用户，远低于Statista.com公布的数字。不过，无论到底有多少活跃用户，大多数分析师都不看好Google+的前景。

    作为Google+用户，我觉得不难看出这项业务为何没有达到预期。对于谷歌这次失败的尝试，我认为所有商界人士都可以从中汲取下面三大教训。

    别推销人们已经有的东西

    Google+于2011年投入使用。当时，Facebook已经在全球社交媒体平台中占据主导位置，拥有2.5亿活跃用户。Facebook的产品显然独一无二，而且广受欢迎。但谷歌认为自己可以说服数百万人转而使用它新推出的社交媒体网站。

    Google+也许本可以开发出非常优秀的产品，但它并没有做到这一点。该网站的界面不够灵活，也不如Facebook直观；它的移动App同样无法让人眼前一亮。最重要的是，Google+的活跃用户数量一直不够多，不能带来令人满意的社交体验。尽管这几年使用Google+的人越来越多，但用户之间的互动远不像Facebook那么活跃。换句话说，Facebook成功的原因就是拥有一个巨大而且非常活跃的网络社区。

    公平地说，Facebook也有用户较少的时候，但它和Google+的关键区别在于那时Facebook还相对是个新鲜事物。同时，据说Facebook的用户界面体验好于当时的主要竞争对手MySpace，而且Facebook的增长策略也更具创新性。反观Google+，它一直是某种已有事物的克隆体，也一直不那么有吸引力；而且除了Google的市场影响力外，它几乎没有别的发展动力。

    了解自己

    Google+有一点和Facebook不同，那就是它的混合型结构。Google+用户既可以和朋友联络，也可以关注完全陌生的人，对方反过来也可以关注你，这有点儿像推特。这个想法很好，但有两个问题。首先，Facebook很快就推出了类似的功能，这让Google+失去了主要竞争优势。其次，Facebook的社交媒体网络以朋友为基础，有一种亲密感，而这项功能会削弱这种亲密感。

    推特的主要功能是让用户迅速把信息传递给很多未必相识的人以及他们的粉丝。尽管会直接给对方发信息，也会出现论战，但这些粉丝并不是真正的朋友群体。虽然Facebook不断添加的新功能渐渐模糊了它和推特之间的界线，但Facebook基本上仍是一个社交平台，在上面交流的用户多少都有点儿关系，因此比较安全，也较为封闭。

    Google+则是二者兼有，但又哪个都不是。它想把这两种截然不同的社交活动融为一体，却在这个过程中给自己带来了身份认同危机。

    别在核心业务上让步

    尽管Google+没有取得成功，但谷歌的其他产品确实很棒，特别是它标志性的搜索引擎。互联网统计机构comScore的数据显示，谷歌在美国网络搜索市场的份额为65%。在这种情况下，谷歌本应竭尽全力来保护核心产品的完整性。然而，谷歌却背道而驰，拿自己的核心产品来冒险。

    举例来说，如果我在谷歌搜索栏中输入“唐纳德·特朗普”，我想要看到的也许是这位总统候选人的最新新闻，或者是他旗下房地产的信息，但我绝对不是要找我在Google+上发的关于特朗普的帖子。然而，谷歌提供的搜索结果正是这些帖子，而且出现的位置并不是很靠后，反而都在第一页上。

    当然，这样做显然是为了提高Google+帖子的搜索引擎优化（SEO）价值，但这让谷歌变得不那么好用。它不光返回了我不想要的搜索结果，还会迫使我退出谷歌账户，以便顺利搜到自己想要的东西。这让我觉得不胜其烦。而且，从谷歌的角度来看，这和该公司希望看到的情况恰好相反，它本来是想让用户一直待在“谷歌的世界”里。

    公平地说，几年前这种莫名其妙的情况要比现在严重得多。这几年，谷歌似乎一直在尽量降低Google+帖子对搜索结果的影响。不过，这个问题依然存在。我要说的是，千万别为了推广别的东西而瞎折腾自己的旗舰产品。（财富中文网）

    本文作者S. Kumar是一位科技商业评论员。他曾在科技、媒体和电信投行业工作。他本人并未持有文中任何一家公司的股票。

    译者：Charlie

    校对：詹妮

    Tech giant Google GOOG 0.10% quietly announced this week that users would no longer need a Google+ account to log into YouTube and eventually other Google sites as well. In addition, the site is breaking up into two pieces: Photos and Streams, but that’s a far cry from the market-leading integrated social platform that Google had wanted Google+ to be. Looking back, the news comes as no surprise given that Google’s answer to Facebook FB -2.05% hasn’t exactly been a resounding success.

    Google+ has 300 million active monthly users compared to Facebook’s 1.4 billion, according to data compiled by Statista.com. that Others say it’s much lower at 4 million to 6 million, but whatever the real number, most analysts agree that Google+’s future isn’t bright.

    As a user of Google+ myself, it’s not difficult to see why the idea has failed to live up to its promise. So below I highlight 3 of the biggest lessons every businessperson could learn from Google’s failed experiment.

    Don’t sell people what they already have

    Google+ was launched in 2011. By that time, Facebook had already become the dominant social media platform in the world, boasting 250 million active users. Facebook’s product was clearly ubiquitous and highly popular. Yet Google thought it could convince millions of people to migrate to its own newborn social media site.

    It’s possible Google+ could have developed a vastly superior product, but it didn’t. Its interface is clunky and less intuitive than Facebook; its mobile app equally uninspiring; most of all, it lacks a critical mass of active users necessary for a satisfying social media experience. More people have joined Google+ over the years but interaction amongst users is still much less robust than on Facebook. In other words, Facebook works because the community is already large and very active.

    To be fair, there was a time when Facebook had few users, too, but the crucial difference is that Facebook was relatively novel at the time. Also, it reportedly had a better user interface than its prime competitor MySpace, and a more innovative growth strategy, whereas Google+ has always been a less compelling clone of something people already have and with little else to propel it than the market muscle of Google.

    Know who you are

    A feature that differentiated Google+ from Facebook was its hybrid structure that allowed users to connect with their friends but also follow complete strangers who could then follow them back – similar to Twitter TWTR 0.74% . That was a good concept except for two things: First, Facebook added a similar feature shortly after, eliminating Google+’s prime competitive advantage. Second, it detracted from the intimacy that Facebook’s friend-based social media network provides.

    Twitter is mostly a medium for quickly reaching a large number of users you don’t necessarily know, as well as their followers. Despite direct messaging and tweet-wars, followers aren’t really a network of ‘friends.’ While the lines between Twitter and Facebook are gradually blurring as the latter adds more features, Facebook still remains primarily a social platform for users who are at least tangentially connected, offering some security and closeness.

    Google+ is both of these things and yet neither of them. It tried to meld two very distinct social media protocols, and in the process, created an identity crisis for itself.

    Don’t compromise your core business

    Despite Google+ being a misfire, Google offers great products, especially its iconic search engine that accounts for 65% of the U.S. search market, according to digital measurement firm comScore. Given that, the company should have protected the integrity of its core product at all costs. Instead, it gambled with it.

    If I type in “Donald Trump” (to use an illustrative example) into Google, I may be looking for the latest news on the presidential hopeful, or maybe information on his real estate holdings, but what I’m definitely not looking for are my own posts on Google+ about Trump. And yet that is exactly what Google serves up, and not just deep inside the rankings, but on the first page.

    Granted, this is apparently done to increase the SEO value of all Google+ posts, but it’s still inconvenient. Not only does it skew my search results but effectively forces me to sign out of Google in order to be able to run a proper search. That’s annoying for me but from Google’s perspective; it’s the exact opposite of what the company is aiming for, which is to keep you inside the Google universe at all times.

    To be fair, this quirk was a lot worse a few years ago and Google seems to have minimized the intrusion of Google+ posts in search engine rankings since then, but the problem still remains. The point is if you have a flagship product, don’t tinker with it at the expense to promote another product.

    S. Kumar is a tech and business commentator. He has worked in technology, media, and telecom investment banking. He does not own any shares of the companies mentioned in this article.