• PlumbSearcher

    It means that Google Plus is miserable failure.

  • http://twitter.com/samrexford #SM Strategist

    What? Hashtags work on many platforms, including g+.. You used hashtags as a mention of Twitter?

  • daveintheuk

    Perhaps because it is an information harvesting – sorry “identity” – service?

  • daveintheuk

    Common usage; 99.99% of people watching a superbowl commercial will associate hashtags with twitter.

  • guyfromtrinidad

    Its 5 for Facebook you left out the Iron Man movie, it wasn’t just a mention they showed a short trailer of the movie, the mention came after.

  • http://www.timacheson.com/ Tim Acheson

    “Google+ was not mentioned at all”

    ROFL at “Google+” for being yet another epic fail by the corporation.

    I follow almost 5,000 people (the maximum) on G+ and it’s still tumbleweeds on there. So lame it’s embarrassing.

    After headlines like these today, I predict that Google will throw HUGE sums of money just trying to get Google+ mentioned next time round — sad and desperate.

  • dilharo

    google should have bought twitter

  • James H

    This is interesting, but I’d like a little more exploration in the “What It Means” section. I use Twitter and Google+, rarely Facebook then a handful of others. But what they mean to me and the way I use each of them are all different. Perhaps it’s the lack of understanding and/or creativity as to how companies can leverage the uniqueness of the other social networks during a live event. For example, my personal level of engagement in Google+ is deeper and much more involved and with more than 140 characters I could be reading or writing paragraphs. Or I could be in a Hangout for an hour or more. I did see memes and online conversation happen on G+ during the Super Bowl, but I didn’t contribute very much because I was, ahem, watching the game. What about another unmentioned network called Pinterest? I don’t use it but I know it’s a time suck. How would companies want their audience to engage them there during the Super Bowl? Maybe they don’t?

    It makes sense that Twitter had the most commercial mentions because at 140 characters or less, one can contribute to the online conversation very quickly with the provided hashtag using the second screen and be done by the time the big game returns on the first screen.

  • Guest

    This is interesting, but I’d like a little more exploration in the “What It Means” section. I use Twitter and Google+, rarely Facebook then a handful of others. But what they mean to me and the way I use each of them are all different. Perhaps it’s the lack of understanding and/or creativity as to how companies can leverage the uniqueness of the other social networks during a live event. For example, my personal level of engagement in Google+ is deeper and much more involved and with more than 140 characters I could be reading or writing paragraphs. Or I could be in a Hangout for an hour or more. I did see memes and online conversation happen on G+ during the Super Bowl, but I didn’t contribute very much because I was, ahem, watching the game. What about another unmentioned network called Pinterest? I don’t use it but I know it’s a time suck. How would companies want their audience to engage them there during the Super Bowl? Maybe they don’t?

    It makes sense that Twitter had the most commercial mentions because at 140 characters or less, one can contribute to the online conversation very quickly with the provided hashtag using the second screen and be done by the time the big game returns on the first screen.

  • Kenkmooo

    I thought that whole thing worked out pretty good myself dude.

    ub-Anon.tk

  • blogbrevity

    This assumes the “Super Bowl” is relevant to the whole world. :) Also, even with a great Super Bowl ad, @Budweiser immensely challenged on building a Twitter following – needs to verify age: “We know it’s a pain, but you can’t follow @Budweiserunless you go to https://age.twitter.com/verify/age/?source=20851240&target=870680989&timestamp=1359977135&sig=ded03b2b1e0f69190a1fe8d404114e64ba4301d7 …within 24 hours to confirm you’re 21+. Thanks!” http://news.cnet.com/8301-13577_3-20030897-36.html

  • AngryNil

    Oh yes, I’m sure all the advertisers and viewers were thinking of Google+ with the hashtags. Keep telling yourself that.

  • http://techani.tumblr.com/ techani

    Google+ seems like a hoax.

  • James Wester

    With all due respect, but this is “analysis?” Counting hashtags as a proxy for who’s “winning” social media? Followed by comments from people who admittedly don’t use Google + but are all experts on it? (Best comment is the one that says “99.99% of people watching a superbowl commercial will associate hashtags with twitter” from an “SM strategist.” Would love to see that study, but of course we all know that number is made up.) That’s like saying “The state with the most counties is winning!”

    Is it possible hashtags are mentioned in Super Bowl commercials (and also associated with Twitter) not because it shows everyone using Twitter but because Twitter is inherently unsearchable? Does no one here remember why hashtags were developed? Because no one could find anything on Twitter. Thus if you want to be able to find mentions of your brand on Twitter in real time you have provide your own search term. That’s not what people use Google+ and Facebook for.

    Twitter is about immediacy and being a part of a larger real-time conversation. The other networks aren’t. Therefore, brands need to provide a way to track themselves in that conversation. That means the hashtags aren’t for the consumer; they’re for the brands. Hashtags are giving them a better measure of ad reach, something they need if they’re shelling out $3.2 million for 30 seconds. That’s why they all used them.

    Total number of hashtags by brands doesn’t represent any real measurement of anything. Twitter’s “value,” and what brands will be doing over the next few months, is looking at the number of uses of their hashtags with a follow-up of how often those hashtags are used with repeated airings of commercials.

    That brands will be using Twitter for that function says nothing about Facebook or Google+. (And if you’re finding Google+ a ghost town you’re not using it right. I’d welcome you in my circle and you’ll find a lot of people who are using it. I used it to sign in to this comment section.)

  • http://slyck.com/ zbeast

    twitter is the perfect place to talk about ad’s… tweets are fleeting.
    So if someone wastes your time talking about a tv.. it does not matter.
    the message is short and in a second or two it will scroll away.

  • http://twitter.com/NFLPartnership Kevin Burke

    I liked the authentic social interaction during the power outage last night. Couldn’t have planned for that, but there are some marketing elements that brands could have been better prepared to execute. There’s a better way to tie paid, digital and social together through #DigiSport . Check out our take on digital sports marketing at sports-marketing.tumblr.com and let us know your thoughts.

  • 智 慧

    #herewego was weird with the singing fish. there were alot of weird ads yesterday. doritos sucked again. they should just quit already (besides nearly everyone buys doritos the day of the superbowl or the day before. why r they wasting money?) There was one not mentioned on the list “Napa Know How” – OMG really HILARIOUS!! and of course the Clydesdale ads are always good. and there was a good Coca Cola one too “Give A Little Bit”

  • 智 慧

    it takes some getting usedto but now i like it. i just started using it about 3 weeks ago and was making errors left and right but now i’m getting the hang of it

  • totnuckers

    Lol coming from a die hard MS fanboi! So hows SOCL (suckel) coming along?

  • http://searchengineland.com/ Danny Sullivan

    Yes, taking the time to look at each commercial and count the references to the major social media sits is indeed analysis.

  • http://www.timacheson.com/ Tim Acheson

    Presumably you mean Facebook, which is part owned by Microsoft and has overtaken Google.com as the most popular website. Facebook also uses Microsoft’s Bing platform for search and maps.

    SOCL is “a research project from Microsoft Research FUSE Labs”:
    http://www.so.cl/about

    I am struggling to see why you might think it relevant. Unless you thought it had been fully launched, like Google+? Such apparent confusion and/or lack of insight would be consistent with research relying on a quick spur-of-the-moment web search, without proper understanding of the topic — as is typical of anti-Microsoft commenters.

  • http://www.twitter.com/fitzternet John Fitzgerald

    Is there any data on the number of Twitter conversations started by these commercials? I did some searches throughout the game and I didn’t find much reaction to any hashtags. A few companies had employees tweeting under their personal accounts to make it look like there were organic conversations happening, but that’s about it.

  • http://danohart.com danohart

    I will actually. Well, not “all” people, but some…and some of these hashtags trended on G+ once mentioned in a commercial. So….awesome for forward thinking companies.

  • http://dragonsearchmarketing.com/ Ric Dragon

    It’s cool how much TWITTER is getting advertised on the Superbowl – without paying anything!

  • Josh Armour

    Google Plus has more active users than Twitter. Not even as close as Facebook though, and as you point out – that is a venture between Facebook and Microsoft. But to think that Google+ is another epic fail is like calling twitter an epic fail, or reddit (again Google+ has more active users than Reddit)..

    The bar is just set way too high with Facebook. They are a runaway success, and rightfully so. They are exceedingly well at what they do. Bravo for making a great product. But even number two or three seem like small peas compared to them now. The bar for supposed success is very high.

    I view it like the search engine competition. Just because Google is doing so much better than Bing doesn’t mean that Bing is a failure! It just means that Google has market share. You shouldn’t be so quick to write off Google Plus and I’ll be sure not to write of Bing – ok?

  • PStrohm

    Tim Acheson number one MS apologist and Google numero uno troll. Google+ is epic fail for you, but not for me, I can’t even keep up with my stream. Your stream is epic fail because all you do is post a link without sharing any thoughts about it.

  • James Wester

    But it’s not analyzing anything particularly useful. And it sure isn’t indicative of whether or not its “game over” for other social media networks. (I’d reiterate that hashtags are supported on Google+ as well.)

  • totnuckers

    Yea about you dissing Google+ I could also say:
    Your apparent confusion and/or lack of insight would be consistent with research relying on a quick spur-of-the-moment web search, without proper understanding of the topic — as is typical of anti-Google commenters.

  • http://about.me/justinchen Justin C

    How about taking all the mentioned hashtags and comparing the mentions on Twitter vs Google+?

  • http://searchengineland.com/ Danny Sullivan

    It’s analyzing that advertisers pretty much don’t seem to care about Google+, for one thing — and that when it comes to TV ads during social events, even Facebook takes a backseat to Twitter. If you’re a marketer, that’s a useful analysis to know. If you’re a Google+ user feeling bad, can’t help you there.

  • http://twitter.com/samrexford #SM Strategist

    with all due respect, i didn’t make that comment.

  • http://twitter.com/samrexford #SM Strategist

    I’m not telling myself anything. I don’t really really care what the advertisers were thinking, though I know they’re smart enough to realize online conversations are happening in more places than just Twitter. I’m just pointing out that hashtags have evolved beyond Twitter and are a fairly ubiquitous way to organize conversations online, so making a blanket statement that any brand using a hashtag was strictly a Twitter campaign is slightly ridiculous.

  • Matt McGee

    That would be fun to see, Justin. I hope one of the analysis companies does that.

    Anecdotally, I watched what was trending throughout the game on both networks. Within minutes, the power outage was trending on Twitter. It never trended on Google+ from what I saw. In fact, at the end of the game — more than hour after the power outage, Beyonce was still trending on Google+ (her performance happened before the power outage).

  • http://twitter.com/SpryNM Lance Long

    In the sole context of being a powerful ‘second screen’ during a sporting event, yes.

  • James Wester

    “pretty much don’t seem to care” — how many adverbs can you throw in to that sentence to modify “to care?” :)

    And “counting” is now “analysis?”

    BTW – Still not addressing that hashtags are supported on Google+.

  • James Wester

    That’s actually the point I was making, i.e. that this “analysis” is flawed in that it uses hashtags as a proxy for Twitter use by marketers.

    And sincere apologies on attributing that comment to you. I see it was a reply.

  • Zachary Reiss-Davis

    Thanks for putting this together; I wanted this list, but not enough to compile it myself. I’d add a note saying that Oreo’s commercial was the use of Instagram; I noticed that (and Tweeted that) at the time, and thought it was a first.

  • http://searchengineland.com/ Danny Sullivan

    I’ll share some further data tomorrow, but only three of 20 brands that used hashtags in Super Bowl commercials actually used those hashtags in Google+ posts. About half the brands aren’t even on Google+. It’s pretty clear to me they are using them to build buzz on Twitter, not on Google plus.

  • http://searchengineland.com/ Danny Sullivan

    Well, James, an analysis of the 20 brands that used hashtags in Super Bowl commercials shows me that about 11 aren’t even on Google+, so they clearly weren’t using them to do Google+ promotion. That analysis also shows me that 4 brands on Google+ made no posts during the Super Bowl, so they clearly weren’t using hashtags for Google+ promotion. Another 2 brands have verified Google+ pages with no posts at all. That leave 3 brands that used hashtags during the Super Bowl who actually did posts during the Super Bowl itself and used hashtags. My analysis of this tells me that hashtag use is pretty much meant to push activity on Twitter and that Google+, much as I hate to break it to you, really had no top-of-mind with advertisers in the Super Bowl. And that’s fairly useful if you’re a marketer pondering Google+ as a social media outlet. Potentially, you have a chance to make a big splash since others are not. Potentially, you might conclude that it’s not worth the time.

  • http://www.bobology.com Bob Cohen

    Twitter solidifies its place as the app of choice for second screen users. Others need not apply.

  • http://twitter.com/AmyClairmont Amy Clairmont

    Great list and analysis! I find it interesting that while Oreos did not make your list, they seem to get the trophy for best engagement and use of social media. Just one more reason to love Oreos.

  • Jenn T

    Google plus and other network USERS leverage hashtags. Users share content, users place hashtags in posts. It doesn’t matter whether or not the company/product has a presence on a specific social network. What matters is the creatives behind the ads are wise to hashtag use generalized across platforms now. This is quite obvious. To imply it signaled Twitter in solo is to miss the point.

  • http://www.facebook.com/kc.merrill Kc Merrill

    Jenn is absolutely spot on.

    While twitter promoted hashtags originally, I liken it to when people talk about kleenex and rollerblades. Although they are brand names they are now tossed around as generalities.

  • http://twitter.com/EMovProductions Eduardo Morales

    Let’s be honest, whether Danny addresses it or not, marketers are NOT using Google+ to push their products.

    The Plus is my favorite social network of the bunch but there’s no denying it’s a fool’s errand to woo customers on the platform. It’s just not a friendly place to push your product. Twitter and Facebook are more willing to toss ads your way, even if you aren’t a fan of what’s being promoted. G+ has no such feature, as far as I know.

  • http://twitter.com/samrexford #SM Strategist

    Oh, gotcha

  • http://searchengineland.com/ Danny Sullivan

    Hashtags originated on Twitter. They’re used widely on Twitter, far more than on Google+. They were used in commercials by 20 companies, half of which aren’t even on Google+ and of the ones that are, most of those didn’t post during the Super Bowl or post with hashtags. So to imply that these companies used hashtags because they weren’t thinking “Twitter” is really missing the point.

  • http://searchengineland.com/ Danny Sullivan

    No, Google+ doesn’t show ads within Google+. That’s because it can afford not to, since Google is willing to toss ads your way when you search, even if you’re not interested in those ads. Eventually, however, ads will come to Google+.

  • Matt McGee

    This post from Simply Measured has some Twitter and Facebook engagement data in a chart at the end that might help:

    http://simplymeasured.com/blog/2013/02/04/when-the-lights-went-out-social-brands-lit-up/

    There were also numerous other blog posts that we included in our Marketing Day roundup:

    https://marketingland.com/marketing-day-february-4-2013-32510

    Hope that helps, John.

  • Matt McGee

    Thanks Amy. :-) We wrote about the Oreos tweet in this other article:

    https://marketingland.com/oreo-audi-walgreens-market-quickly-during-super-bowl-blackout-32407

    And, of course, Oreos is the one Instagram mention that’s included up in the graphic in this article.

  • Matt McGee

    That Napa commercial must’ve been a local ad in your area. I didn’t see it on the NYC CBS feed that I was watching.

  • http://www.papaspyropoulos.com/ Spyros Papaspyropoulos

    I think this post needs refining. Hash tags doesn’t mean Twitter! They are for Tracking. Not on Twitter only but on numerous Social Networks. So it is just a way for brands to say “mention me” with a hash tag on all supported SN. Twitter, G+, Instagram and more.

  • http://www.timacheson.com/ Tim Acheson

    “Google Plus has more active users than Twitter.”

    That is a pointless fantasy, because in reality Twitter is highly active and widely used by business while G+ is a barren wasteland of tumbleweeds.

    Nobody takes Google’s “active users” claim seriously, because they have consistently failed to define it and also they’re known to be forcing sign-ups e.g. from YouTube and counting other accounts e.g. Gmail, Android, etc, as Google+ accounts. So if you search Google and happen to be logged into Gmail, they probably count that as an active G+ account.

  • http://www.timacheson.com/ Tim Acheson

    Copying and pasting my comment doesn’t help your argument, not least because it doesn’t make sense in your context. Doh!

    Nothing you’ve said alters one atom of any point I made in my original comment — so what’s your point?

  • totnuckers

    “Nothing you’ve said alters one atom of any point I made in my original comment — so what’s your point?”

    I don’t know if you stupid or pretending to be stupid. It make no sense arguing with you. Just go and code more ASP.Net it might wire more neurons in your brain.

  • andrewblaine

    Google not show ads within Google and that’s why Google+ shut out….. http://tiny.cc/lyq0rw

  • http://www.timacheson.com/ Tim Acheson

    I accept that you do not like my original comment. I see that you wish to challenge it.

    However, so far you have failed to articulate anything that could render my comment invalid. Do you see the problem? You may not like what I have said, but it remains true — and unchallenged even by you.

    Try harder.

  • http://www.apptegic.com/ Ryan Connors

    lawyered

  • http://www.actlocalmedia.com/ Brenda Walker

    “Common usage; 99.99% of people watching a superbowl commercial will associate hashtags with twitter.”

    Of the 108 million people who watched the SuperBowl, 60% have never heard of Twitter or don’t use it at all.

    And yes, I just made that number up. That’s what we do now, right? But in all likelihood the “mass” part of TV’s mass communication audience isn’t second screening during the Superbowl.

    The counting of various social media mentions is amusing for about five seconds but fairly useless as a predictor of anything and it certainly doesn’t justify this conclusion:

    “When it comes to second-screen advertising, it’s Twitter’s world now and there’s no close second place.”

    That’s absurdly over-reaching. Not only is it way too early to know who the winner is, but it also depends on the kind of campaign a marketer is running and why. And the sample size of advertising in the Superbowl is ridiculously small. The ANA boasts 10,000 national brands and that’s just the U.S.; the Superbowl has a global audience.

    All this tells me is that the marketers with 26 brands who used hashtags were inclined to have a particular kind of data to take into their meetings this week when they discuss the overall effectiveness of their Superbowl ad spend. If Facebook or Google+ gives them a different way to measure that takes off this year, next year’s Superbowl hashtags could be replaced by something else.

  • James Wester

    Danny – I appreciate the discussion but perhaps my intent hasn’t been clear. I’m not actually debating the merits of Google+ over Facebook over Twitter. In fact, in my original post I basically conceded that point.

    The issue is that the methodology on which this.article is based is unsound. It doesn’t prove what is says it proves. Counting is not analysis and counting a variable that is as undefined as a hashtag (since it’s supported by both Twitter and Google+) is even worse. Had a marketing consultant brought me this as analysis I wouldn’t have accepted it.

    Frankly, what you did in your reply, by actually searching through Google+ to see which advertisers using hashtags have a presence on other social networks, IS analysis. That’s going beyond the numbers to provide additional information to support what the numbers are showing. Kudos. Seriously. Between the two of us we’ve now done more than the original post did.

    Thus, I’m not defending Google+. I’m pushing for better analysis of social media. It’s sorely needed if counting hashtags while watching the Super Bowl is considered adequate. And it’s why many still feel like social media is not a “real” marketing channel.

    All the best!

  • http://www.noisetech-software.com/Home.html Steven Noyes

    What is Google+?

  • http://twitter.com/graemefraser graemefraser

    It’s interesting isn’t it? Does that mean that almost 50% of the adverts didn’t mention a social network? If so that’s even more frightening than g+ getting frozen out..

  • Phil

    What about #steerthescript for Lincoln?

  • AngryNil

    I think you are, and it is evident in the fact that you present Google+ as the named other platform where hash tags reside. I’m sorry, but Google+ really does not matter that much to people. Instagram matters orders of magnitude more.

  • AngryNil

    Why would “supporting” Google+ make a company forward thinking?

  • http://www.timacheson.com/ Tim Acheson

    Google+ is plagued by fake accounts and Spambots.

    It seems Google is happy to count Spam accounts and posts if it makes their platform seem more active. Too desperate. Epic fail!

    A cross-section of Google’s proudly boasted “active-users” on Google+ — e.g. the first which is blatantly a Spambot account with 30 followers:

    https://plus.google.com/u/0/105839912912886747438/posts

    https://plus.google.com/u/0/101506437778305022714/posts

    It would not matter so much if Google+ had more genuine active accounts. But the few that do exist are buried beneath the tide of spam. Apparentyl not everyone can identify Spam, perhaps peferring to belieive that the hot babe in the profile photo really does want to follow them — because Google+ Spam accounts do seem to attract followers, it’s a really sad reflection of G+ users.

  • http://twitter.com/weilone Julius Weil

    Google+ is the biggest lie there is. It’s a ghost town. They must be counting all GMail users in their numbers. All those circles add up to a big zero.

  • Mooper

    Twitter is geared towards live sharing. Facebook is geared toward media sharing, not necessarily live. G+ is geared towards sharing information about interests, not “wall” or “feed” posting at all. That’s why Twitter took the cake here. G+ is the fastest growing network and has the most valuable information and is actually monetizing it. Facebook? They’re about to go the way of Apple. If you can’t monetize, you die.

  • http://danohart.com danohart

    Just the fact that they’re doing something that is versatile and not afraid to embrace technologies and websites that will most likely be a great asset in the near future. Oh and I forgot Instagram….instagram supports hashtags. So even more impressed of companies trying to make conversations happen online.

  • http://twitter.com/DCLevidence CL_evidence

    I just looked up many of the posted hashtags. Yep, they were used in superbowl advertising, but nobody cared. Few real conversations were started as a result of Twitter inclusion. Advertisers tried Twitter, and it failed them.

  • AngryNil

    I’ve already addressed Instagram below, which shouldn’t have been something you “forgot” in comparison to Google+. Your point only works in conjunction with your subjective opinion that Google+ will be a great asset in the near future, and is no better than someone saying that developing for Windows Phone is forward thinking, because it could be a great asset in the near future. In the mean time, you’ll have wasted development resources and gained a really small user base.

  • http://twitter.com/samrexford #SM Strategist

    Thank you for making my point for me.

  • Brett

    The one thing that confused me about the advertisers social media tie-ins on Super Bowl commercials is how they all waited until the final second of their spots to show a hashtag, URL, etc. Why not show it throughout so that people have time to see it? My analysis on the big game ads: http://bit.ly/WDdlfj

  • Jenn T

    Hi Danny. I understood what you said – both times. And I disagree regardless of hearing it twice. For the record, I don’t have an interest in the allegiance wars regarding social networks. I have interests in language, culture, digital literacy and design. I don’t agree with your rationale regarding that the use of hashtags is a leaning toward Twitter users or acknowledgement of Titter’s status over other social networks (especially based on your notion that companies who do not have an official presence on social networks, aside from FB and Twitter, means that the #hashtags were only intended for Twitter /FB savvy peeps or some grand nod to a supposed “Twitter supreme presence.” #hashtags have surpassed domain-specific original context use and now are a more pervasive form of hip communication among key demographics who may or may not be on Twitter. Next, creatives designing ads are savvy to realize that Superbowl ads can go viral via youtube, Twitter, G+, FB, etc. To signal these “connectors” to do so is to first draw in with insider lingo – make everyone feel hip who sees the #hashtags during the superbowl and provide the exact words to spread the message in their social media worlds (plural). Users are wonderful little megaphones that promote content via their networks. The Superbowl ad spot itself is only a catalyst. But beyond that, the subsequent vehicle for extended reach rests in listeners’ conversations – f2f or digitally or other. The power rests with the USERS (vs the platforms). Users post/tweet/reshare/pin #mycompanycoolproduct. Now remove the idea of social media platforms for a sec. Think of a jingle or catchphrase. People hear/see the original ad and then discuss it in living rooms, malls, around the water cooler at work, walking to class on campus. Users share the ad via their conversations. We generally don’t credit the family room, the mall, the office or campus as being the power supreme for ad campaigns. The key is people and people discuss via language, in this case, a targeted and valued style of #hipcommunication. #hashtags have no boundaries anymore. People who have never used Twitter, now use #hashtags. The ad creators know this and used it brilliantly. Thank you for the discussion. Time to move on.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/IQNV5NV2RS7A7XMJKYHLRBZZ5A Betta

    Don’t worry about it. You’re not missing anything.

  • Shannon Dooley

    Matt – I found this data on Twitter to be very staggering. The increased integration of hashtags into commercials truly reveals the power of this social media platform. I am very curious to see how other social entities like Facebook and Google+ plan to keep up, and even how the ever-changing world of social will shift when we evaluate next year’s Super Bowl.

  • Arne_Ball

    And why is this? Most likely because when you audit the use of Twitter and Facebook, Twitter allways comes out ahead, why? Because its an open channel, most people on Facebook has their privacy settings tuned in and most of the chatter on Facebook never reach the auditers. This again will show up as extremly wrong results in the audits.

    So whats the best medium? off course Facebook. How many “ordinary” people use Facebook and how many use Twitter? The answer gives it selve, thats why Facebook should be the preferred medium.

  • http://twitter.com/BIGELLOW Bob Bigellow

    Your website is doing pretty well, though.

  • http://twitter.com/BIGELLOW Bob Bigellow

    That’s like saying email has never ever been popular because I don’t see a whole lot of public emails. It’s amusing when someone doesn’t understand how the Internet works, and it’s 2013!

  • http://twitter.com/BIGELLOW Bob Bigellow

    The likely reasoning behind most of this is API access. Every time a marketing tool (online advertising, social media, etc…) comes along, there is an inevitable flood of third-party tools hoping to cash in. They make it easy for the enterprise to manage all of their marketing efforts from a single system.

    Twitter is very simplistic in its design and has a robust API. As a result, it is the most flexible for these types of aggregated systems and is going to be the most widely used.

    Facebook also has an API, but its complexities force its use-cases to be more limited. Still, it is “the new myspace”, so marketers are going to concentrate on it more, even if they happen to be using Twitter more.

    Google+ is sorely lacking in the API-department. Therefore, it is going to have the least power in any aggregated tool. Once that changes, you’re going to see a change in trends and everyone will be scratching their heads. Google usually takes the long-game approach as opposed to always attempting to become number one overnight.

    The often overlooked aspect of Google+ is that people use it differently than Facebook and most certainly Twitter. Facebook is where the most *real* connections are taking place. Most certainly not in every case, but a large portion of connections on Facebook are between people who already know each other. Real friends, family, co-workers, etc… On Twitter, there is often a much larger share of unknowns. Famous people, brands, etc… Brands are most certainly represented on Facebook as well, but more personal relationships are the ones users value more.

    On Google+, the majority of the interaction is between strangers. More people are interacting with strangers and connecting on a broader scale. If we were to map out the connections, it would not be unusual to see pockets of local connections on Facebook, but much larger bands of connections on Google+. Google+ is essentially closer to Twitter in scope than to Facebook. Google+, in some ways, is Twitter – but with larger messages and more privacy controls.

    So, it’s clear that Google is going after the much larger market, but is artificially holding themselves back with the lack of robust API support. If this is eventually unleashed, they’ll have a runaway train on their hands. If they are also interested in capturing the more localized activity between friends and family, they’d probably be better off acquiring a popular genealogy website and integrating it into Google+. They’ve already got a long-game strategy for coworkers with their enterprise version of Google+.