Everyone is buzzing about how to use Google Buzz and whether it will succeed. Some are still tweeting about privacy concerns. Everyone wants to know whether Facebook, Twitter and Google Buzz can coexist. In this post, I take a different approach. I begin with the assumption that Google Buzz will succeed and consider what effects that will have on the world of blogging and on more mainstream digital media. I conclude that Google Buzz will have profound effects that significantly differ from effects of any other social networking site that currently exists.
What do I mean by “succeed”? I mean that Google Buzz becomes a useful repository for information sharing that is frequented by many for news, opinions and sometimes everyday chatter.
Google Buzz Differs from Existing Social Networks
If Google Buzz succeeds, then a relentless flow of information will come into Google Buzz making it very sticky. This is very unlike Twitter, which I contend is not a very sticky site at all. Almost all tweets, other than casual banter, have outbound links. This has created a cottage industry in URL shortening. Tweets are essentially headlines that direct people away from Twitter into a different realm, often the blogosphere. While Google Buzz could be used to drive traffic into a different realm, it is much more sticky for a few reasons. First, there’s no character limit on Buzzes. Google Buzz could be a substitute for blogs, particularly simple ones like the Posterous blogs. (This is a topic I mused about before: “Google Buzz could become a Substitute for Blogs if…”). Second, there’s absolutely no start-up cost and it is easy to begin buzzing. You can login and can begin almost immediately. You don’t have to mess with customizing WordPress. Third, unlike Twitter (and Facebook to some extent), Google Buzz has very good support for images and video. Rich content buzzes are quite common. With Twitter, you needed an outbound link to see any rich content at all with the exception of user avatars. Fourth, Google Buzz has a good commenting system (which is likely to be improved) and discussions are easy to follow, unlike Twitter. With Twitter, even if you read a post on a blog and decide to comment, most likely you would do so on the blog and not via Twitter. Google Buzz, on the other hand, is self-contained and comprehensive.
Google Buzz is designed to draw people away from other sites and into Buzz. It’s baked into Gmail which many millions of people use daily. Google’s popular RSS reader also draws people into Google Buzz through prominent links in Reader. Google made apps for phones and cooked in a location sharing sharing feature via Google Maps (a la FourSquare). Picasa is wired into Google Buzz. Every buzz has an email link at the bottom for sharing it. This draws people into Google Buzz, not away from it. In other words, Google Buzz is well integrated with other properties in the Google ecosystem.
If Google Buzz Succeeds and it’s as “Sticky” as I say, then…
First, traffic to blogs will go down as Google Buzz becomes a substitute for blogging. As long as people can locate people with similar interests (and I’m sure there are third party sites mimicking “WeFollow” as I type and Google may roll something out too), affinity groups can stick with Google Buzz. Second, with rebuzzing, sharing via Google Reader and upcoming integration with Google News, sites that simply aggregate news will be irrelevant and unprofitable. Third, if aggregators are “buzzed out,” then what about the fate of publications like Mashable/TechCrunch or old media like the local newspaper? I predict that they will publish more original content and less “mash-ups” or aggregated content. Further, they will be leery of publishing their content to Google Buzz. Instead, they will try to stick to the Twitter model and drive people with outbound links to their websites to generate advertising revenue. Already, we’re seeing Mashable which boasts 2.3 million followers post outbound links as opposed to publishing directly into Google Buzz. This model could succeed if the original content is attractive enough to draw people away from Google Buzz to read it and the person chooses the outbound link over Google Reader.
How does Facebook fit into the picture? Surprise: Facebook wants to become what Google Buzz already is.
If Google Buzz does succeed and the blogosphere contracts, particularly the amateur blogosphere, it will do so where Twitter and Facebook have failed. As I already discussed, Twitter’s model was to aggregate headlines but it has not produced a sticky site. Facebook is a very sticky site but not for the same reasons Google Buzz will become a very sticky site. Facebook is sticky because people want to share their life’s experience with people they know and/or read about friends and family. Major media outlets and significant blogs have not yet gotten much traction on Facebook. People don’t want to pollute their stream of friends’ news with other content (like the backlash against Zynga’s games publishing into streams). Accordingly, I believe Google Buzz is very unlike Facebook… and in a useful sort of way. While theoretically Google Buzz could be used like Facebook, it is better suited as a sticky news and opinion social network of sorts. This is one of Facebook’s goals but Google actually has a significant head start because of its integration with other Google properties. This runs absolutely counter to what you read elsewhere that Google Buzz is a startup challenging a 400 million strong Facebook. I contend that Google is today buzzing with what Facebook wants to become. (Perhaps I just answered the question of whether Facebook and Google Buzz can coexist. Yes, Facebook for friends and family and Google Buzz for news-worthy content and opinions.)
You might also enjoy:
