Originally posted on November 3, 2011

Do recent changes to Google and Facebook affect political and marketing communicators? Potentially a lot, so let’s take the sites in turn. First Google, which announced today that it’s making major changes to its search algorithms to update its main search index more frequently. Also, results pages for many queries will feature more recent content (including breaking news) over information that might have grown stale.

Overall, this change in emphasis is potentially really useful for users, particularly if Google can follow through on the idea of separating searches for evergreen content (“learning from Obama online campaign PDF“) from those for ephemeral content and recent news (“Herman Cain harassment suit“). One implication for political communicators: this emphasis on the new and the now gives us even more reason to jump on news stories quickly, since Google’s main search function should have a better chance of highlighting relevant recent content. Crank up those blogs and rapid response machines, kids: catch a news wave, and your words might spread far and wide.

Next Facebook, which revamped itself yet again back in September. As Farhad Manjoo points out in Slate today, Facebook’s latest changes emphasize recent content in users’ news feeds over posts from people you might actually like (i.e., friends with whom you’ve interacted with regularly). I’d also argue that the “improvements” appear to be featuring visual content over written, because my feed is now cluttered with photos posted by people I barely know. Manjoo’s article focuses on how the new feed emphasis is leading certain LOLCats-style word/picture combos to go viral, which may be useful for some advocacy and electoral campaigns to know, but it also suggests that our substantive content is LESS likely to get noticed now than before. Great!

Facebook’s solution is to have you “subscribe” to feeds and to set the amount of information you receive from them. Next up for political communicators: begging followers to “subscribe” and to become bosum buddies rather than distant acquaintances. Once again, it’s time to wonder how much it’s worth paying for advertising to get new supporters to “like” your page, potential email list members though they may be. Perhaps the company’s new marketing bootcamps will bring us around to their way of thinking — or else.

Cross-posted from the Adfero Group blog

With the quick popularity of Google+ (G+), many social media gurus are proclaiming the slow but sure downfall of Facebook. To that, I say one thing: not going to happen. Here’s why:

1. Too little, too late

In a very rare and embarrassing moment (and for what feels like the first time), Google made a really big deal about a really bad product. Google Buzz was a complete failure on multiple fronts. From privacy lawsuits to simply bad aesthetics, Google’s seemingly invincible persona suffered a breach in its armor with a subpar product that was clearly a reactive idea in contrast to their usual forward-thinking, proactive approach – and people noticed. The best team in the league showed a weakness, other teams capitalized on it, and now they’re playing catch up, with Facebook remaining the “face” (pun intended) and authority on social networking.

2. Live by minimal, die by minimal

One of the biggest praises for G+ so far has been its clean, minimal design. On the flip side of that, Google plans to continue to add features, bells, whistles, and widgets. Yet for some reason, the public seems to think that they can request more functionality without any impact to the layout. Facebook has suffered from the same symptoms with the addition of chat windows, friend lists, and important vs. unimportant news feed posts. The difference is users, myself included, have already established Facebook as a part of our everyday lives. So even when new features were added that we don’t like, we were stuck. With Google+, users have absolutely no reason to defect from Facebook when the difference between the two isn’t all that drastic.

3. It’s not how the real world works

Google+ is about circles. You put your going-out buddies in a circle so you can share embarassing drinking snapshots. You put your coworkers in a separate circle so they can’t see anything but industry-related sharing. All your circles are comprised of people you know, and the people you don’t know get their own circle… with whom you never share… ever. There’s only one problem with this social architecture: the world is one BIG circle.

One of my biggest praises of Facebook is the way it sparks conversations. Let’s say a girl you went to college with posts a status saying “I need a new allergy medicine…” and you comment with a suggestion. Shortly after, another girl whom you’ve never met or heard of before, leaves a comment informing you that she used to used that medicine but there was a news story about it not being safe. Now there’s an informational dialogue going on between you and someone you’ve never met. Next week, you both end up commenting on that mutual friend’s status again. And again.  At this point, you might as well friend her, right? A few months later, your new Facebook friend is visiting your mutual friend for the weekend and suggests you all go out for drinks. A new thread has been added to your social network similarly to the way it would have if the same conversation came up in a bar.

The way Google+ presents itself will make it very hard to expand social networks. Sooner or later, that will get old and they will have to think of something else. However, that “something else” will take away from the heavily praised white space, generating more criticism. That, along with us assuming, of course, that Facebook hasn’t already implemented it renders G+, again, as a follower – not a leader.

Single Voice Sinks Coast Guard’s Rule (Roll Call)
The Coast Guard recently reversed a rule on life jacket use solely because of a letter it received from a concerned citizen (who, incidentally, is not a lobbyist.)

Despite the successful and headline-grabbing launch of Google+, only 13 members of the U.S. Senate and 15 members of the U.S. House of Representatives have established profiles on the new social networking site, far fewer than the number from each chamber who are active on Facebook and Twitter.

Google+ launched in July to much fanfare and within three weeks had attracted 20 million users in the U.S. Some technology pundits have labeled it a “Facebook killer.”

Congress’s slow adoption of Google+ comes as a surprise because the new social networking platform contains at least one unique function the others do not: It allows users to segregate relationships into “Circles,” meaning members of Congress can isolate constituents from other followers. Heavy social networking “spam” from non-constituents is a significant frustration for members and their social media staffs.

“Just the other day, someone posted on our Facebook wall that she wished my boss was her senator,” a Hill press secretary told me.

A recent study by the Congressional Management Foundation reports that members of Congress and key staff have embraced social media as a tool to communicate with constituents. But privately, many also complain they receive too much pre-packaged “Astroturf” in the form of canned Tweets and Facebook wall postings. In many cases, these communications come from people far away from the members’ districts or from undetermined locations. Google+ Circles allow members of Congress to target their communications directly to people in the states or districts they represent, while ignoring communications directed at them from people outside their states or districts.

The Circles feature offers additional benefits as well. For example, members can compartmentalize constituents based on the content of their communications. A member could have a Veterans Issues Circle or an Energy and Environment Circle, for example. Circles can also streamline and facilitate press communications. And Circles are by no means the only promising functionality on Google+. So-called “Hangouts” — a native, pushbutton small group video chat feature — could become an alternative to district town hall meetings, which have become made-to-order YouTube set-up moments over the last couple of years.

Nevertheless, one staff member for a Republican U.S. senator told me he was reluctant to dive into Google+ because, “We already have enough difficulty keeping Facebook and Twitter up to date.”

It appears that Google has not yet made a concerted effort to encourage members of Congress to use its new platform. “While Facebook and Twitter appear to actively work with the caucus, Google has made no such effort,” another Republican staffer told me.

Of the senators who have established profiles on Google+, only four appear to use it to reach out to constituents actively: Sens. Bob Casey, Orrin Hatch, Bernie Sanders and Mark Warner.

Only thee House members on Google+ (Reps. Jan Schakowsky, Jared Polis and Kathy Hochul) use it frequently to post and interact with followers. The others have profiles and occasionally update their spaces.

One reason for the relative lack of Capitol Hill enthusiasm for Google+ to date may be the fact that the platform has not yet lived through an election cycle. In the past, heated primary and general-election contests have fueled the explosive growth of Facebook and Twitter in the political world.

It’s also important to note that despite its widespread use, Google+ is still a Beta product. Google is currently testing a platform for business entities that might have additional functions that will benefit political leaders, like advertising tie-ins to aid brand management and data collection. And in addition to its native applications, developers are certain to enhance the Google+ experience with custom apps.

Some Hill staffers I have spoken to feel a bit burned by the overstated expectations of other social media platforms. It’s not altogether clear to them that they are getting out of it all they have put in. But the successful launch of Google+ ensures it is here to stay. And its native functionality and promising future appear well-suited for leaders in government, politics and public affairs.

Patrick Hynes is the President of Hynes Communications.

10 tips to help you get the most out of Google+ (Ragan)
Learn more about the new social networking site and its many features.

Google+: ‘Don’t fight it’ (PR Daily)
Still searching for answers on why you should join the new social network? This two-and-a-half minute video provides (some of) the answers.

Do Facebook and Twitter Followers Reflect a President’s Popularity? (TechPresident)
Numbers alone don’t tell the full story — they require context and analysis.

The war of the social networks (The Washington Post)
Learn how they differ, what they offer, and the impact they are currently making.

A Wiki Takes Aim at Obama (The New York Times)
Many companies and organizations, have seized on the Wikipedia model to encourage their members to build up information collaboratively.

Political Campaigns Go Viral (Wall Street Journal)
Smart campaigns will devote a good deal less money to running TV ads and a good deal more to using the Internet to organize, persuade, motivate and raise funds.