Google+ Loses 60% of Active Users

First time accepted submitter tech4 writes "Despite users' curiosity around Google+, it seems like most Google+ users just wanted to see the platform before returning to Facebook. 'Google has lost over 60 per cent of its active users on its social network Google+, according to a report by Chitika Insights, raising questions about how well it is doing against its rival, Facebook. Despite the clear interest in an alternative to Facebook, it does not appear that the people joining are staying around and actively using the web site. Google's problem is not getting users in the first place, it seems, but rather keeping them after they have arrived. For now it appears that a lot of users are merely curious about Google+, but return to the tried and tested format of Facebook when the lustre fades. The problem is that Facebook is not going to rest on its laurels while Google attempts to get the advantage. Already it has added features inspired by Google+, particularly in terms of improving the transparency of its privacy options.'"

Comments

Critical mass

[SQLGuru]

The biggest problem is that those of us who want to move to Google+ can't convince enough of our less techy friends to move over. People go where people are. It isn't the best tech that wins but the largest market share. Had Google launched Plus before "everyone and their grandmother" were on Facebook, they would have had a shot, but it's sort of too late.

Re:Critical mass

[fastest fascist]

There's simple inertia, for sure, but G+ also lacks basic features. Events stand out as the single biggest missing feature for me. I'd say being able to advertise and invite people to parties and events is the single biggest reason I use Facebook, and I can't see myself explaining why someone should use G+ as long as that is missing. Being able to post a link to Google Calendar just doesn't cut it.

Re:Critical mass

[nine-times]

I also think part of the problem is that Google bungled the launch. When it was first opened up to the public and it was as hyped as it was ever going to be, it was invitation-only and invitations were scarce. By the time they opened it a few weeks later, many people had already turned sour. In the mean time, Facebook has made improvements to counteract many of the selling points of Google+.

With social networking sites, you have to go big at the start. Once you get people thinking, "My friends aren't on this," you're dead.

Google+ is not a social network.

[derinax]

Google+ is "primarily an identity service."
--Eric Schmidt

I have no need for an identity service in my life. That's why I left.

Not terribly surprising

[Baloroth]

Social networks tend to accumulate momentum, and fairly slowly. Facebook has a ton of it right now, and Google+ has very little. It's not just in number of users, but in the habits of those users. People are used to Facebook. It'll probably take a year or so for Google+ to start taking off. And you don't really "lose" users, once signed up people always have the option of returning, especially with most of those people already having Gmail accounts.

Also, many people were probably scared off by all the FUD surrounding the pseudonym issue. Once people calm down over that, usage will most likely rise. In any case, we won't know if G+ will succeed or not for at least a year, I would say. Anyone who thought Facebook would be abandoned overnight really needs to learn how the Internet works. It is fickle, yes, but it also has huge inertia, because of the number of people involved.

Idiot marketing scheme

[aBaldrich]

Gmail was very successful with it's invitation system: it was elitist, and everyone ached to get in. But putting an invitation system into G+ was devastating. If the objective of a Social Network is to get in touch with everyone at any time, it's a very idiot move to restrict the creation of new accounts for no reason. They basically released a product that was useless, because they made sure there would be nobody to communicate with.
This could be understandable if it was their first shot at social networking; but Wave had the same problem and they did not learn from it.

Re:Idiot marketing scheme

[sweatyboatman]

Gmail was very successful with it's invitation system: it was elitist, and everyone ached to get in...

What your analysis misses is that Gmail actually addressed a pressing need in the free email marketplace: space. On top of offering an order of magnitude more storage than its competitors, GMail also brought distinct improvements to the email paradigm (tagging, search, spam filtering). That allowed it to attract users from Hotmail/Yahoo and even private web hosts.

If I knew what the pressing need of the social networking marketplace was, I wouldn't post it on Slashdot. Facebook was weak in terms of privacy and controlling the spread of your information, but G+'s circles weren't a killer app. And everything else on G+ is just a Facebook clone.

I wouldn't count G+ out just yet. It's Google after all. Those millions of inactive users could quickly become active if G+ somehow jumps ahead of the curve.

COMMERCIAL ACCOUNTS

[brunes69]

The biggest problem Google+ has right now is how they have been dragging the ball on commercial accounts, meanwhile enforcing the real-name policy. It is an incredibly braindead move because you are effectively locking all companies out of participating on Google+, and thus they are unable to bring any users over with them.

A follow a lot of brands on twitter and simply can not do the same on G+. If everyone I followed on Twitter existed on G+ I probably would not use Twitter anymore, but sadly Google is ACTIVELY PREVENTING that from being the case due to this braindead policy enforcement.

Dishonest as fuck

[artor3]

Google+ had its numbers go up by 1200% upon opening to the public. Of those new users, 40% stuck around, for a net increase of 480%. Slashdot's headline? "Google+ user base down 60%! It must be dying!" I've seen powerdrills with less spin.

Re:I admit to trying it out...

[Stormthirst]

You need new friends