????上周，科技巨擘谷歌悄悄宣布，用戶不再需要Google+賬戶來登錄Youtube，其他谷歌網(wǎng)站最終也會取消這項要求。同時，Google+分成了照片和流媒體視頻兩塊兒業(yè)務(wù)。然而，和谷歌期望的綜合型龍頭社交平臺相比，Google+還差得很遠(yuǎn)。作為谷歌應(yīng)對Facebook的手段，Google+一直都沒有闖出什么名堂。這樣看來，谷歌做出這樣的決定并不意外。

????Statista.com收集的數(shù)據(jù)顯示，Google+的月度活躍用戶為3億，F(xiàn)ackbook為14億。其他方面的統(tǒng)計結(jié)果顯示，Google+僅有400-600萬活躍用戶，遠(yuǎn)低于Statista.com公布的數(shù)字。不過，無論到底有多少活躍用戶，大多數(shù)分析師都不看好Google+的前景。

????作為Google+用戶，我覺得不難看出這項業(yè)務(wù)為何沒有達(dá)到預(yù)期。對于谷歌這次失敗的嘗試，我認(rèn)為所有商界人士都可以從中汲取下面三大教訓(xùn)。

????別推銷人們已經(jīng)有的東西

????Google+于2011年投入使用。當(dāng)時，F(xiàn)acebook已經(jīng)在全球社交媒體平臺中占據(jù)主導(dǎo)位置，擁有2.5億活躍用戶。Facebook的產(chǎn)品顯然獨一無二，而且廣受歡迎。但谷歌認(rèn)為自己可以說服數(shù)百萬人轉(zhuǎn)而使用它新推出的社交媒體網(wǎng)站。

????Google+也許本可以開發(fā)出非常優(yōu)秀的產(chǎn)品，但它并沒有做到這一點。該網(wǎng)站的界面不夠靈活，也不如Facebook直觀；它的移動App同樣無法讓人眼前一亮。最重要的是，Google+的活躍用戶數(shù)量一直不夠多，不能帶來令人滿意的社交體驗。盡管這幾年使用Google+的人越來越多，但用戶之間的互動遠(yuǎn)不像Facebook那么活躍。換句話說，F(xiàn)acebook成功的原因就是擁有一個巨大而且非?；钴S的網(wǎng)絡(luò)社區(qū)。

????公平地說，F(xiàn)acebook也有用戶較少的時候，但它和Google+的關(guān)鍵區(qū)別在于那時Facebook還相對是個新鮮事物。同時，據(jù)說Facebook的用戶界面體驗好于當(dāng)時的主要競爭對手MySpace，而且Facebook的增長策略也更具創(chuàng)新性。反觀Google+，它一直是某種已有事物的克隆體，也一直不那么有吸引力；而且除了Google的市場影響力外，它幾乎沒有別的發(fā)展動力。

????了解自己

????Google+有一點和Facebook不同，那就是它的混合型結(jié)構(gòu)。Google+用戶既可以和朋友聯(lián)絡(luò)，也可以關(guān)注完全陌生的人，對方反過來也可以關(guān)注你，這有點兒像推特。這個想法很好，但有兩個問題。首先，F(xiàn)acebook很快就推出了類似的功能，這讓Google+失去了主要競爭優(yōu)勢。其次，F(xiàn)acebook的社交媒體網(wǎng)絡(luò)以朋友為基礎(chǔ)，有一種親密感，而這項功能會削弱這種親密感。

????推特的主要功能是讓用戶迅速把信息傳遞給很多未必相識的人以及他們的粉絲。盡管會直接給對方發(fā)信息，也會出現(xiàn)論戰(zhàn)，但這些粉絲并不是真正的朋友群體。雖然Facebook不斷添加的新功能漸漸模糊了它和推特之間的界線，但Facebook基本上仍是一個社交平臺，在上面交流的用戶多少都有點兒關(guān)系，因此比較安全，也較為封閉。

????Google+則是二者兼有，但又哪個都不是。它想把這兩種截然不同的社交活動融為一體，卻在這個過程中給自己帶來了身份認(rèn)同危機(jī)。

????別在核心業(yè)務(wù)上讓步

????盡管Google+沒有取得成功，但谷歌的其他產(chǎn)品確實很棒，特別是它標(biāo)志性的搜索引擎?；ヂ?lián)網(wǎng)統(tǒng)計機(jī)構(gòu)comScore的數(shù)據(jù)顯示，谷歌在美國網(wǎng)絡(luò)搜索市場的份額為65%。在這種情況下，谷歌本應(yīng)竭盡全力來保護(hù)核心產(chǎn)品的完整性。然而，谷歌卻背道而馳，拿自己的核心產(chǎn)品來冒險。

????舉例來說，如果我在谷歌搜索欄中輸入“唐納德·特朗普”，我想要看到的也許是這位總統(tǒng)候選人的最新新聞，或者是他旗下房地產(chǎn)的信息，但我絕對不是要找我在Google+上發(fā)的關(guān)于特朗普的帖子。然而，谷歌提供的搜索結(jié)果正是這些帖子，而且出現(xiàn)的位置并不是很靠后，反而都在第一頁上。

????當(dāng)然，這樣做顯然是為了提高Google+帖子的搜索引擎優(yōu)化（SEO）價值，但這讓谷歌變得不那么好用。它不光返回了我不想要的搜索結(jié)果，還會迫使我退出谷歌賬戶，以便順利搜到自己想要的東西。這讓我覺得不勝其煩。而且，從谷歌的角度來看，這和該公司希望看到的情況恰好相反，它本來是想讓用戶一直待在“谷歌的世界”里。

????公平地說，幾年前這種莫名其妙的情況要比現(xiàn)在嚴(yán)重得多。這幾年，谷歌似乎一直在盡量降低Google+帖子對搜索結(jié)果的影響。不過，這個問題依然存在。我要說的是，千萬別為了推廣別的東西而瞎折騰自己的旗艦產(chǎn)品。（財富中文網(wǎng)）

????本文作者S. Kumar是一位科技商業(yè)評論員。他曾在科技、媒體和電信投行業(yè)工作。他本人并未持有文中任何一家公司的股票。

????譯者：Charlie

????校對：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.