

What Google+ Could Learn From Coca-Cola - rafaelc
http://blog.rafaelcorrales.com/2011/07/what-google-could-learn-from-coca-cola.html

======
guelo
I think Google+ is much more ambitious than just the release of a new product.
Google+ is a larger effort to unify and integrate all their products using a
social glue layer that will change how you interact with and think of Google.
The attempt at a single design aesthetic across all their properties is part
of this initiative. The vision is actually quite dramatic and is a reinvention
of the whole company, I think Google+ reflects that and is a perfect name.

------
redthrowaway
I think this is a lot less of a problem than the author suggests. Domain names
are increasingly unimportant. I get to G+ by hitting the link at the top
whenever I'm on a google page (usually). I only ever typed "plus.google.com"
when I was itching for an invite.

This is Google's big play for social. Its success or failure won't depend on
branding. It will depend on network effects, and they've already captured the
early adopters. Now we'll just have to see if that translates to the "norms"
using it. I can all but guarantee the url will have little to do with that.

~~~
techiferous
This is about branding, not URLs. The author was not merely suggesting
plus.com as an alternate URL, but that Google+ be branded separately from
Google (not that I agree with this).

For example, how many non-techies know that YouTube is owned by Google? It's
separate branding, not just separate URLs.

~~~
redthrowaway
Right, but even among techies, how many _care_ that Google owns Youtube?
Youtube was the preeminent video site long before Google bought them. Its
growth was organic. Google can't afford for G+ to have organic growth. It
needed the couple million early adopters it got within the first week if it
was to have a chance, and Google is a trusted name for average users. That
trust will be huge. You can't really compare the launch of a new social
network to that of a flavour of soda. G+ is not pretty much the same as
facebook, and it's not a commodity whose sales will be determined bybrand
recognition and marketing. It's a service whose popularity will be determined
by the level of engagement of its initial users and how motivated and
successful _they_ are in getting others to join. Saying "it's from Google" is
probably a pretty big selling point, there.

------
tobobo
I think this comparison is slightly exaggerated, as people experience social
networks in a completely different way.

Going into using Google+, I expected it to have the look and feel of other
Google products that I use and enjoy. I was not disappointed.

A beverage company does not have to worry about UX. All it has to do is make
the product look like something you want to consume.

------
superpanic
Google+ works because it's just what it is. It's google + social. Sprite is
not Coca Cola + Lime. Sprite is Sprite.

------
JanezStupar
I think that Google is right for narrowing down the number of brands and
rallying their services around G+. Especially if they manage to continue this
organic feel that G+ and currently integrated services have.

I am super excited about having all their productivity apps integrated into a
single big jigsaw puzzle. It will show that Bill Gates was right in 90's when
he panicked about browser replacing the Windows.

The whole breadth of Google's services is astonishing and FB (7up) will be
hard pressed to compete.

Shameless plug: <http://www.janezstupar.com/the-facebook-dilemma>

------
skarayan
I am sure many marketers would agree with this post, however, Google is trying
to reinvent themselves. They are essentially destroying their old brand to
create a newer, more social, brand.

There are many lessons to be learned here from Google, regardless if it
succeeds or fails. I will continue to eat my popcorn and watch as everything
unfolds.

------
jsavimbi
> Getting the name of a new product right has to come before any innovations
> on UI, product, technology, and so forth.

Apples and oranges. Also, there couldn't be worse advice than what the author
is advocating. Google could've called it nothing, launched and still have a
modicum of success, because they already had millions of users. Google+ is not
a novelty platform launched in private beta. I wish people would get that
through their heads.

I think the author should do some homework and try to understand that
comparing a software ecosystem brought together through acquisition is a lot
harder than introducing a copy of a product into the beverage market in order
to take away market share from a competitor, especially when you have power
over the distribution channel:

> In the 1980s, many years after Sprite's introduction, Coke pressured its
> large bottlers that distributed 7 Up to replace the soda with the Coca-Cola
> product. In a large part due to the strength of the Coca-Cola system of
> bottlers, Sprite finally became the leader position in the lemon soda
> category in 1978

