

Ask HN: Was Scoble compensated for blogging on G+? - ameen

I've been following tech industry for a while now. And the growth of new social networks interest me as they face an increasingly difficult problem - User Acquisition.<p>So in keeping with HN's interest, I chose the example of Robert Scoble. He figures prominently in most startups' launch plans. And thanks to the fact that he reviews "Upcoming cool startups/apps", he commands a legion of followers on the web.<p>When G+ launched a while back, It was easily the last thing one would use (as avid Twitter/FB users, it seemed like a duplication of existing networks). And Google seemed to lack one thing, User engagement. Even after they launced Games on G+ it still seemed plain. But I did notice a new trend on G+, Scoble was blogging about new startups/apps on G+, Photographers (Trey Radcliffe) were using G+ to post high-resolution pictures, and unsurprisingly Google employees (Steve yegge, etc) were ranting on G+ (most of which went viral).<p>This led me to suspect that there was a strategy to improve user engagement by having original content over there by Photographers, bloggers, engineers, etc to attract and retain users.<p>My question to fellow HN readers is this, do companies mandate employees to use their own products over their competitor's offerings. And if there exists a User Acquisition team that deals with getting interesting content over to that platform (Eg: Twitter's early high profile users) and engage them enough for them to stay over there.
======
HistoryInAction
According to Scoble on Quora, no: [http://www.quora.com/Is-Google-paying-
influential-users-like...](http://www.quora.com/Is-Google-paying-influential-
users-like-Chris-Brogan-and-Robert-Scoble-to-use-praise-Google+)

His contract with Rackspace forbids him from doing such compensated work.

~~~
ameen
Thanks! That gives a lot of insight on a few doubts I had.

------
pace
Though I am not a fan of Scoble I do not think that Google made Scoble and
other to use the platform. Why? Two reasons:

1.) Scoble interest is to get traffic from everywhere. Raising awareness,
brand recognition, etc. Google+ was skyrocketing at the beginning and for
already known Internet celebs an opportunity to easily scale on another
platform because at that time they were the first on Plus and quickly got
traction through existing fans. And as known Internet addicts they cannot just
ignore a platform. So it's a mutual and balanced relationship reach (for
Scoble) vs content (for Google). Compare also other bloggers/publisher who
spammed from day 1, e.g. Pete Cashmore from Mashable.

2.) There are lots of high, high level Google execs who never used Google+

~~~
ameen
Agree. Although it was embarrassing for Google in the first few days of the
beta that Mark Zuckerburg had the highest number of followers on Google+,
without even a single post.

------
ameen
To clarify, I wanted to understand the aspirations (apart from the obvious
needs of Google) of the G+ team when they set out to build a new social
network. Apparently they've been focussing on public conversations and this is
a niche that had been realtively ignored by incumbent social networks
(Facebook/Twitter).

Also, Google+'s content strategy seems to have worked relatively well compared
to Twitter's early days where everybody was posting what they had for lunch.

------
BarkMore
Scoble built his career around having an audience. Scoble is probably aware
that preferential attachment plays a role in building an audience. Given this,
Scoble had his own reasons for building an early audience on Google+. I don't
know if Google compensated Scoble or others, but they probably didn't need to
in Scoble's case.

Scoble was very active on FriendFeed. I am pretty sure that FriendFeed did not
compensate him.

~~~
ameen
This is definitely interesting. Building an audience even though it might be
small enough (in the beginning) to pursue.

------
colinsidoti
If I understand this correctly, a portion of Google employees' bonuses was
tied to their success in social. I guess it's not a mandate, but it's
certainly motivational.

[http://www.businessinsider.com/larry-page-just-tied-
employee...](http://www.businessinsider.com/larry-page-just-tied-employee-
bonuses-to-the-success-of-the-googles-social-strategy-2011-4?op=1)

~~~
ameen
Wow. Didn't know about this. Sheds a new light on why Google employees blogged
a lot on G+ whilst having their own personal blogs.

------
jyap
I think you are over thinking it and jumping to conclusions by asking if
Scoble was a paid participant. Google+ was an invite only system originally so
the audience grew through Google employees and alpha geeks.

Google employees 'ranting' on the platform they created makes sense. Facebook
employees use their own platform as well. Eating your own dog food.

~~~
ameen
My question stems from the fact that there was a conscious decision to give
out invites to people producing content (Bloggers/Photographers/etc.) and
there could've been some cajoling (monetary or otherwise) in some cases to get
them over to a new product. Scoble and Trey Radcliffe (just two examples I
know of) attracted huge amounts of traffic to Google+, a lot more after the
public launch.

G+ as a new product was under pressure to attract traffic/users as it could've
possibly impacted employee morale. Also this is something other companies
could learn from.

------
wacheena
I worked at Google for a number of years during which time lots of products
were coming out or ramping up. For instance, at the time Orket was Google's
social strategy du jour.

There was minimal (if any) pressure to use Orket over the burgeoning Facebook
or aging MySpace at the time. When we ran internal experiments often we would
use Google properties like Orket and/or other dog food. But it wasn't
required.

I believe this time around (G+) there was more employee encouragement.
Probably both in internal PR and (if rumors are true) financially.

But either way, folks that work at Google are proud of working there. It's not
unlike rooting for your college team. And as a result they're likely to use
Google products without extra incentive.

~~~
ameen
Sorry for pointing this out, Orkut*.

Also, a lot of things have changed since then with Larry at the helm. He is
focussed on eradicating bloat (tons of Google products that were recently
culled), and making sure whatever exists, succeeds.

And the article that colinsidoti posted seems to have brought a paradigm shift
to employee bonuses. Dog fooding is directly tied to your bonueses now. A
financial motivator definitely changes the game.

In regards to Google's relatively new strategy of getting high quality content
on its products represents a paradigm shift from an Engineering-oriented
company to a well-rounded company which understands other domains for it to
succeed.

~~~
wacheena
Orket = Orkut, further proof that there wasn't pressure to use it!

------
Buzzzz
Scoble seems to be pretty open with such things so why just not ask him?

~~~
ameen
There always seems to be noise around the networks he's on. Also, this wasn't
just about Scoble rather than having him as an example to try and understand
Google+'s content strategy.

------
samstave
I ended up having to unfollow him because he was basically spamming my feed.

I used G+ for maybe a few weeks - but I havent looked at it in months. I dont
facebook either... I jsut dont get any personal value from social networks.

The only thing I _need_ is a dead simple way to get my pics from my phone into
an online gallery.

The G+ iOS app has NEVER once allowed me to upload a pic. I have 1600 pics on
this iPhone - and 5000+ on disk from my older phones....

I just reinstalled path again - maybe this is what I am looking for.

I already have reddit, HN, verge, quora, SO to take up my time - the last
thing I need is to read scoble constantly.

