Google vs Facebook: who's the bigger monster?

Google is finally getting into the Social Networking Biz with its new Google+ features. The first question that comes to mind is "what about Facebook?" meaning: will Facebook and Google+ coexist? will they compete? will one "kill" the other? if so, which will be the survivor? Well, only time will tell.

From what we can see, Google+ is positioning itself as a bit more convenient, easier to use and safer than Facebook with a few new features that make the user control his social networking even more. The look and feel is almost exactly like Facebook's, at least for now during the test phase. The new features include a more straightforward way to organize your friends called "Circles", a video conference calling feature called "Hangouts", and the possibility to synchronize your phone's pictures with Google without having to plug your phone into your computer called "Instant Uploader". There's also two things that don't really seem like "new value" to me: "Sparks" which is a way for Google to get you to tell them what you like and in exchange they'll send you "valuable content"; and "Huddle"which is like a BBM "Groups" deal, that gives the user the possibility to chat with multiple people at the same time.

Frankly, it seems to me like Google is trying to take Facebook's social media crown by doing what they do best: organizing information better than everyone else. And yes, they do a pretty good job at it. Kinda reminds me of when I had Hi5 and switched to Facebook because I felt it was "cleaner and more private". However, this is a real battle (unlike Hi5 vrs Facebook), and it is mainly the fight to win the users over: most people that have Google accounts also have a Facebook account. Google+ on one hand takes away their need to move to another site to do the networking, but at the same time poses them with the conundrum of switching from Facebook, or keeping two similar (ahem, almost exact) services. The real pain is that these 750+ million users that Facebook has already have a pretty robust network of friends. Moving to Google+ would mean starting over. But is this really a bad thing? I bet there are a couple of Facebook users out there willing to shut their accounts down and start over in Google+ just to save themselves the time of "cleaning" their network. Facebook has felt the threat and is fighting back: just recently they introduced video calling through an alliance with Skype - but the group video calling is not free like Google+'s. They clearly know they should start getting prepared for when Google+ launches openly, because they'll need to react fast if they start losing users.

What would you do? I honestly don't know what I'm going to do about this situation, I think its still too early to tell. And yes, Google is putting us Social Networkers in a "situation" by giving us an option to Facebook. An option that seems to be cooler and more beneficial. I guess I'd have to try Google+ to decide, and one of the deciding factors would definitely be how many of my friends decide to switch. Also, the proper functioning of Google+'s value propositions. Seems like the Facebook-Google battle is ON!

Lessons of poor airline customer service

A few days ago we had a class with Enrique Dans where he told us about an “episode” he had with Air Europa. To make a long story short, Prof. Dans wrote a post on his blog in January 2006, an "open letter" to Air Europa's president, after a truly terrible customer service experience with the airline. To this day, more than 5 years later, he has not received an answer - needless to say a compensation - from Air Europa. What he accomplished was to get his post linked and commented by hundreds of people. He was featured in multiple press articles, all which contributed to him generating awareness of this of this issue. I would say he helped to "pave the way" for what would come later: social media as powerful tool to "fight" against poor customer service.

Hearing Prof. Dans' story in class and then further reading about it online made me remember another issue of this sort: Dave Carrol, a Canadian musician who was also mistreated by an airline, this case United Airlines. Carrol did not write a blog post; he created a song & video and posted it on YouTube in 2009. The video pretty much speaks for itself:

Mr. Carrol made 3 songs in total to protest against United. He didn't stop there, as he basically created a social media campaign against United's bad treatment that achieved millions of comments and views. Today, Carrol is founder and leader of Big Break Solutions, a company that offers solutions to improve customer service and therefore people's experiences.

These two stories of poor customer relationship are not the only ones. But the point here is: how in the world did these companies not realize the importance of customer service? I would say it is because, even though they get all the negative coverage they do, they still seem to operate perfectly well and gain as much profits as they did before the protests. What I think they do not realize is how, in time, they will start to be affected by the increasing reach of their customer's voices that is empowered through the growth of social media.

Companies need to increasingly pay attention to their customers critiques, suggestions and complaints because their biggest asset is the brand experience that they offer, which basically translates into customer loyalty. Also, in order to keep their customers anxiety-free and therefore loyal to the brand, companies need to provide an answer, even if that answer is "I don't have an answer to your question" or "We are working to solve your problem". Nothing frustrates a customer more than feeling ignored, which in turn generates actions like the ones of Prof. Dans and Mr. Carrol.

In these two cases, both airlines should have provided an answer, even to just accept their mistake and then say "We are sorry for your inconveniences". They should have realized that, regardless of the power that Dans and Carrol have, they are customers that will never use their services again. Secondly, they should have thanked the customers for showing the mistake and giving them the chance to become better airlines. Third, they should have offered concrete compensation as a promise of "improvement": Dans should have been offered free business class tickets for future flights and Carrol should have been paid fully for this broken guitar. Going further, both companies should have implemented some sort of crisis management program when the issues grew, and immediately incorporated customer service improvement programs into their management. A smart move would have been to turn the crises into opportunities to become better, more customer-satisfying companies by doing just that: incorporating improvement programs and then massively communicating them to turn their negative publicity around. 

To conclude on a positive note, there are companies that know how to pay attention to their customers and are currently applying best practices to enhance brand loyalty. KLM is an airline that that has shown this other side of the coin: they used customer Twitter feedback to turn the inauguration of a new route into a gigantic campaign. Check it out:

Google at a crossroad

Google's mission statement is and always has been "organize the world’s information". It has also understood how technology evolves, introducing and leading changes in the market. For example, by launching Android, Google proved it’s deep understanding of the market's migration from static towards mobile Internet connection. It has expanded way beyond "searching" to provide organized solutions with products like Google docs, Google Maps and Google Calendar. It has grown from organizing online queries to providing all kinds of online organization solutions for people.

Today, Google is at a crossroads facing several challenges to become a better and more competitive growing business. What should Google do to sustain its leading position and keep its fast-growing pace? 

On one hand, there is a pressing competitor that could take it out of business. Should Google focus on tackling Facebook? Secondly, there is China: a "new" market that is growing at a light-speed yet very difficult to enter due to various factors - i.e political.  Third, Google needs to be weary of anti trust lawsuits in Europe and other parts of the world. And fourth, Google's workforce is currently being poached by important tech start ups due to the lack of strong company culture and organization.  

Google can work on these and many other challenges at the same time, but it may need to prioritize its overall strategy. I think that the company should focus on it's social network strategy and optimizing it's organization. Google's social focus will deal once and for all with Facebook and Twitter by proving to be a worthy competitor. It is easier to tackle this problem first and then, if successful, expand it to other markets. 

From an organization point of view Google is very horizontal and employees sometime have no way to move up the corporate ladder. Rather than being the "it" company to work for, Google should work harder at implementing values and beliefs to make the company's purpose more palpable. It shouldn't be all about money, or trends. It should be about the future, and making technology easier and more accessible to people. So it's not only about the best performing employees, it's also about the ones who are more loyal.  

Dealing with many problems at the same time is a common symptom of big and diverse companies. Prioritizing while managing all of them is what helps them overcome these issues. In Google's case, it not only needs to prioritize, but also compete in different fronts at the same time. The problem is: will the choice it makes be the right one? And if not, will it have time to react?