Why is Google Afraid of Facebook? Because Social Networking Could Soon Pass Search
It's often said these days that Google and Facebook are major rivals, but how could that be if one is in search and the other, social networking? Traffic analyst firm Hitwise provided one very clear clue tonight when it published new numbers for web user activity in Australia. For perhaps the first time ever, social networking sites have surpassed the traffic search engines receive, Hitwise says. There is reason to question the company's categorization of web traffic, but the trend is worth examining none the less.
Social networking climbed fast this year, and Hitwise says it just peaked over search for a few days during the communication frenzy of Christmas. Take that, Larry and Sergey - Mark and Ev are right behind you.
The biggest problem with Hitwise's numbers is that the company appears to include YouTube in the "social networks and forums" category that is challenging search. That's a questionable categorization of (Google's) YouTube, a site that some people call the 2nd-largest search engine on the web. A person certainly can use YouTube as a social network - but we'd guess that far more people use it as a search engine. If YouTube is growing (and this analysis says it is) then search is growing. You wouldn't think search would have much room to grow, but YouTube demonstrates nicely that there can emerge new kinds of search at any time. Some people argue that real-time search is the next type that will emerge as a growth industry for the search market. Others point to social search and that kind of amalgamation could throw our search vs. social networking equation entirely!
The arguable mischaracterization of YouTube seems to throw a big monkey-wrench in Hitwise's usually fabulous market analysis, but as a general trend social network is undoubtedly growing. At 2% of web use, according again to Hitwise, YouTube is a major player - but lets think about the rise of actual social networking sites relative to search.
What would it mean if social networking over-took search in terms of sheer visits online? It would mark a sea-change on the internet. No longer would our dominant use of the web be seeking out web-pages built by HTML web-masters! Now we would all be publishing tiny little updates that perhaps only our friends and family care about. We'd be subscribing, more than we ever did by RSS, to syndicated updates from organizations of interest, large and small. It would be (perhaps will be) a very different era and, to be frank, it's going to be harder to monetize. There will be privacy battles. There will be new platforms for innovation.
It's a pretty big deal. Things will really change if current trends continue and social networking rises to the top. That's not as clear as this traffic analyst firm argues that it is, but it could happen. And that's a big reason why Google and Facebook are rivals.
Classic post: Is YouTube the Next Google?
Check out our research report The Real-Time Web and Its Future.
Share
Facebook
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteWeb posts
Its all about the content.
Google is afraid of Facebook because of the massive amount of content that they siloed away from Google or any other search engine. Its as if Facebook has recreated the wed to fit their founders objectivist dreams. You give Facebook your content, and the power to generate billions; and in return they give you nothing.
Its not just google that should be afraid; we should all wake up and demand that Facebook give users back the ownership of their content.
Ever heard of Orkut? Huge in South America and on the Indian subcontinent. And owned by Google. If they ever figure out/decide to do something with it that integrates nicely with Android/Wave/YouTube et al then we'd really see Facebook do something positive.
In my untrained opinion of course.
Facebook is number 2 on Alexa and number 3 on Quantcast
http://www.alexa.com/topsites
http://www.quantcast.com/top-sites-1
There's quite a way to go yet for FB and TW.
Once Gates buys Twitter then Google have a game on (at last)
Social networking is important for your site as it exposes your site to more users, who will then expose your site to other users. This is important as it spreads the word about your site and what it has to offer.
Why is Apple Afraid of Google? Because Android Will Soon Pass iPhone. Many phones, many choices, much better OS.
I think their is a lot wider scope for social media in our live.for which their should be contests for being the top company.
Google is advancing with new upgraded features keeping an eye on its competitors.
its a part of the big game of making money.
Social networking is going to boom the Internet marketing in this year 2010.
Thanks for Nice and thought provoking post here.
cheers
Study8Home
It would be interestign to see a poll for what people think on this. I have added one over on YouPage.
POLL:Why is Google Afraid of Facebook? Because Social Networking Could Soon Pass Search. Do you agree or disagree? Vote now
http://www.youpage.com/MicroBlog.aspx?MicroBlogId=220110080732youpage
Facebook WILL crash and burn way before Google has any real reason to be worried because of the unscrupulous way they use member informationa and the massive holes in their security. When will people learn that Facebook can not be trusted??
Google is not afraid. If there is a all knowing god, it is google... The internet would be a mess without google telling where to go.
Very interesting! Why do you think it would be harder to monetize thoughf?
Ok - this is Australia and not particulary statistically significant. Is this the same trend in the US and European markets?
Facebook has a significant advantage over Google - Its users have a real identity. Google has very little knowledge of users outside of simple trends/activity. They would love to have a base of users like Facebook that they could actually identify and communicate with.
For me google is god of internet. Anything can be found upon google but it is not possible with facebook or any other website. nothing can beat google this time so why should it worry for?
I don't really get the issue here?
Social networking and search are not completely synonymous. Both have certain distinct attributes that mean they are used for different things.
Search is not going to suddenly disappear just because more people spend more time posting updates on social profiles. Search still has greater commercial value than social networks and I don't see that changing. To me it's like saying Google should be scared by the continual growth of email. I don't see the channels as either/or.
Yes, social networks can provide a commercial model for brands and some people will use their networks to get recommendations/product links but I will be amazed if that ever overtakes search. Why? Because of human behaviour and motivations. People use search to find something specific and it is one of the most direct ways to make a purchase. U
Social networking is used more for engagement, for sharing, receiving, contributing etc. Companies can positively affect the commercial side of their business by building presence across social networks but it's never going to replace the value of search engine marketing.
If I was Google, I wouldn't be afraid of Facebook, I would simply want to understand how social networking interacts with search, which is what they are doing with their constant algorithm updates.
Thanks
james
@James, I got lost in Marshall's piece as well. Then I looked at all the vertical "social" sites I use to do business or buy something: Zappos to buy shoes, I look at what others say before I buy a pair, Amazon reader reviews before I pay up for a book, Netflix user recommendations before I rent, Youtube comments before I hired the film maker etc, so I suppose I could trawl FB and Twitter for information instead of just Google search. But then significant FB user information outside your circle is still unavailable so how will social search help? Maybe someone else will explain...
@James I'm with you inasmuch as commerce is concerned. But in terms of gathering information or syncing with the global thoughtstream, social media (especially twitter) has completely displaced Google in my day-to-day life.
Why did Google Stop Beating it's Wife?
Ok, folks I hear your criticisms of this post but I do think my basic argument is simple and still stands. In terms of mind-share, importance in our lives, search has been the most common activity across the web until now. Now that's changing and social network threatens its spot at the top. It could be that people are getting some information they used to get from search out of their social networks instead, but more importantly I'm just saying - search used to be king of the internet. Now social networking could be. That means something.
very interesting statistics and if you know the story of twitter (how it started) even more interesting. Businesses will need continued education on this topic and we are seeing job growth in this area at least which is good.
Search will remain search and social networking will remain social networking. The question is can Google someday handle social search as well as it does regular search. Social search will be driven by two important attributes: permissions and semantics. Semantics are just the tags and the links-in that allow the content to be defined, and hence found. Permissions are the tricky part. This is where privacy come in. Who can access the content. Until Google, or any other company figures this out, social search will remain a very fragmented experience. But Google should be afraid because the bigger watershed moment has already occurred. More social content comes to the Internet each day than public content. That means Google is no longer able to index the majority of new content. If another companies solves the semantics and permissions problem first, that company would then rule over what going to be a much large portion of the whole data pie.
Posted by: neteffect.wordpress.com
|
January 22, 2010 8:31 AM
I'm not convinced that Google is "afraid" of Facebook, however, I do agree that they need to be concerned. More and more people are getting their content passed to them from friends and that obviously impacts Google search. I think that Google is planning for this as they make their move to real-time search. Take a look at this article explaining how Google is partnering with Twitter and Facebook for their real-time search model. Very interesting read:
http://digg.com/d31GOSg
Will Saint
#mediasaint
What we see is that social network sites become more and more powerful. And that scares me a lot.
SNS are trying to be everything and lock the users in. The more people join the more power network gains over you and over everyone.
One day you will realize that you don't need and don't visit all these cryptic www-something addresses as everything is on your favorite SNS. One day you will realize that there's no point in having your own domain or building your service outside the SNS walled garden. This will be the end of the internet.
Unlike SNS no one owns the internet. This is what ensures that there's no censorship. This is why we can enjoy freedom of choice and net neutrality. But little by little step by step day by day we're giving away our freedom and become slaves. Facebook slaves.
search is so overrated...and whoever uses adwords?
It's an intriguing question. On one level, who says that, just because in sheer page views, visits or usage, "search" gets edged out by "social" means as much as it would seem. What matters, is what people are doing there.
When I search either on a traditional search engine or on ebay or Youtube or Netflix or Craigslist, I am usually more inclined to be responsive to advertising or other types of commercial stim.
When I am tickling about in my Facebook or Friendfeed or Twitter worlds (and btw using realtime search in the latter two is where search is REALLY growing) I am utterly undisposed to commercial intrusion.
So Google shouldn't covet too strongly my time spent away from their SERP on Facebook. It's not like Facebook is taking money out of my pocket that might've supported an ad Words advertiser or two. In fact, FB's recent exposing of massive user content to the spider just indexed 350 million photos of people as they looked at least several years ago... that's symbiosis not competition.
What makes this not an easy either/or question is not only the distinct and unique behavioural components of conusme time spent in each domain, but also that other intriguing stat that the Hitwise data doesn't get at --- but potentially suggests --- what if this is not zero sum?
What if - like with other media - I don't consume less of one to consume more of the other.
You saw the study this week that measured teens' time consumption of new media / tech and when you add up their video, web, TV, txting, phone calling, IMing etc it turns out the average 14 year old actually clocks about 36 hours of digital infusion each day.
(Man - if they had that in the 70s when i was a kid, I'd be 90 by now...)
But back to one of your first and most critical points Marshall re the questionable sky-is-falling interpretation of the Hitwise data --- further suggests that Google can't be too nervous, because arguably YouTube is a search engine first, a media company second and a social network third.
Huh. If we triple its count like that, the average 14 year is probably going to run out of time to sleep before Apple releases a tablet or Nokia releases free global sat nav. ; >
I could not believe this and I hope FB become #1 sooner
Maybe. The thing is - when you use Google you're looking for something. You're primed for any marketing message that gets close to what you're looking for. To sell you stuff, people need to be there.
Facebook, you're chatting to friends and messing around. So even if twice as much time is spent there, you may or may not be motivated to buy anything. Facebook's challenge is to convert you to a purchaser using the time you spend on their site.
Note that both are found on other sites. You might see Adwords on a site and commenting with Facebook Connect at the bottom. So can Connect extend advertising to the web as well? Can Google give you more social hooks?
Huh. If we triple its count like that, the average 14 year is probably going to run out of time to sleep before Apple releases a tablet or Nokia releases free global sat
One thing.
Faceter and Twitbook are in no way competition to Google.
Like it says You Tube is in the silly little graph, and Google owns You Tube.
Facebook and Twitter are extremely annoying, and Twitter is losing celebs and others, like Kim Kardashian is losing teeth.
We might have seen Twitter rising throught the ranks like a bull in a chinese restaurant, but it will soon die out.
Google will one day run the world, as soon as it brings out online banking, which i hear is in the pipeline.
Like to see Facebook compete with that.
Lee.
great read, bu do not forget that Facebook owns all of our content...Google does not. Makes for some interesting issues once Facebook goes public.
Facebook owns our content however, Google does not.
Maybe. The thing is - when you use Google you are looking for something. You are primed for any marketing message that gets close to what you're looking for. To sell you stuff, people need to be there.
Google is not sitting by idly. They are watching closely and taking notes. Back in their evil laboratory they are making plans to take orkut to the next level.
You watch
Social media offers something different from search engines: the possibility for users to share knowledge. This interactive nature of social media will compete against the information retrieval feature of search engines.
@Raimonds (post 21) You hit the nail on the head, and hard!
because facebook is really powerful and having good content so may be it happened.
thanks
I think the entire premise of "Google being afraid of Facebook" is completely irrelevant. It's almost like asking, "Why is General Motors afraid of Kraft?"
Google's backbone is search; Facebook is social media. They serve two different purposes. The fact that Facebook is generating growing site traffic only indicates that more people are using it as a social media vehicle - it doesn't mean they're using search any less and really has nothing to do with Google.
Will Facebook replace what Google can do?...I don't think so!..
both of them are good tools and can have their positive
and negative sides.
Web users go to Google to search,
Then they go to Facebook to hang out and share,drive traffic
from Facebook to their website.
"Both of them are looking for the same thing"
"To figure out how to monetize the traffic source"
Very Good coments to read here!
"It's going to be harder to monetize"
Really?
Because in this whole article, that's all I was really looking for. What does this mean for the money-grubbers in control of these various sites...
After all, it is the users control the Internet and we shouldn't lose perspective of that. The lest we worry about financial interests of these websites the better off we are.
Thanks
I with James G on this one. I don't understand why it's turning into a competition thing. I love the services both Google and Facebook provide but they play very different roles in my online life. I use Google for finding information and Facebook for staying in touch with friends and family. IMHO one will never replace the other.
why you all guys make this natural behavior of human into something complicated like a competition, someone that should worries about this is Click bank affiliate and Adsense publisher, and SEO too, cause the traffic start to change to another directions, here is the different between the Big G and the Big F
Google is the place to Goggling
and the Big F is the place to hangout with our friends
Zynga(game online) already become the best friends of the Big F and zynga make a lot of profit and if Yahoo
(Search Engine) try to make some relation with Facebook and if Yahoo did it the effect would be like this "Big G will Die", cause everyone in facebook no need to type the "http://www.google.com", cause yahoo buton all over the place in facebook lol:-)
yes!! you are so right! Google should be worry about Facebook and other social media website, if Yahoo smart enough to take the action and knockout the big, but yahoo don't have a guts to do this, lol :-)
Facebook owns our content however, Google does not.
I truly believe in social networking, but your blog or website may be getting more targeted traffic from the search engines via google, bing, and yahoo.
People are looking for solutions to their problems when using the search engines and they will be more likely to buy from you in this way.
I think both the search engines and social media have their place, and I do not think the rivalry is as bad as we think.
In addition, with Google owning YouTube.. they do not have too much to worry about! :)
My opinion is that one day, social networking sites like Facebook may completely steal search engine traffic by excessivly promoting their own search engines on site.
The fact is 4 out of 5 of my friends use Facebook at least an hour a day! and how many people you know searches for things that much everyday? (except for IM people or related professions).
Now what if Facebook can partner with some one who can provide the same search power as Google does? Gues what, gradually Google will loose its dominant market share as people move over social media sites.