Google+
I read recently that Google+ membership is made up largely of tech-savvy men in their 20′s. And what kind of content do they post? Techie stuff. As a woman, I represent a fairly small minority in that I understand much of their jargon – and an even smaller minority when I give a damn about any of it.
There’s a reason why nightclubs have “ladies’ nights” and “ladies free before 10am” policies. Indeed, its an immutable law of economics: if there were no women in any given bar or club, would men hang out there? I think not. Instead, sensible proprietors provide incentives to encourage women to spend time in their establishments. And, in general, men (with some exceptions) seem happy to pay extra so that clubs will tip the gender scales in their favour.
When Facebook first came out, I was introduced to it by a female friend. She, I and several of our other friends used it to send cutesie messages to each other, not unlike how we used to pass notes in class. This meant that those men who joined Facebook at the same time could not only interact with us, but were also party to much of our less-than-witty banter. For a computer nerd, I imagine the interaction to be carrot enough to join; the banter is just a bonus.
Google doesn’t seem to have caught on to this basic supply-demand behavioural economic argument. Social networks are not unlike bars insofar as they perform an almost exclusively social function. Not just as networking too or a place to share ideas, but a place where, like in the real world, sex defines the terms of social interaction.
So why is Google+ seemingly doomed to fail? Basic economics. There is no incentive for the crowd-pullers, women, to join the site. Consequently, the abovementioned men are likely to lose interest soon, if they haven’t already. There’s only so much social sharing of Stuxnet or string theory that a tech savvy twenty-something man can manage.
Tags: Facebook, Google+, Social Networking