Why Google Buzz is brilliant and deadly to social media 1.0

From the moment it launched, Google Buzz generated buzz:

  • OMG another social network to manage
  • OMG there’s too much noise
  • OMG this is so redundant

And for the early adopters, it’s exactly that and more. It’s noise. It’s clutter.

It’s brilliant.

Here’s why. Google wants the best of the best data. Remember this. They are a data company. They are a data quality company. They are algorithmic in their approaches to solving problems.

For a lot of the social media crowd, the moment Buzz turned on, our valued inboxes became insanely cluttered as we linked up all our social media sites, networks, and properties. We discovered that frankly, we didn’t want the firehose of social media in our inboxes.

We realized quickly, if we didn’t already know, that most of our “friends” are in fact valueless robots spewing garbage at us all day. On services like Twitter and Facebook, we don’t really notice because it’s bite size garbage that passed by quickly. When it piles up in the inbox, we notice. Fast.

So for the early adopters, those who keep Buzz on, we’re pruning back hard. We’re not following back. We’re dropping auto-follows. We’re down to just a handful of people, close friends, that we REALLY want in our inboxes. How many of the self-proclaimed social media gurus are you actually allowing inside your inbox, in Buzz? Exactly.

Buzz is working as intended. Google wants data quality. We immediately filter out completely all the noisemakers who bring no value to the table.

Buzz also incentivizes us in a couple of ways. It tells us to prune back our own spewage lest our friends, the ones we care about truly, unfollow us and eliminate us. It tells us that redundancy of information is of no value to anyone using Buzz, since you can get blog posts and status updates already from FriendFaceTwitterFeedBookSquareWallReader service (now with more blatant self-promotion from social media experts!). So we share and discuss only the stuff that’s either super high quality that we just can’t afford to miss, even if it’s redundant, because of the quality, or we share stuff that’s not being shared elsewhere.

Google figures out from our activity in Buzz that either there’s new stuff to be examined (remember in the initial presentation that Buzzed stuff gets indexed the moment it’s shared, and Google wants to find EVERYTHING to index) or there’s stuff that’s so important and so good that you’ll let it into your inbox even if you can get it elsewhere.

By placing Buzz so close to the incredibly precious, valuable territory that is our inbox, Google is forcing users to reveal what we truly value, what we’re willing to let into a very private space. It’s the perfect walled garden, because instead of enforcing the walls on us, Google simply lets us build the walls for them.

The lesson for marketers and content creators is this: social media 1.0 is drawing to a close. Social Media 2.0 is about relevance, value, and authentic connection, because you will never, as a marketer, get through the gates of the walled garden with a boring-as-crap press release or product announcement. No one cares about you. All of the services, but especially the big ones, are giving users more tools to screen out anything they don’t care about, anything that doesn’t engage them, anything that isn’t actually great quality.

Buzz is just a very visible demonstration of how much crap our “friends” spew out that’s of no value, and why we were so annoyed by it. Now that it’s under control, now that we’re ¬†isolating actual friends from “friends” and our networks are getting trimmed, we’re starting to get more value out of it.

And you can bet Google is paying VERY close attention to us and what we do with our Buzz.


Did you enjoy this blog post? If so, please subscribe right now!

Get this and other great articles from the source at www.ChristopherSPenn.com! Want to take your conference or event to the next level? Book me to speak and get the same quality information on stage as you do on this blog.

  • http://www.cc-chapman.com/ C.C. Chapman

    Once again here you go spouting sense in the waterfall of cluelessness of the web.

    Thank you!

  • http://twitter.com/uglyshirt Robin McPherson

    Really interesting. I hadn't thought of Buzz in this way. As I logged in to Buzz, I was overwhelmed with information and almost immediately unfollowed people. It's also made me look at my own occasional spewing of content.

  • http://www.TheMarketingSpotBlog.com Jay Ehret

    I get what you're saying here, Christopher, but I think you're over-analyzing this. Was this really Google's intent? I don't think so. Google is not a data company…any more. I think they are a “we don't know what we are” company. Buzz is a reaction to Facebook, Twitter, et al.

    Google is the next Microsoft. A Company that has lost it's identity and is product focused rather than mission focused. Buzz is the next Jaiku, Feedburner, Blogger. Another tool in the arsenal that gets lost in Google's vast toolbox.

  • http://twitter.com/NikiBGD Danica Radisic

    Once again, Chris, seems you nailed it. So we could say Google is using “human curators”? That is brilliant. And a little scary…

  • http://twitter.com/phillymac Phillip

    Exactly what I did. If you're in the Buzz with me, we're talking. Am I willing to add someone? Sure, but not just any bot. Spot on.

  • http://twitter.com/NikiBGD Danica Radisic

    Although I would like to hear more about what you're saying here, I have to disagree at this point, and heavily. Google is a data company. I just don't see them dishing out “products” like Microsoft. Sure, lately the've been all about communication tools, but that is what data is all about, isn't it? Data comes from communication and is used for communication/networking that lead to results. Just thinking out loud here. After all I've read about Buzz and using it for a couple of days, I still feel Chris is on the money with this.

  • http://madbaker.com/ Mark Dyck

    Well said, Chris.

    What I hear you saying is that Buzz may be a reaction to Facebook, but not in terms of eyeballs. It's more about Google being better able to make use of the social data than Facebook can.

    I'm very intrigued by your calling out the end of Social Media 1.0 as it gives a name to what I've been feeling. It's time for a personal do-over with Facebook and Twitter so I can focus on the connections that are most important to me.

  • http://richpalmer.com richpalmer

    Yes… what he said. (Thank you.)

  • http://www.davidmeiselman.com David Meiselman

    Nice post Chris. As Danica suggested by referencing “human curators”, I agree that Google will pay attention to what gets shared and who is doing the sharing to drive up contextual relevance in their search results. You can be sure that some people will be credited with a lot more value in what they share than will others.

    I was at a Google event last week, where they highlighted Friend-Augmented search as well. So they will also be using what our friends share to help personalize our own search results. This will raise the impact that social has on SEO and make it more complex. Bottom line is that you are very right…to succeed in the new environment, “relevance, value, and authentic connection” will drive outcomes.

  • http://www.cc-chapman.com/ C.C. Chapman

    Once again here you go spouting sense in the waterfall of cluelessness of the web.

    Thank you!

  • http://www.arnoldimcpherson.com/ Robin McPherson

    Really interesting. I hadn't thought of Buzz in this way. As I logged in to Buzz, I was overwhelmed with information and almost immediately unfollowed people. It's also made me look at my own occasional spewing of content.

  • http://www.TheMarketingSpotBlog.com Jay Ehret

    I get what you're saying here, Christopher, but I think you're over-analyzing this. Was this really Google's intent? I don't think so. Google is not a data company…any more. I think they are a “we don't know what we are” company. Buzz is a reaction to Facebook, Twitter, et al.

    Google is the next Microsoft. A Company that has lost it's identity and is product focused rather than mission focused. Buzz is the next Jaiku, Feedburner, Blogger. Another tool in the arsenal that gets lost in Google's vast toolbox.

  • http://twitter.com/NikiBGD Danica Radisic

    Once again, Chris, seems you nailed it. So we could say Google is using “human curators”? That is brilliant. And a little scary…

  • http://twitter.com/phillymac Phillip

    Exactly what I did. If you're in the Buzz with me, we're talking. Am I willing to add someone? Sure, but not just any bot. Spot on.

  • http://twitter.com/NikiBGD Danica Radisic

    Although I would like to hear more about what you're saying here, I have to disagree at this point, and heavily. Google is a data company. I just don't see them dishing out “products” like Microsoft. Sure, lately the've been all about communication tools, but that is what data is all about, isn't it? Data comes from communication and is used for communication/networking that lead to results. Just thinking out loud here. After all I've read about Buzz and using it for a couple of days, I still feel Chris is on the money with this.

  • http://www.frogblog.biz Fred H Schlegel

    “By placing Buzz so close to the incredibly precious, valuable territory that is our inbox…”

    Exactly why I turned it off and am reassessing my use of gmail. While all electronic communication is public in one way or another, this really highlighted to me the various ways Google feels comfortable using my private information. For those who want that, I'm sure this will be a great product. Doesn't appear that way for me.

  • http://madbaker.com/ Mark Dyck

    Well said, Chris.

    What I hear you saying is that Buzz may be a reaction to Facebook, but not in terms of eyeballs. It's more about Google being better able to make use of the social data than Facebook can.

    I'm very intrigued by your calling out the end of Social Media 1.0 as it gives a name to what I've been feeling. It's time for a personal do-over with Facebook and Twitter so I can focus on the connections that are most important to me.

  • http://uber.la jmacofearth

    Okay, I'll be happy to disagree with this one Chris. It's not that I don't like where you are going with your post here, but I think the process of “pruning back hard” is important on Facebook and Twitter and not just a part of adding yourself (or not adding yourself) to the buzz. You are spot on about the clatter and churn washing up within social networks. Even LinkedIN is getting kind of spammy, don't you think? So what are we to do? Join the Buzz-wagon?

    I think what we must do, on whatever networks we happen to be fond of, is cut back against the spammers. Box off the trolls. Delete the snipers. Use apps like Disqus to silence the cr*p that makes it across all of our blogs today as “conversation.”

    There are awesome tools to help you cull your spammers on Twitter. I am sure there will be similar apps for Facebook and perhaps Buzz. But the problem is not solved by adding a new app, the problem is solved by behaving in a new way. By building better habits, purging our “followers” and not just the ones we follow we get more REAL with the social part of the networking.

    I love seeing the picture above of you guys. See Brogan is a workin Geek like the rest of us. Sometimes his writing is so damn good, and his approach is so damn real, I forget he's just sittin at the table trying to do better like the rest of us. Rock On CB! And Rock on CSP!

    @jmacofearth | uber.la

  • http://www.ChristopherSPenn.com Christopher S. Penn

    Ah, but my point is that Buzz FORCES that behavioral change on us, whereas the other apps to date we've mostly been happy to let it ride.

  • http://twitter.com/lioncaller Claudia Putnam

    But…but…but it's only brilliant within the G-universe, right? If you're not using Google or gmail or whatever, you're prob not going to switch because of Buzz. I think this is a really interesting POV and it may be a great move for Google in terms of data… but I'm not sure that many people want to be that discriminating. I don't really care whether my cousin took NyQuil or Tylenol for her cold, but if it weren't for FB I probably wouldn't be thinking about her at all, since I haven't seen her in 18 years. You can say, well, if you haven't seen her in 18 years, she's not that important, but actually, she's my cousin, and she just happens to live far away and our lives don't intersect much. I think it's cool that she comes across my feed regularly now, even if it's just to say she took some tylenol. Now she's in my mind. I think a lot of people like it loose like that…yeah, this or that person is surprisingly weird about Farmville, but whatever. Glad to know you're alive.

    Luckily, that stuff never came near my inbox in the first place, so I don't have to trouble to screen it out. Maybe my email provider doesn't get any insight out of exposing me to a bunch of crap to see what I don't want, but I get to keep my worlds the way I wanted them in the first place. I can see why it's a good move for Google, possibly, but not for me, and no reason to switch.

  • http://richpalmer.com richpalmer

    Yes… what he said. (Thank you.)

  • http://www.davidmeiselman.com David Meiselman

    Nice post Chris. As Danica suggested by referencing “human curators”, I agree that Google will pay attention to what gets shared and who is doing the sharing to drive up contextual relevance in their search results. You can be sure that some people will be credited with a lot more value in what they share than will others.

    I was at a Google event last week, where they highlighted Friend-Augmented search as well. So they will also be using what our friends share to help personalize our own search results. This will raise the impact that social has on SEO and make it more complex. Bottom line is that you are very right…to succeed in the new environment, “relevance, value, and authentic connection” will drive outcomes.

  • http://www.highlyrelevant.com/blog Brian Flores – Highly Relevant

    Great post! I agree with you. Google Buzz is going to be a big deal. I wrote a blog post about this myself. http://www.highlyrelevant.com/2010/02/11/googe-

  • http://hrj.wikidot.com/ HRJ

    Well, every service has patterns of usage that evolve over time.

    I would say Twitter is the most flexible and spam resistant, because:

    1. Twitter's list feature allows you define your own priority levels. Somebody is spamming too much, unfollow her, create a list called highVolume and add her in there.

    2. It restricts you to 140 chars. You have to be succinct.

  • Bob

    Google is an advertising company.

  • http://recruitingindustrybrandingandsourcing.blogspot.com/ David Benjamin

    It's kinda funny how you find people jump into one of three buckets any time a new social networking site pops up or makes changes like Facebook and Twitter did not too long ago. You have the naysayers, always fighting change or something new. You have those that get that glazed look anytime a shiny object appears before them and then you have those in the middle, like myself.

    I like to take the wait and see approach and make a determination after gathering enough of my own data. I don't need others to tell me what I should and shouldn't like. If I find a use in Google Wave, I'll use it whether you think it's stupid or not. Same holds true with Buzz. I see possibilities, only time will tell.

  • http://radiogirlradiogirl.blogspot.com/ kim/ohradiogirl

    I was thinking similarly to @jmacofearth about how you can filter out msgs on other social networking sites. I don't know that Buzz will be all that different. It does not seem different on the surface. Now Wave seemed different right off the bat, but many folks are still scratching their head on that one. I want Buzz to be the next level of social networking, but right now, I don't see it.

  • http://www.theComplexMedia.com/ theComplex

    Great insight… I will definitely share this.

  • http://thoughtwrestling.com/blog Mark Dykeman

    But but but… what's in it for me? Really, what? I can do almost all of this functionality elsewhere.

  • http://www.frogblog.biz Fred H Schlegel

    “By placing Buzz so close to the incredibly precious, valuable territory that is our inbox…”

    Exactly why I turned it off and am reassessing my use of gmail. While all electronic communication is public in one way or another, this really highlighted to me the various ways Google feels comfortable using my private information. For those who want that, I'm sure this will be a great product. Doesn't appear that way for me.

  • http://service-architecture.blogspot.com/ Steve Jones

    I'm sorry but you've failed here. Your point is that Metcalf's Law is false and Google have destroyed it. Nonsense. The value of a network, even a social network, is based on the number of connections. It is this that defines the value of the network despite the “noise”.

    If Google are redefining Metcalf then that would be a revolution but extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof.and saying “Metcalf is wrong” is not proof.

  • http://uber.la jmacofearth

    Okay, I'll be happy to disagree with this one Chris. It's not that I don't like where you are going with your post here, but I think the process of “pruning back hard” is important on Facebook and Twitter and not just a part of adding yourself (or not adding yourself) to the buzz. You are spot on about the clatter and churn washing up within social networks. Even LinkedIN is getting kind of spammy, don't you think? So what are we to do? Join the Buzz-wagon?

    I think what we must do, on whatever networks we happen to be fond of, is cut back against the spammers. Box off the trolls. Delete the snipers. Use apps like Disqus to silence the cr*p that makes it across all of our blogs today as “conversation.”

    There are awesome tools to help you cull your spammers on Twitter. I am sure there will be similar apps for Facebook and perhaps Buzz. But the problem is not solved by adding a new app, the problem is solved by behaving in a new way. By building better habits, purging our “followers” and not just the ones we follow we get more REAL with the social part of the networking.

    I love seeing the picture above of you guys. See Brogan is a workin Geek like the rest of us. Sometimes his writing is so damn good, and his approach is so damn real, I forget he's just sittin at the table trying to do better like the rest of us. Rock On CB! And Rock on CSP!

    @jmacofearth | uber.la

  • http://www.ivanwalsh.com Ivan Walsh

    Google is the next Microsoft. I agree.

    MS were v popular when it started out. MS v IBM. Google may end up the same. The Google China fiasco was a bad move.

  • http://www.ChristopherSPenn.com Christopher S. Penn

    Ah, but my point is that Buzz FORCES that behavioral change on us, whereas the other apps to date we've mostly been happy to let it ride.

  • http://twitter.com/lioncaller Claudia Putnam

    But…but…but it's only brilliant within the G-universe, right? If you're not using Google or gmail or whatever, you're prob not going to switch because of Buzz. I think this is a really interesting POV and it may be a great move for Google in terms of data… but I'm not sure that many people want to be that discriminating. I don't really care whether my cousin took NyQuil or Tylenol for her cold, but if it weren't for FB I probably wouldn't be thinking about her at all, since I haven't seen her in 18 years. You can say, well, if you haven't seen her in 18 years, she's not that important, but actually, she's my cousin, and she just happens to live far away and our lives don't intersect much. I think it's cool that she comes across my feed regularly now, even if it's just to say she took some tylenol. Now she's in my mind. I think a lot of people like it loose like that…yeah, this or that person is surprisingly weird about Farmville, but whatever. Glad to know you're alive.

    Luckily, that stuff never came near my inbox in the first place, so I don't have to trouble to screen it out. Maybe my email provider doesn't get any insight out of exposing me to a bunch of crap to see what I don't want, but I get to keep my worlds the way I wanted them in the first place. I can see why it's a good move for Google, possibly, but not for me, and no reason to switch.

  • http://twitter.com/WoNoJo Media Penang

    let's start something 1.0 again please…

  • http://www.highlyrelevant.com/social-media-marketing.html Mike F- Highly Relevant

    Great post! I agree with you. Google Buzz is going to be a big deal. I wrote a blog post about this myself. http://www.highlyrelevant.com/2010/02/11/googe-

  • http://tedweismann.posterous.com/ Ted Weismann

    Great point about Google being a data quality company. I agree that their strengths here make them a dark horse on which I'm willing to place money. Google is just starting and we'll hear more at Google I/O.

    When Buzz became available to me, I instinctively was extremely selective in who I decided to follow. The reason why is because I was in Gmail, which an environment for interaction with those I trust and have the tightest relationships. When I'm using Twitter, my mindset is different because of what that is about. Same with Facebook.

  • http://hrj.wikidot.com/ HRJ

    Well, every service has patterns of usage that evolve over time.

    I would say Twitter is the most flexible and spam resistant, because:

    1. Twitter's list feature allows you define your own priority levels. Somebody is spamming too much, unfollow her, create a list called highVolume and add her in there.

    2. It restricts you to 140 chars. You have to be succinct.

  • http://radiogirlradiogirl.blogspot.com/ kim/ohradiogirl

    I was thinking similarly to @jmacofearth about how you can filter out msgs on other social networking sites. I don't know that Buzz will be all that different. It does not seem different on the surface. Now Wave seemed different right off the bat, but many folks are still scratching their head on that one. I want Buzz to be the next level of social networking, but right now, I don't see it.

  • http://twitter.com/onnoka Onno Karman

    There's a couple of reasons why Buzz will be a success.

    1. Because it's so close to your inbox, even the usual late adopters start using it, or at least ask me what Buzz is all about. Twitter is still mostly used by nerds/geeks/marketeers/sales tigers, some celebs etc. Friends of mine – who don't belong to those categories – do not use Twitter and I think they never will. But they have already buzzed, the same day it was introduced. Along with millions of others. Buzz = twitter for the _real_ masses.

    2. The great value of Buzz lies in its almost instantly perfect integration with other Google services, especially with Google Maps. Try buzz on the iPhone and you will understand what I mean. Geo location buzzing will become very big, mark my words.

    3. The 140 character limit that Twitter has, is – let's be fair – funny from a historic point of view, but irritating. The time that text messages had the 160 character limit is far behind us, and that's for a reason.
    Okay, it made Twitter big at the same time, but most people will find it annoying. Lots of work around services have been invented, like the url-shorteners, tweetlonger, etc. Work arounds.
    Because of the information overkill, it's good that Twitter only allows 140 characters. But – as Christoper wrote – people actually want relevance. Buzz will _make_ you get rid of all those useless tweets and twitterazi. We only want valuable information, and the length of the buzzes doesn't matter in that case. If you want to keep it short, do that. If you want to write more, just do it. No limits!

    Google is very, very clever. Buzz will be a success. Everybody who doesn't see this, think again. And again. (but don't get me started on the privacy issues here, that's another discussion ;-))

  • http://uber.la jmacofearth

    How does it force us to do anything different? Perhaps I'm missing your point. Starting a new Twitter account from scratch would do the same thing, right? I don't need another G-Mail inbox. In fact, perhaps I'm clueless, but I only use G-Mail as a spam filter, forwarding to my real email accounts where I *have to* use things like Outlook. I think Buzz is nothing new. And just because you have to re-invite and re-add your buzzers, I don't think that excuses your poor Twitter habits.

    And your comparison to Facebook is just silly. They are not even on the same planet. The games, groups and causes might not be what you want out of a social network, okay, but that's what facebook is about.

    I'm not trying to call you out. I just don't agree. That's cool. “Turn Buzz Off.”

    @jmacofearth

  • http://uber.la jmacofearth

    David, I get your point. And I too am in a wait and see mode on most projects. WAVE I have seen some amazing stuff, but not been able to pull one off. BUZZ? I don't see any new value whatsoever.

  • http://service-architecture.blogspot.com/ Steve Jones

    I'm sorry but you've failed here. Your point is that Metcalf's Law is false and Google have destroyed it. Nonsense. The value of a network, even a social network, is based on the number of connections. It is this that defines the value of the network despite the “noise”.

    If Google are redefining Metcalf then that would be a revolution but extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof.and saying “Metcalf is wrong” is not proof.

  • http://www.exitrealtymetrodallas.com/?page_id=398 larrylawfer

    Great Post, Chris. I love your new fiesty self telling your truths. Reading this I appreciate you not eliminating me as I work through the ramp up relevance and focus.

  • http://twitter.com/WoNoJo Media Penang

    let's start something 1.0 again please…

  • http://www.keithburtis.com Keith Burtis

    Chris, want the truth?
    I don't want anyone's updates in my inbox. Not yet anyway. I don't see anyone who's feed is so insanely important that I cannot miss it. If I'm looking at your most recent tweet I don't want it in my inbox. To me it is pushing hard the focused broadcast type content. Driving out conversation. The best filter I use in spaces like twitter and facebook are my own eyes and instincts. This is just friendfeed to your inbox I guess. haven't used it much.. in fact Google doesn't seem to want to let me leave my first update. Places like twitter will win here due to simple ease of use.

    Now from the use of a practitioner I can see the value in easily aggregating content for intelligence sources. I will use it the way Google uses it. To mine relevant data for myself and my clients. (at least at this point) This ads a social layer to something like google alerts and offers an API for tools like radian 6 and others to leverage. We'll see where it goes.

  • http://www.ChristopherSPenn.com Christopher S. Penn

    I like the OSI angle. Food for thought.

  • http://www.lynetteradio.com LynetteRadio

    One more channel to get exactly the same info I get everywhere else (RSS/Reader/FB/Twitter/iTunes) – except **I** have decided that **I** will use it to be hyper-selective of whom I follow. So don't be offende when I don't follow you back (and that is the general sense of 'you'). My inbound, my choice.

  • http://tedweismann.posterous.com/ Ted Weismann

    Great point about Google being a data quality company. I agree that their strengths here make them a dark horse on which I'm willing to place money. Google is just starting and we'll hear more at Google I/O.

    When Buzz became available to me, I instinctively was extremely selective in who I decided to follow. The reason why is because I was in Gmail, which an environment for interaction with those I trust and have the tightest relationships. When I'm using Twitter, my mindset is different because of what that is about. Same with Facebook.

  • http://twitter.com/onnoka Onno Karman

    There's a couple of reasons why Buzz will be a success.

    1. Because it's so close to your inbox, even the usual late adopters start using it, or at least ask me what Buzz is all about. Twitter is still mostly used by nerds/geeks/marketeers/sales tigers, some celebs etc. Friends of mine – who don't belong to those categories – do not use Twitter and I think they never will. But they have already buzzed, the same day it was introduced. Along with millions of others. Buzz = twitter for the _real_ masses.

    2. The great value of Buzz lies in its almost instantly perfect integration with other Google services, especially with Google Maps. Try buzz on the iPhone and you will understand what I mean. Geo location buzzing will become very big, mark my words.

    3. The 140 character limit that Twitter has, is – let's be fair – funny from a historic point of view, but irritating. The time that text messages had the 160 character limit is far behind us, and that's for a reason.
    Okay, it made Twitter big at the same time, but most people will find it annoying. Lots of work around services have been invented, like the url-shorteners, tweetlonger, etc. Work arounds.
    Because of the information overkill, it's good that Twitter only allows 140 characters. But – as Christoper wrote – people actually want relevance. Buzz will _make_ you get rid of all those useless tweets and twitterazi. We only want valuable information, and the length of the buzzes doesn't matter in that case. If you want to keep it short, do that. If you want to write more, just do it. No limits!

    Google is very, very clever. Buzz will be a success. Everybody who doesn't see this, think again. And again. (but don't get me started on the privacy issues here, that's another discussion ;-))

  • http://uber.la jmacofearth

    How does it force us to do anything different? Perhaps I'm missing your point. Starting a new Twitter account from scratch would do the same thing, right? I don't need another G-Mail inbox. In fact, perhaps I'm clueless, but I only use G-Mail as a spam filter, forwarding to my real email accounts where I *have to* use things like Outlook. I think Buzz is nothing new. And just because you have to re-invite and re-add your buzzers, I don't think that excuses your poor Twitter habits.

    And your comparison to Facebook is just silly. They are not even on the same planet. The games, groups and causes might not be what you want out of a social network, okay, but that's what facebook is about.

    I'm not trying to call you out. I just don't agree. That's cool. “Turn Buzz Off.”

    @jmacofearth

  • http://uber.la jmacofearth

    David, I get your point. And I too am in a wait and see mode on most projects. WAVE I have seen some amazing stuff, but not been able to pull one off. BUZZ? I don't see any new value whatsoever.

  • http://www.exitrealtymetrodallas.com/?page_id=398 larrylawfer

    Great Post, Chris. I love your new fiesty self telling your truths. Reading this I appreciate you not eliminating me as I work through the ramp up relevance and focus.

  • Skip Bensley

    Less is more.

  • shaun76

    Chris – This is hands-down, the best post I've read from you. You NAILED Buzz! I've been a fan of yours for a very long time, and for some reason, I'm amazed at the exactness of this post. Reading this feels like a condensed version of the past 48 hours of my life. Thanks for taking the time to post it!

  • http://www.keithburtis.com Keith Burtis

    Chris, want the truth?
    I don't want anyone's updates in my inbox. Not yet anyway. I don't see anyone who's feed is so insanely important that I cannot miss it. If I'm looking at your most recent tweet I don't want it in my inbox. To me it is pushing hard the focused broadcast type content. Driving out conversation. The best filter I use in spaces like twitter and facebook are my own eyes and instincts. This is just friendfeed to your inbox I guess. haven't used it much.. in fact Google doesn't seem to want to let me leave my first update. Places like twitter will win here due to simple ease of use.

    Now from the use of a practitioner I can see the value in easily aggregating content for intelligence sources. I will use it the way Google uses it. To mine relevant data for myself and my clients. (at least at this point) This ads a social layer to something like google alerts and offers an API for tools like radian 6 and others to leverage. We'll see where it goes.

  • http://www.ChristopherSPenn.com Christopher S. Penn

    I like the OSI angle. Food for thought.

  • http://twitter.com/daniellesmyname Danielle Hohmeier

    I see your point… my Buzz is set up only with a few people, not hundreds like Twitter. But all of those people I already connected with using chatting on GChat or emailing back and forth with my GMail. And I'm STILL doing that. I know it's only been a couple days, but so far I haven't found any use for Buzz that I don't already fulfill with another service…

    I like your 'walled garden' argument though and am willing to give Buzz a chance. I shared my initial reactions this afternoon on the Atomicdust blog (http://www.atomicdust.com/blog/single/first-imp…), but most of them were why Buzz failed me. I'm hoping in the next couple weeks, it will prove some value…

  • http://www.lynetteradio.com/ LynetteRadio

    One more channel to get exactly the same info I get everywhere else (RSS/Reader/FB/Twitter/iTunes) – except **I** have decided that **I** will use it to be hyper-selective of whom I follow. So don't be offende when I don't follow you back (and that is the general sense of 'you'). My inbound, my choice.

  • skipbensley

    Less is more.

  • http://recruitingindustrybrandingandsourcing.blogspot.com/ David Benjamin

    The ability to get connected with friend's of my connections is easier on Buzz than Twitter or FB because we're all (for the most part) following a fraction of the number of people. I don't follow anyone on buzz that isn't a close connection. I've already met two people I would not have met otherwise.

  • Pingback: The Biggest Stories: Google Buzz Edition()

  • Pingback: Never Mind the Buzz, Cocks | Ian M Rountree()

  • skipbensley

    I have two twitter accounts because I thought I had a buyer for my domain name in the UK (long story) but something great happened. I created my own twitter name and I only follow people, not companies, not lists but people I want to be able to hear better. I take it a step further with a FB invite. I only ask people to FB if I want to get to know them better personally. Sometimes the invitee gets that but not always. I think all these tools make us a socially lazy and isn't that ironic. I still call my closest friends going back 30 years just to say hi, how are you. Those interactions are clearly the most important ones along with family.

  • http://recruitingindustrybrandingandsourcing.blogspot.com/ David Benjamin

    The ability to get connected with friend's of my connections is easier on Buzz than Twitter or FB because we're all (for the most part) following a fraction of the number of people. I don't follow anyone on buzz that isn't a close connection. I've already met two people I would not have met otherwise.

  • skipbensley

    I have two twitter accounts because I thought I had a buyer for my domain name in the UK (long story) but something great happened. I created my own twitter name and I only follow people, not companies, not lists but people I want to be able to hear better. I take it a step further with a FB invite. I only ask people to FB if I want to get to know them better personally. Sometimes the invitee gets that but not always. I think all these tools make us a socially lazy and isn't that ironic. I still call my closest friends going back 30 years just to say hi, how are you. Those interactions are clearly the most important ones along with family.

  • Pingback: Buzz cuts « Patty Goes Geeky()

  • http://twitter.com/camiloolea Camilo Olea

    Great info Chris! It helped me understand better what the “buzz” is all about :)

    I'll share it, thanks!

    Cheers from Cancun,
    Camilo

  • http://twitter.com/camiloolea Camilo Olea

    Great info Chris! It helped me understand better what the “buzz” is all about :)

    I'll share it, thanks!

    Cheers from Cancun,
    Camilo

  • http://dragonsearchmarketing.com/ Ric Dragon

    I concur with Danica… this isn't just Google flailing about trying lots of things. If it is, this is an evolutionary deviation that has incredible implications.

  • http://dragonsearchmarketing.com/ Ric Dragon

    …and think of the implications for search. Search is becoming more personalized. What if my search results were influenced by my social network (need Buzz for that, don't we!). While I don't have any smoking gun, I'm certain Google is heading in that direction.

  • http://www.thedigitante.com/ Andy Howard

    Here is the problem with your logic, Chris: if Google TRULY wanted the best data, why would they have created this as opt-in? That opt-in strategy was plain-and-simple a market share grab.

    If they wanted great data, why not look at things like what feeds are in my Google Reader and how long I spend looking at each article? (Don't worry, I'm sure they already do that).

    Bottomline, Google should have established Buzz as a separate service. The last thing I need is a slurry of information right next to my email inbox which is my biggest nemesis in terms of time management. Seeing “100+” next to the Buzz label and knowing the utter garbage that was flowing through there (mostly, “Cool, I'm using Buzz!”). I want to build my network, not prune it.

  • http://www.ChristopherSPenn.com Christopher S. Penn

    Because you still need a userbase to get data. It's true that creating a purely new service (Wave comes to mind) would accomplish that, but my guess is they're not getting either the adoption or the results they wanted. Buzz tastes a bit of Plan B.

  • http://dragonsearchmarketing.com/ Ric Dragon

    I concur with Danica… this isn't just Google flailing about trying lots of things. If it is, this is an evolutionary deviation that has incredible implications.

  • http://dragonsearchmarketing.com/ Ric Dragon

    …and think of the implications for search. Search is becoming more personalized. What if my search results were influenced by my social network (need Buzz for that, don't we!). While I don't have any smoking gun, I'm certain Google is heading in that direction.

  • http://www.thedigitante.com/ Andy Howard

    Here is the problem with your logic, Chris: if Google TRULY wanted the best data, why would they have created this as opt-in? That opt-in strategy was plain-and-simple a market share grab.

    If they wanted great data, why not look at things like what feeds are in my Google Reader and how long I spend looking at each article? (Don't worry, I'm sure they already do that).

    Bottomline, Google should have established Buzz as a separate service. The last thing I need is a slurry of information right next to my email inbox which is my biggest nemesis in terms of time management. Seeing “100+” next to the Buzz label and knowing the utter garbage that was flowing through there (mostly, “Cool, I'm using Buzz!”). I want to build my network, not prune it.

  • http://www.ChristopherSPenn.com Christopher S. Penn

    Because you still need a userbase to get data. It's true that creating a purely new service (Wave comes to mind) would accomplish that, but my guess is they're not getting either the adoption or the results they wanted. Buzz tastes a bit of Plan B.

  • http://www.a-skadeservice.dk/ skadeservice

    I dont know whats so good in buzz, it may become a danger to the small social networking sites but for twitter and facebook, the google buzz cannot be so big problem as they know how to deal with the competitions. Thanks for sharing your view but I dont agree completely!

  • http://www.a-skadeservice.dk/ skadeservice

    I dont know whats so good in buzz, it may become a danger to the small social networking sites but for twitter and facebook, the google buzz cannot be so big problem as they know how to deal with the competitions. Thanks for sharing your view but I dont agree completely!

  • http://www.archercom.com/ marissa

    I am not sure if Google's original intention was for us to weed out our “disposable connections.” Will this buzz eventually inspire us to log out of Facebook and Twitter?

  • matthixson

    You are much further along in you assessment of Buzz than I am. Many people are ready to crown is the greatest thing but I am not there yet. If they can make this the ultimate platform I would be much happier. I want a place where all things come in from my networks and I can update the ones I want. You would think that Google would love this from the point of being the central hub for all data in real time. I am not quite there yet with Buzz yet.

  • matthixson

    You are much further along in you assessment of Buzz than I am. Many people are ready to crown is the greatest thing but I am not there yet. If they can make this the ultimate platform I would be much happier. I want a place where all things come in from my networks and I can update the ones I want. You would think that Google would love this from the point of being the central hub for all data in real time. I am not quite there yet with Buzz yet.

  • http://www.archercom.com/ marissa

    I am not sure if Google's original intention was for us to weed out our “disposable connections.” Will this buzz eventually inspire us to log out of Facebook and Twitter?

  • matthixson

    You are much further along in you assessment of Buzz than I am. Many people are ready to crown is the greatest thing but I am not there yet. If they can make this the ultimate platform I would be much happier. I want a place where all things come in from my networks and I can update the ones I want. You would think that Google would love this from the point of being the central hub for all data in real time. I am not quite there yet with Buzz yet.

  • J. Mike Smith

    I don't think Google is that clever. Smart, no doubt: just not that clever.

  • J. Mike Smith

    I don't think Google is that clever. Smart, no doubt: just not that clever.

  • ourenchantedgarden

    I'm not mind reader but I think Google was not only trying to compete with Twitter and Facebook but also to get people to use gmail more! I never use mine – or very rarely! Why else would they attach it to an e-mail package instead of making it part of iGoogle's goodies? I haven't tried Wave at all and think Google should start putting their tools together in one place instead of the confusing way it's working now. I use Google Docs regularly – one of their very useful tools!

  • ourenchantedgarden

    I'm not mind reader but I think Google was not only trying to compete with Twitter and Facebook but also to get people to use gmail more! I never use mine – or very rarely! Why else would they attach it to an e-mail package instead of making it part of iGoogle's goodies? I haven't tried Wave at all and think Google should start putting their tools together in one place instead of the confusing way it's working now. I use Google Docs regularly – one of their very useful tools!

  • ourenchantedgarden

    I'm not mind reader but I think Google was not only trying to compete with Twitter and Facebook but also to get people to use gmail more! I never use mine – or very rarely! Why else would they attach it to an e-mail package instead of making it part of iGoogle's goodies? I haven't tried Wave at all and think Google should start putting their tools together in one place instead of the confusing way it's working now. I use Google Docs regularly – one of their very useful tools!

  • Pingback: How To Market With Google's Social Search -()

  • Pingback: Vox Populi: Q1 2010 | Christopher S. Penn's Awaken Your Superhero()