My Challenge with Google+
Please note that this article is written from an exposure and marketing perspective, not a perspective of sharing photos and connecting other photogs just for pleasure (although I do that as well), which does have subtle but important differences.
I was very late in the game with Google+. I started using it a little over a year ago. It was, according to most reports, the social network for photographers. In my experience, despite how much I wanted it to be, it has not proven to be a great platform from which to market myself.
I desperately wanted G+ to work. I was, at one point, looking to abandon facebook completely. For me, the practices on facebook leave a bad taste in my mouth sometimes. Not only do they hold you at ransom, forcing you to pay them in order show all of your followers your content, they rob you of your images for their own financial gain and at the same time, strip the quality from your images that you work so hard to maintain.
When I started up on G+ I was chatting to a friend of mine, Jim Nix, who at the time had praised G+ but said that Facebook was still where the interaction was at. I was confused at this since he had just less than a thousand followers on facebook but 15,000 on Google+.
I was convinced G+ would be the main platform from which I would work. With superior image quality, safety with your images and a cool feature that retains EXIF data, it was definitely the way forward. Over a year has passed and I feel I haven’t tapped the true potential of google+, for some reason.
As I write this I have 9,320 followers on G+. I get between 50-100 new followers per day. I have no idea how they find me 🙂 On facebook I have 2,834 friends and 3,741 personal followers. That’s a following of 6,575 on FB. I have almost 3,000 more followers on G+. When we consider that facebook purposefully restricts how many can see your posts, we can assume that I should be getting far more exposure on G+ than facebook. However, the statistics say otherwise.
For each image shared on facebook, I get between 250 – 450 likes. On Google+ I get between 40-90. For each tutorial I write on my blog, I can get between 2,000-3,000 views from facebook and 10-30 views from Google+.
I can come to some conclusions based on these numbers. Firstly, my followers on G+ may not like my work. This seems unlikely since they chose to follow me in the first place. Since I know that this is the case with more or less every other photographer on google+ who are also on FB, I can surmise that is a G+ issue. I suspect that G+, although a superior social network, especially for photographers, is rarely used. Many people may have accounts but it seems the users are nowhere near as active as on facebook.
Going back to the stats, even if G+ users are actively using the site, it seems like they are less willing to click through to sites when they see a relevant link. For example, my free Digital Blending Megapack has been an incredible success. It staggers me how enthusiastic fellow photographers have been towards it, with thousands signing up to receive the pack. On the bottom of the page for the pack you can see how many G+s and facebook likes/shares it has received. So far it has 1,200 +s but only 307 facebook shares/likes. However, when you look at the visitor stats to my site, you get a very different figure. I’ve had 12,367 views from facebook since publishing it. From Google+, however, I’ve received 341.
You could argue that I have less visitors from G+ because the pack is only available to facebook followers. However, I have never mentioned that when I’ve posted the link, since a lot of G+ users will also be facebook users. More importantly, if that were the case, it would seem strange that almost four times as many people have +’ed it than have shared it on facebook. It seems to me that while people are engaging with content on G+ they are less willing to click through compared to facebook users, for whatever reason.
I know that some photographers would report a different experience than mine, especially those on the Suggested User List, where Google have compiled a very cool list of people to follow depending on your interests. Photographers on these lists generally get millions of followers, most of whom may not have heard of the photographers until they saw that list. It is a great way to get excellent exposure and the list includes some immensely talented photographers. They, however, are the minority.
Having said that, I’ve had my images and links to my blog shared by said photographers, and while a lot of likes were gained, the click through rate again was very low by comparison.
I haven’t given up on Google+. I think the Communities are far more superior than facebook’s Groups and as I’ve mentioned, Google really understands what is important to a photographer. I will continue to try and make it work for me but I also have to concentrate on what is already working and build from that. I consider it a real shame that I haven’t been able to make Google+ my main platform, but after speaking to so many photographers on the matter, I know I’m not alone in this.
I understand the frustration that some of my followers feel at not being able to receive the megapack because they are G+ users and not facebook users. But I have opened them up to G+ users in the past and will do again from time to time in the future. And if I ever do manage to use Google+ effectively, it will be available to G+ users permanently.
Share this:
This entry was posted on Wednesday, October 9th, 2013 at 8:56 am
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
I am one of those G+’s who are frustrated because you choose not to support G+ followers. I gave up being a Facebook junkie a long time ago and do not regret it for one moment. Why? simply we at G+ are a different market. Have a look at the quality of most of the images, does that same quality of professionalism exist with what you see on FB? How did I find you on G+, referral. You mention exposure, FB is a social networking sight where people expose their lives on many varied likes and dislikes not just photography. G+ you are competing with other photographers only. So while you may have the numbers the dynamics of the market is completely different and the quality of the people a little more professional.
Hi Richard, I agreed with everything you said in my post. I do not for one moment deny that G+ is a better social network for photographers. However, no amount of words can challenge the fact that facebook drives more than 20 times the number of visitors than G+ despite me having more followers on G+. FB has also undoubtedly brought in far more revenue, as well as other opportunities. I wish I could ditch facebook but while it is inferior to G+ in almost every way, it is, without question, a far better marketing tool. If I wasn’t interested in marketing and simply wanted to connect with other photogs and share my images, I would have ditched FB a long time ago.
You miss Richard’s prime point though Jimmy. That of him not having FB.
I’m not out to sell “me” on any social media site so don’t have any answers for you but I found you on Google+ but have to come to FB to get the downloads – perhaps that accounts for a disproportionate skewing of the figures (or a bit). As you need to market yourself then my opinion is that you have to spread yourself wide and far so as to be inclusive and not exclusive (unless that is what you want). So you have to learn the nuances and adapt to all the different platforms and what’s more learn to use them.
I do like that you respond and that is key for me. Just on a personal point when I share an image on G+ I get a reasonable number of shares, +1’s, etc but the same image on FB gets disproportionately lower. So maybe I’m your opposite 🙂
Bottom line – be inclusive on G+ as well, despite the seemingly low returns. Allow for non FB users to connect and download your content.
I’ll be watching this thread with interest as I have been on G+ about the same amount of time as you, Jimmy, and really haven’t gotten the interest that FB brings, either. In my case, admittedly, I haven’t “worked the site” as i should have … and therein may be the source of my own problem. We shall see!!
Great read Jimmy and it’s all so true. My observations are the same (although I have much less followers than you and frankly can’t really increase their number anywhere). Ideal social media probably would be a combination of G+ (image quality, EXIF, etc.) and FB. Maybe time to create one 😉 ?
G+ is superior but fewer people are on it, and it is dominated by a handful of “superstars”, so to speak. Despite a good follower count there, I still get more interaction on FB. They are different platforms serving different markets, as I see it, and unfortunately you need both as a photog. Thanks for the mention by the way, hope you are well mate.
I have no immediate solution to your problem as I am no Google+ marketing expert. But there are experts out there or rather in there. In the Google+ that is. I am certain many would be willing advise you on the statergies you need to adopt to get the results you want.
Just out of interest and curiosity how many communities are you active in? Are they all photography related or more diverse?
Jim I follow you on G+ but will never join FB for many reasons. One thing I would strongly recommend for G+ is to make your image posts at a minimum of 2048 in the longest dimension were appropriate. I really like the images you have posted but they would be so much better larger. Another good thing about the 2048 longest is that the storage is still free. Free is good when you are a retired amateur as I am 🙂
I’ve had the exact same experience. I find that the G+ system and software is head and shoulders better than Facebook’s offering, but we get very very little traffic generated from it. I love the G+ software, and I don’t love FB. But, as you mention, we get a ton more traffic from our FB posts, even with the limitations that the system puts on them. For some reason, I find that very few folks click on links in G+, it’s a total mystery to me. Great article, Jimmy, it’s good to know that someone of your stature in the community is seeing the same sorts of behaviors I am seeing here.
I am not super active on any social media front specifically. As a rule I avoid any content that requires a link to view it with very few exceptions because i’m aware of the well documented and the not so well documented network based intrusion exploits that are used on social media platforms. I generally only keep F.B. around to B.S. with my family and a few close friends.
It was never intended or built for the way its being used now, plus with all the damned Ads I get spammed with on the page its not really making it an attractive platform for me to use.
Where is G+ concerned, I prefer it. It is head and shoulders better than F.B. for the type of things I do, like photography. The communities are pretty good too.
Where marketing is concerned it’s probably not so good but I like it a lot. If G+ ever started the invasive marketing habits that F.B. does now I’d consider going somewhere else for my primary media site.
Whatever works for you Jim.
Interesting post, Jimmy.
I find the FB restrictions on those who can actually see and engage with one’s content to be a drag on the branding and recognition process. It’s been somewhat discouraging to be honest. I’ve considered “promoting” a few post to see if traffic and interest increases but have resisted that so far.
In the meantime, I am concentrating on G+ more and interacting with a few communities in an attempt to gain better results. After sticking it out on FB for a considerable time, I am compelled to change my focus. Besides, G+ definitely has the better platform so I’ll just keep plugging away. 😉
It is a very interesting article, with digits, what is important. But maybe somebody will say something about another, very visual network: Pinterest?