Google is a big part of many people’s daily Internet routines. They check their e-mails on Gmail, find directions on Google Maps, and use its namesake search engine multiple times a day.

But there is one digital arena that Google has failed to succeed in, and that is social networking. After Google’s 2010 flop with Google Buzz, it is still Facebook that dominates the scene. The social networking giant touts around 750 million active users, and is an Internet staple for many. These successes are due to Facebook’s strong brand, which conveys social connectivity that is easily accessible by anyone.

Last Tuesday Google announced its new try at social networking — the Google+ Project. The network is very similar to Facebook — users can share status updates, photos, videos and links with their friends. However, one of Google+’s most unique features is their “circles,” where users can place their friends in categories (“friends,” “family,” etc.) and decide which information they want to share with each group.

This venture shows that Google wants a social networking brand position that is distinct from Facebook. Google wants to be associated with something that more closely imitates the connections you have with peers in the real world, where there is secure and personal control over who gets to know what information.

“In real life, we have walls and windows and I can speak to you knowing who’s in the room, but in the online world… you share with the whole world,” Google product management Vice President Bradley Horowitz told the New York Times. “We have a different model.”

A problem with Google’s brand strategy, however, is the network’s striking similarity to Facebook, in content and in layout. Some users won’t want to add a new social network to their repertoire if it has the same look and feel of what they’re already using. Google, as a leading web innovator, could have brought more to the plate here.

Regardless, the launch of Google+ shows the world that Google wants to continue positioning itself as a multifaceted and technologically relevant brand. The corporation has been largely successful thus far in its developments from a simple search engine into a go-to resource for news, images, and even as the owner of Youtube. Now it’s looking for a way to maintain its image of simplified versatility, and social networking is the next frontier.

Do you think Google+ will chip away at Facebook’s hold on the social networking market?

Contributed by Allison Meeks

Facebook recently introduced a subtle change and for once it won’t change the appearance of your news feed. Facebook introduced a new feature that allows users to identify people or objects that have their own Facebook Pages.

Previously, users could only tag their friends. Now users can tag celebrities or public figures they meet or tag the brands and products they use. For example, if I posted a photo of myself running in Nike sneakers, I could label the shoes with a tag that links to Nike’s official Facebook Page.

For now, this tagging feature is limited to Pages for people or brands and products, although Facebook plans to expand these categories.

If it catches on, this new feature could be great for brands looking to go  viral and spread awareness about their products. Companies will no doubt run contests, forcing participants to tag products. It is essentially free advertising on one the coolest and most popular websites today. At least for now.

The new tagging feature could also be an opportunity for Facebook to monetize the site’s photo service, perhaps adding sponsored tags.

After all, nothing evokes fond family memories like that tagged bottle of soda in the background!

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Much of October’s design buzz was focused on the new Gap logo. With the change came die-hard Gap customers commenting on blogs, Facebook sites, and within the design community.

Marka Hansen, president of Gap North America, initially defended the logo, writing that the move brings Gap into the modern age. “We want our customers to take notice of Gap and see what it stands for today,” she said. “We chose this design as it’s more contemporary and current. It honors our heritage through the blue box while still taking it forward.”

Hmm. The iconic blue box of Gap was actually diminished, rather than honored in the new design. Adding a gradient and moving it into a submission position does nothing in my mind to ‘honor its heritage.’ After only a week, Gap decided to revert back to the original logo.

Belk Department Store debuted its new image right around the same time, but was somewhat overshadowed in the media. Both Belk and Gap stated that they wanted to move their respective brands into a more updated space, and redesigned the logos to coincide with the modern feel of the apparel and the stores. So why was Belk’s change more widely accepted (individual design critiques aside), and Gap’s new image was met with such passionate disapproval?

A couple of ideas:

1. Regional awareness. Belk is a regional brand, with a smaller target audience than the global presence of Gap. While Belk isn’t just “your Grandmother’s store” anymore, the company hasn’t been as active over the years in building and defining their brand image, so their change could be met with less resistance.

2. Belk is a collection of individual brands. Gap IS a brand.

3. Lack of connection to the audience. Belk had a plan for change and is systematically making the change market by market, and Gap introduced the logo to the entire world without so much as a hint that something new was coming. For such a devout target audience and such a large presence, you have to be prepared for the response – positive or negative. No market research to find out what customers think prior to launch?

4. Redefining the brand … consistently. The Gap logo is/was classic. “Classic” is actually what their brand was all about. If they wanted to modernize or talk about their new modern jeans, they could update their collateral, or use social media in a new way to talk to their audience. Create a contest to have customers help design the new logo. The same can be argued about Belk: the iconic script was regarded as a logo with “class and character” that many argued should have been retained. However, Belk complemented their change with a tagline: “Modern. Southern. Style.” which helps to reinforce the overall change.

What are your thoughts on refreshing a brand? Total re-definition through a new name or logo? Change the tagline? Update your social media efforts? Any other positive examples?

A question Social Media Management Company, Vitrue, raised by creating a Social Page Evaluator, a tool designed to “provide an assessment of a brand’s Facebook Page value and the effectiveness of its social media efforts.” According to Vitrue, Starbuck’s has an annual page value of $20.7 million. The basic calculation starts by assigning a value (a conservative default of $5) to each “like”, but also takes into account the number of posts and the number of interactions. A smaller fan base can earn more than a larger one if the brand uses Facebook to its full potential. Skittles pot of gold, for example, has 1 million fewer connections than beverage giant Coke but is valued higher because of a greater frequency of posts. Can a Brand go too far? Absolutely. With 147 posts in the last month, ESPN has maxed out their page value at $4.8 million. To maximize page value, Vitrue suggests brands post up to twice per day, post photos and videos, and use Facebook tools like the “share” button.

So who do you “like”? What brands have you “shared” recently? Are you doing your part to contribute to the how much your favorite brand is worth?

Contributed by: Allison Jobes