Is Google + a Minus For Attorneys?

There is an old saying in marketing that you should "fish were the fish are" so when Google announced their competitive offering to Facebook, many people took immediate notice. This was then, this is now:

- Google + has 90 million registered users VERSUS 845 million for Facebook
- PC users on average are spending 3 minutes a month on Google + VERSUS 6-7 hours for Facebook.

These numbers were courtesy of a recent report in ComScore and further reported on in the Wall Street Journal. 

As I previously posted in July of last year about Google +, I had my doubts about the effectiveness and sustainability of Google + for a number of reasons: chiefly amongst them was the value proposition and intuitive ease of use provided by Google with this new system. I recently heard a lecture where the speaker referred to Google + as the best social media system that nobody uses. The WSJ went further to describe Google + as a "virtual ghost town" compared to places like Facebook - surprise!

Of all the analytical measurements people use on the web, time-on-site is one of the most critical in measuring user value: Facebook has it is spades and Google + clearly does not. It is becoming clear at this point that not only do people create Facebook accounts, but they also use them. Google + might have had a large initial signup - but how many have returned? Social media is largely about connections and reach and what is the point in hanging out in a ghost town? I suppose you could have a good gunfight but who would know?

For attorney marketing, my advise in July still stands: fish were the fish are. If nobody is hanging out on Google +; what type of ediscovery could you possibly gather, how many of your referral partners will follow you, and how will you generate more visibility and new cases from it?

More on Google + for Attorneys : http://www.seolawyermarketing.com/2011/07/will-google-1-help-attorneys.html