I know that “Google +” generated some buzz in my own personal social circles. I remember sitting at a Fourth of July Party while one of my friends and improv comedy colleagues swapped stories about how excited they were when they were invited by Google to try out the new platform. I expressed that I was not one of the lucky few who got to sneak preview the product. “Don’t worry! I’ll add you,” one of them told me.

 

Sure enough, when I got home from the barbeque that night I had a Google + invite sitting in my Gmail inbox. I eagerly clicked the accept button. Over the next several days I had several invitations to join my friend’s circles. It definitely seemed like Google was going to become the rising competitor that Facebook has been waiting for.

 

And then the invites started to dwindle. The majority of my connections on Google+ were acquired within the first two weeks of the launch. I started to think that maybe Google+ just didn’t have the chops to take on the social networking masters.

 

It’s not a new story. Remember Friendster and MySpace? Unfortunately not every social networking site can make it in this world. Without the essential masses of people needed to keep the interest up, sites eventually die down.

 

Very few sites, Twitter being one of them, have been able to create synergy across the online universe. The creators at Twitter were smart enough to integrate their product and make it accessible across a multitude of online platforms. You can sync your Twitter updates to also appear as your Facebook status update. Twitter also acquired “Four Square” several months ago, giving people the opportunity to not only say what they are doing, but also show where they are with a social networking system that allows people to notify their friends of where they are by “Checking-In” at thousands of locations across the country.

 

Despite the promising take off of Google +, users can’t deny that momentum has slowed down. It would seem that most of the people using Google + are Google employees in pursuit of the bonuses they were promised if enough new users were recruited by the holidays. Unfortunately, Google employees won’t be enough to keep the product alive; Google + needs a much more diverse and connected fan base to survive.

 

That being said, I think Google+ may have a chance to make a rebound. The “circles” system is very clever, giving Gmail users the opportunity to streamline emails and invites to people who are specific to certain groups. The creators at Google are smart enough to find ways to integrate their system onto other social networks, but they are going to need to regenerate interest before steps can be made. I will be curious to see the end fate of Google +. For now, I'm not very concerned with its benefit in AdWords.

 

Facebook advertising is very similar to Google  AdWords content advertising in that it is display advertising with targeting related to keywords that you select.   And just like Google AdWords, Facebook allows you to select specific geographic regions for ad targeting. 

 

Facebook allows you to select some basic demographic targets as well….such as age, gender, education, etc. Facebook also makes it easy to include an image with your ad. It’s a nice feature and dresses up the ad and makes it stand out. (For the record, you can do similar targeting with Google content advertising, but it is a bit more complicated to accomplish.)

 

Here is a screen shot of the setup page for demographics:

As you can, setting up a Facebook ad  is very easy and straightforward.   In this example we were doing some advertising for a golf management college and were targeting the Eastern US for adults 18-35 with Golf or Golfing keywords in their profile.

 

In addition, Facebook gives you ‘reach’ estimates based on the demographic values you have selected and they match up to their membership profiles

Finally, determining and setting your bid price is very straightforward. If you are just starting out, I strongly recommend you only bid on a per click basis until you see what your CPM costs turn out to be.   As you can see below, Facebook recommends a bid price range and this is generally a good place to start.

 OK, so all that info is all well and good, but how does Facebook perform vs. Google content advertising?

 

If you read my blog about Google AdWords content advertising you will know that I think that content advertising can be very effective. It is often as effective as search in cost per conversion rates. 

 

In the Google vs. Facebook debate, it really depends on your product, your client demographics, and how well you manage each campaign.  

 

In my experience, if you are trying to reach a broad, but still targeted audience (say like folks shopping for auto financing) Facebook and Google both do a good job. but Facebook is usually less expensive than Google.

 

Conversely, if you are trying to reach a more niche audience, say upscale real estate in South Dakota, Google content ads will probably return the best performance in terms of cost/conversion or cost/lead.

 

Where Facebook really shines is in the ability to target the Facebook membership based on their apparent roles or interests. For example, if you are selling a promotional item, you can specify keywords like Marketing Manager, Advertising Manager, etc.

 

If you are considering content advertising, give Facebook a try. You may be pleasantly surprised by the results.