Larry Page has worked out who at Google is responsible for its long string of failures in the social media space: everybody. Page is tying a proverbial lamb chop around the neck of its new social thingy, "Google +1", in the hope that the dogs will pay it some attention. According to Business Insider, Chocolate Factory boss Larry …
Are you kidding me? My reaction to this Larry Page initiative is "-1"!
There is a reason. . .
"The memo also reportedly demands employees to adopt a kind of Amway model, pushing social media services onto family and friends..."
There is a reason why their families kept them locked in the basement, and frantic screams emanating from behind the basement door about Google social networking products is not exactly going to encourage their families to let them out.
Larry Page = PHB?
Sums it up better than I ever could.
There fixed that for you.
Exactly that strip on my Tear off Calander for 7thApril 2011...
Edging one step closer to the "creepy" line
and eyeing the one marked "creepy cult"
How about making your features using ratified web standards, so they work in all browsers, and you don't have to rely on browser UA sniffing?
So many recent Google features are unnecessarily borked in Opera due to Googles bad coding, that users have to spoof UA strings to get Google to deliver the right and correct content.
Soon enough Google's services will only work well via their own semi-documented and RFC-less SPDY protocol and not HTTP, so not even UA strings will work then.
They're already subtly saying that when they described their issues with collaborative document editing over the web.
Maybe this is just their way of preparing you for it.
Looks like Google is falling behind. Social media is sooo 2010.
You gotta wonder if google will, in trying to become everything online, either tear itself apart and disintegrate, or spread itself too thin and evaporate.
Bonuses SHOULD be related to how well the company does in the areas it wants to succeed in.
If the same applied in banking we wouldn't be in the shit we are now. Bonuses are not a right, you have to earn them. Unless you are a banker.
Well, sort of...
"Bonuses SHOULD be related to how well the company does in the areas it wants to succeed in."
Sort of, but why should a person in the Google Maps division lose some of his/her bonus just because the social networking people are rubbish at their job? I mean, I'm in a job where I don't get a bonus even if I do really well, but anyway.
The banking crisis was caused because the banks effectively tied bonuses to the wrong goal, they wanted as many mortgage customers as possible not as many good mortgage customers as possible.
Your right in that Bonuses do need to be tied to the strategic goals of the organisation but if the goal itself is harmful then all bonuses do is exacerbate the problem because if you do have a few voices of reason shouting warnings at the top of their voice, their message is drowned out by the majority screaming to meet the conditions of the bonuses.
Totally agree with this
Exactly. It's a *bonus*. He's not saying they'll get a wage cut or be sacked. Unlike a lot of other vital workers who NEVER EVER get bonuses, but of course they all work in the public sector, so they're all "back room" scum anyway(copyright E.Pickles). Oh poor,poor Google staff, it must be hell working there - probably hundreds of times worse than working in a care home for minimum wage, wiping old men's arses.
Good in principle, not so good in practice
"Bonuses SHOULD be related to how well the company does in the areas it wants to succeed in."
That model has a number of risks or potential problems -
* Those doing really well get nothing when held back by others who aren't pulling their weight.
* Those not pulling their weight are carried by those who are.
* Those who have no affect on the particular matter have no control over outcome.
* Bonuses become disproportionate to individual effort put in.
I know the management principle is that failure to achieve will lead to the staff coming together and doing better but reality is more likely that it leads to resentful staff and a blame culture which undermines the very business itself. I know, I've been through it, and expect others have too. Everyone thinks they've done well and if they don't get a bonus they want to know who's to blame for that. When staff realise the real blame is the policy itself they lose confidence in the company and its management.
It's a major shift from "if you do well you will be rewarded well" to "if Larry does well you will be rewarded well" and not everyone will like that nor feel it's right. If the key people Larry needs feel hard done by he may lose the very people he needs to succeed or have to rework the bonus strategy to keep them and that about-face can be seen as an admission of failure and lack of foresight and competence in itself.
In almost all departments, there are those that do, those that think they can and those that don't give a monkey's! Quite often it leads to resentment by those that do all the work, 'cos they see the other two groups getting the same rewards for doing next to nothing!
Management think that threatening workers with lose of rewards will make them magically pull together, the sun will shine, the birds and the bees will flitter about in a merry dance and rainbows will sprout customers by the bucketful! Nope! Every one gets fed up 'cos they know the lazy sods will drag everyone down so those than can do the job put in just about enough to get by.
Actually Bonuses don't work at all...
Public sector bonuses?
Not for the bin men, true, but further up the greasy pole, you'd be amazed.
I'd assume that +1 will eventually make it to Maps/Places Search as well - think your contacts having +1'd a restaurant or some such. This would provide an incentive for the Maps people to put +1 onto Maps. No?
... that google staff will probably use the social media sites to bleat about the problem.
Hey bitches ...
... we are losing out on scrapping other people's content as our own. Looks like our plans to rip off the orphan works and make them our own has been scuppered, and now Viacom are coming back at us for having rebranded all their content on Youtube as ours too.
so bitches get to it and find other ways of screwing the marks.
Trying to think of a good way to segue this in without it seeming forced, but whathehell..
..am I the only one sick to death of the social media crap that is drowning Google Maps for Android? I don't care about bloody Latitude and co, why can't they break it out into an external addon, like they did street view?
End of rant. Sorry.
RE- Larry to Googlers
No matter what is said here, Larry has made a fantastic business decision. It is a good one, because if the guys in the customer-facing departments, do all the work and have the bonus shared, then its not a bad idea to give a target to everyone. Besides Slackers Those who want to eat, should also partake in the preparation, and in todays economy what drives usage is VIP (Visibility, Image & Perception)
Secondly, hope Larry sees this, Google +1, is a viable product, but he needs to analyze the components of Facebook business, outline what their strengths are, then develop a service that will not exactly compete with theirs, but will drive the same customers to Google with a combination of products + social media networking. The sooner Google moves, the faster they can capitalize on the myriad of opportunities that are already under their noses.
Please have Larry Contact me for details.
Google And Amway
I doubt Google can live down to Amway's reputation, as Amway is a scam: Google "Tex Amway Blog" for more information. http://www.theregister.co.uk/Design/graphics/icons/comment/thumb_down_32.png
In a perfect world...
... Larry would invest in Hooters Restaurants and Hotels.
Staff would support that project in droves.
Page really doesn't have a clue does he?
Facebook is here to stay, and myself and probably my 300 Facebook friends aren't about to move to a Google product anytime soon. You see, Facebook already scratches that itch and I don't need a new itch scratcher.
I certainly don't need to move to a Google product because of Facebook envy. Obviously the $10bn he has in the bank isn't enough. I'm 'required' to move to a Google service to make them ever richer.
Well get f*****d frankly.
Google will fail yet again in social media, and tying everyones bonus into a failure from the outset is a really good way of getting a bit of staff loyalty. No wonder Google staffers are jumping ship to Facebook. Can you blame them?
for Google is that people who "Facebook" will not easily (if at all) change to any "Bing-gooble-book".
The head start for Facebook is just too big. Microsoft has the same problem with Bing and everybody has the same problem with Windows.
So perhaps Google is loosing its mind, like Microsoft, in trying to only copy, and forgetting to innovate.
Next up for Google would then be a PS3 clone, and just an other Microsoft.
Wave already exists...
Ease the connections but retain the same security it already has & it's already a better social media tool than Facebook. It just needs some push...
- Geek's Guide to Britain INSIDE GCHQ: Welcome to Cheltenham's cottage industry
- 'Catastrophic failure' of 3D-printed gun in Oz Police test
- Game Theory Is the next-gen console war already One?
- BBC suspends CTO after it wastes £100m on doomed IT system
- Peak Facebook: British users lose their Liking for Zuck's ad empire