Google+ User Geographic Distribution (2012)
This is very old data but gives a general sense of Google+ adoption as of 2012.
My general read is that the site grew through roughly 2015-2016, but was starting to decline by summer 2016 -- something I'd verified when the January/February 2017 site redesign was blamed for decreasing activity, in fact it only made a transitory blip in what was already a well-established downward trend.
Though these data are stale, social patterns generally mean that the subsequent development would have remained fairly proportionate. It's hard to get a sense of density here, though area is well-established. US, Europe, India. Virtually nothing in China, as might be expected (Great Firewall).
CircleCount have turned up in a few recent threads, they provided the data this was based on.
Along with Stone Temple Consulting Team 4 (Mark Traphagen and Eric Enge) and myself, this is probably some of the best publicly-available information on Google+ demographics and numbers.
Originally shared by Rick Lutz
Google+ World illuminated
Check out the brand new wallpaper Google+ World illuminated.
Download 1920x1280px: http://www.artoflutz.com/galerie/freebies/Google-World-illuminated.png
It shows the G+ User distribution, which you can pick up at CircleCount.
In a first step I deleted the blue background following by several modifications with Gimp. Please feel free to share it or use it as desktop wallpaper.
#digitalart #gimp Chris Macidis Nils Tschampel
Am I missing the demographics part, or it just geography we're talking about here? (It's about time for me to update my social media marketing curriculum, so it'll probably be the last time I can use G+ numbers...)
ReplyDeleteI would say that Google+ was unsuccessful in Italy. GMail regular users mabe took a look around but they almost never posted. I didn't find any of the people I know as an active user. I tried to promote a community but there were no interactions, people wanted to stay on Facebook.
ReplyDeleteMichael J. Coffey Demography includes geographic distribution. There's a reference to source data (though I think that's no longer online) at the original post.
ReplyDeleteDo you have any fresher data, by any chance?
The Diaspora and other federated networks people would Really Like to Know. We're more or less gauging off of ~50k as an estimate, with that maybe 25% of the total active population.
And since the question's always been asked when I was the one providing estimates: some idea of the scope of highly-active vs. less-active users on other social networks (Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, etc.) might be fun to see here.
Edward Morbius -- I don't have any fresher data, I don't think. Since I update my stats every time I offer my marketing class, I can say that a lot of social sites started going closed-lipped around that same time. I mostly use ranges for everything. However, without pulling up my slides from a year ago, G+ tended more male, higher income, decidedly higher education. (And, as time goes on, younger in comparison to Facebook...mainly because of the aging of Facebook users). I know I got some of the stats from CircleCount, some from you and Stone Temple's analysis of user numbers. I'm using a lot of ranges now, though, to try to capture the different estimates.
ReplyDeleteAn aside: I do an exercise where I pull generalized descriptions for strengths/weaknesses for FB, Twitter, and G+ stats and post them side by side as just "Site A" "Site B" and "Site C" and ask them to think about their marketing project and which site they'd pick. Most pick G+. Then when I reveal what the sites represent, they immediately ignore their own choice for best site and switch to saying Facebook is best. I ask them to justify their switch and they usually say "there's more people." Then we get to talk about the right people and the wrong people and how they just demonstrated that they fell victim to Facebook's own marketing, selecting an inferior tool for no valid reason. :)
Michael J. Coffey That right/wrong people distinction might be interesting to see more of what with the PLExodus and all.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the info. And it's scary that I'm a primary source of data.
(One slightly mangy Space Alien Cat, a rusty laptop, and a surprisingly generous Internet connection...)
Edward Morbius -- In our classroom context, "right" and "wrong" translates to "people that are members of your demographic and psychographic target market," but you're right applying the same idea to the exodus. The founder's effect is going to be a thing, and just wantonly flinging ideas around, it's possible that if 1/3 of the "right" G+ people go to Diaspora, 1/3 go to MeWe and 1/3 fade away or go elsewhere, a critical mass of the good G+ culture might not happen anywhere.
ReplyDelete(Another thing I like to do in class is use more demographics and then calculate the likely number of some sub-section. I 'randomly' selected a set of characteristics that ends up having more people on G+ than on Facebook, even when using FB's inflated numbers and the most pessimistic numbers for G+. And by 'random' I mean specifically selecting places where G+ shows up well and FB doesn't....)
Edward Morbius -- BTW, my first comment was due to my incorrectly reading the title as "Demographic Distribution" not "Geographic Distribution." Now I'm off to give my class a scolding for not reading the details of their last assignment...
ReplyDeleteMichael J. Coffey I'm doing a lot of thinking on what makes specific communities, particularly more intellectual ones, jell. Not sure if they're ready to be put into practice, but I may not have the choice.
ReplyDeleteMaybe some additional thoughts here? plus.google.com - In a debate, people tend to react negatively when asked for evidence to back ... Jonathan Tweet does a lot to foster thoughtful conversation (I almost put "debate"). The kind of stuff that's on the deeper end of average even for G+.
ReplyDeleteNeat! I'm surprised (and pleased) to see New Zealand so clearly on this map, given the very small population.
ReplyDeleteKarin Curran I blame the sheep ;-)
ReplyDelete(They're very tech-savvy.)