Google+ Pages

On Nov. 7, 2011, Google, Inc. introduced its new social networking program for businesses and brand owners: Google+ Pages. See, http://bit.ly/uslK6C. It is the latest in a series of social networking services available on the Internet, which includes Twitter, LinkedIn, and perhaps most notably, Facebook.

Earlier in 2011, Google had introduced Google+. Any person with a Google account can create a Google+ profile in order to share personal information, such as short messages, photographs, and links, with selected people. The selected people are assigned to one or more of the user's “circles.” The user can designate personal information as either public or private, and control access to the various levels of information to only members of certain circles.

As of Oct. 13, 2011, Google+ had 40 million users. See, http://bit.ly/y4zSfX.

While a Google+ profile is intended for individuals, Google+ Pages are intended for businesses, celebrities, public figures and brand owners. This new service allows companies to create profiles (or pages) that have been referred to as “officially” branded pages. For commentary, see, “Google Launches an Official Guide for Sharing Promoting and Measuring Pages,” The Next Web, http://tnw.co/vnvSfY.

A Google+ Page may be created by any Google+ user, presumably an officer, employee or authorized agent of the entity featured in the Google+ page. The pages are intended to be used to share the entity's personally provided information with the public. The entity can also create circles, which allow it to target personal, business or product information to only certain groups of people.

Google+ Pages are similar to Facebook “fan” pages. These social media offer many similar benefits; however, Google+ Pages has had an inauspicious start, to say the least, and does not yet appear to be a serious Facebook challenger.

So far in its short existence, Google+ has faced several “scandals” and waning interest. See, “A Question to Those of You Still Using Google+: Why?,” Legal Blog Watch, http://bit.ly/xVOUat. Significant changes may have to be made so that Google+
can not only attract more businesses and brand owners, but also assuage legitimate concerns that Google+ Pages is no more than a playground for troublemakers.

The Impetus for Google+ Pages

Google+ is clearly intended to compete with Facebook, arguably the most popular and well-known social networking program currently available. Google+ mimics and attempts to build upon some of Facebook's most user-friendly features. Where Facebook users have “friends,” Google+ users have “circles.” Where Facebook has “fan” pages, Google+ has Pages.

A recent scandal involved Google engineer Steve Yegge, who accidentally posted a message on his public circle that was intended for his private circle. Yegge wrote: “The Google+ platform is a pathetic afterthought. Google+ is a knee-jerk reaction, a study in short-term thinking, predicated on the incorrect notion that Facebook is successful because they built a great product.” http://cnet.co/AcA8a9. This illustrates that Google's own people didn't appreciate the Google+ platform at its outset ' or even how to use it.

But others have definitely seen the positive aspects of Google+ Pages.

First and foremost, Google+ Pages gives companies yet another forum in which to reach consumers and potential consumers. This is invaluable for companies promoting their brands and products. New or established companies rolling out a new branded product may find Google+ Pages to be an especially helpful aspect of an overall advertising company.

Google+ Pages currently allows brand owners to interact only with those consumers who elect to be part of the brand's “circle.” The Next Web commentary cited above opines that this will allow pages to promote better consumer loyalty and heighten engagement between brands and their customers. A win-win situation for consumers and brand owners.

Google+ Pages are subject to Contest and Promotion Policies, which prohibit contests, sweepstakes, offers, coupons, or other such promotions (see, http://bit.ly/uIfbRU). While the brand owner might view this negatively, consumers/users might find it preferable; it could cut down on spam or unwanted information being forced upon the consumer/user.

Growing Pains

Another recent scandal involving a Google+ Page for Bank of America makes abundantly clear that the new service has some serious flaws in its current incarnation.

The Google+ Pages Terms require the creator of a new page to certify that “I agree to the Pages Terms and I am authorized to create this page” (http://bit.ly/wad6zq). The Pages Terms also state that Google “reserves the right to block or remove Google+ Pages that violate law, third party rights, the Google+ Pages Terms.” However, there is no mention that Google is vetting registrations or otherwise confirming that the creator has any real and tangible connection to the company for which the Page is being registered.

And it is clear that Google has not been vetting all registrations.

Recently, a Google+ Page was created for Bank of America (BoA). The creator, however, was quite obviously not affiliated with the financial institution. The home page contained several images of a scowling BoA officer, along with the taglines: “We took your bailout money and your mortgage rates are going up,” and “We are committed to making as much money as possible from usury, coercion, bribery, insider trading, extortion, and debit card fees as possible.” See, “Bank of America Gets Punked Online,” MSN Money, http://on-msn.com/sqIIH5.

This home page was visible for over one week, which raises several concerns: How did the page get created in the first place? Why didn't Google notice the offending content and block or remove it? Why didn't Bank of America notice the unauthorized page and take steps to remove it? This situation was ' and is ' embarrassing for Google and the brand owner.

Objections

There is no formal opposition process through which a brand owner might request that Google shut down or transfer a particular Page. As previously noted, the Pages Terms state that Google “reserves the right to block or remove Google+ Pages that violate law, third party rights, the Google+ Pages Terms.” You can report inappropriate content (http://bit.ly/zu8w4Z) or an inappropriate profile (http://bit.ly/zoycoY), but that does not give a brand owner assurances that its complaints will actually be handled in an appropriate, timely, and effective manner.

Google+ recently revised its features to allow for a page to be transferred to a new owner. See, http://bit.ly/rCpECb. However, it is not clear whether Google itself would transfer the page in response to a brand owner's complaint, or how Google would handle a contentious battle between brand owner and page owner ' which might happen in the case of two companies with valid rights to the same trademark, or in the case of a Page acting like a “gripe site.”

If Google declines to take action that a brand owner deems appropriate, timely or effective to protect its legal rights, it is not yet clear whether a brand owner can establish a cause of action, such as those provided for under the UDRP or ACPA, relating to improper registration and/or use of a Google+ Page.

The Future

In order to survive, thrive and become a real challenger to Facebook, Google+ Pages will need to make changes beyond simply becoming more user-friendly and attracting more individual users. It will also need to attract more companies and brand owners, and to do that, Google+ will need to become more sympathetic to these entities and their brands. That could be done by establishing a more stringent vetting process before a Google+ Page is created, and by establishing a formal opposition process for brand owners to protect their valuable intellectual property.

On Nov. 7, 2011, Google, Inc. introduced its new social networking program for businesses and brand owners: Google+ Pages. See, http://bit.ly/uslK6C. It is the latest in a series of social networking services available on the Internet, which includes Twitter, LinkedIn, and perhaps most notably, Facebook.

Earlier in 2011, Google had introduced Google+. Any person with a Google account can create a Google+ profile in order to share personal information, such as short messages, photographs, and links, with selected people. The selected people are assigned to one or more of the user's “circles.” The user can designate personal information as either public or private, and control access to the various levels of information to only members of certain circles.

As of Oct. 13, 2011, Google+ had 40 million users. See, http://bit.ly/y4zSfX.

While a Google+ profile is intended for individuals, Google+ Pages are intended for businesses, celebrities, public figures and brand owners. This new service allows companies to create profiles (or pages) that have been referred to as “officially” branded pages. For commentary, see, “Google Launches an Official Guide for Sharing Promoting and Measuring Pages,” The Next Web, http://tnw.co/vnvSfY.

A Google+ Page may be created by any Google+ user, presumably an officer, employee or authorized agent of the entity featured in the Google+ page. The pages are intended to be used to share the entity's personally provided information with the public. The entity can also create circles, which allow it to target personal, business or product information to only certain groups of people.

Google+ Pages are similar to Facebook “fan” pages. These social media offer many similar benefits; however, Google+ Pages has had an inauspicious start, to say the least, and does not yet appear to be a serious Facebook challenger.

So far in its short existence, Google+ has faced several “scandals” and waning interest. See, “A Question to Those of You Still Using Google+: Why?,” Legal Blog Watch, http://bit.ly/xVOUat. Significant changes may have to be made so that Google+
can not only attract more businesses and brand owners, but also assuage legitimate concerns that Google+ Pages is no more than a playground for troublemakers.

The Impetus for Google+ Pages

Google+ is clearly intended to compete with Facebook, arguably the most popular and well-known social networking program currently available. Google+ mimics and attempts to build upon some of Facebook's most user-friendly features. Where Facebook users have “friends,” Google+ users have “circles.” Where Facebook has “fan” pages, Google+ has Pages.

A recent scandal involved Google engineer Steve Yegge, who accidentally posted a message on his public circle that was intended for his private circle. Yegge wrote: “The Google+ platform is a pathetic afterthought. Google+ is a knee-jerk reaction, a study in short-term thinking, predicated on the incorrect notion that Facebook is successful because they built a great product.” http://cnet.co/AcA8a9. This illustrates that Google's own people didn't appreciate the Google+ platform at its outset ' or even how to use it.

But others have definitely seen the positive aspects of Google+ Pages.

First and foremost, Google+ Pages gives companies yet another forum in which to reach consumers and potential consumers. This is invaluable for companies promoting their brands and products. New or established companies rolling out a new branded product may find Google+ Pages to be an especially helpful aspect of an overall advertising company.

Google+ Pages currently allows brand owners to interact only with those consumers who elect to be part of the brand's “circle.” The Next Web commentary cited above opines that this will allow pages to promote better consumer loyalty and heighten engagement between brands and their customers. A win-win situation for consumers and brand owners.

Google+ Pages are subject to Contest and Promotion Policies, which prohibit contests, sweepstakes, offers, coupons, or other such promotions (see, http://bit.ly/uIfbRU). While the brand owner might view this negatively, consumers/users might find it preferable; it could cut down on spam or unwanted information being forced upon the consumer/user.

Growing Pains

Another recent scandal involving a Google+ Page for Bank of America makes abundantly clear that the new service has some serious flaws in its current incarnation.

The Google+ Pages Terms require the creator of a new page to certify that “I agree to the Pages Terms and I am authorized to create this page” (http://bit.ly/wad6zq). The Pages Terms also state that Google “reserves the right to block or remove Google+ Pages that violate law, third party rights, the Google+ Pages Terms.” However, there is no mention that Google is vetting registrations or otherwise confirming that the creator has any real and tangible connection to the company for which the Page is being registered.

And it is clear that Google has not been vetting all registrations.

Recently, a Google+ Page was created for Bank of America (BoA). The creator, however, was quite obviously not affiliated with the financial institution. The home page contained several images of a scowling BoA officer, along with the taglines: “We took your bailout money and your mortgage rates are going up,” and “We are committed to making as much money as possible from usury, coercion, bribery, insider trading, extortion, and debit card fees as possible.” See, “Bank of America Gets Punked Online,” MSN Money, http://on-msn.com/sqIIH5.

This home page was visible for over one week, which raises several concerns: How did the page get created in the first place? Why didn't Google notice the offending content and block or remove it? Why didn't Bank of America notice the unauthorized page and take steps to remove it? This situation was ' and is ' embarrassing for Google and the brand owner.

Objections

There is no formal opposition process through which a brand owner might request that Google shut down or transfer a particular Page. As previously noted, the Pages Terms state that Google “reserves the right to block or remove Google+ Pages that violate law, third party rights, the Google+ Pages Terms.” You can report inappropriate content (http://bit.ly/zu8w4Z) or an inappropriate profile (http://bit.ly/zoycoY), but that does not give a brand owner assurances that its complaints will actually be handled in an appropriate, timely, and effective manner.

Google+ recently revised its features to allow for a page to be transferred to a new owner. See, http://bit.ly/rCpECb. However, it is not clear whether Google itself would transfer the page in response to a brand owner's complaint, or how Google would handle a contentious battle between brand owner and page owner ' which might happen in the case of two companies with valid rights to the same trademark, or in the case of a Page acting like a “gripe site.”

If Google declines to take action that a brand owner deems appropriate, timely or effective to protect its legal rights, it is not yet clear whether a brand owner can establish a cause of action, such as those provided for under the UDRP or ACPA, relating to improper registration and/or use of a Google+ Page.

The Future

In order to survive, thrive and become a real challenger to Facebook, Google+ Pages will need to make changes beyond simply becoming more user-friendly and attracting more individual users. It will also need to attract more companies and brand owners, and to do that, Google+ will need to become more sympathetic to these entities and their brands. That could be done by establishing a more stringent vetting process before a Google+ Page is created, and by establishing a formal opposition process for brand owners to protect their valuable intellectual property.