Teksti: Jussi Aho
In my thesis “Strategic software product management: Designing a template for product strategy and product roadmap” I explored how to first build a product strategy but also the role that company strategy plays in it. In this post I wanted to dive into the topic through a practical example of a failure in product strategy and how the connection between company strategy and product strategy is essentially a two way street.
Strategy is notoriously difficult to get right. Especially in a company with a bigger product portfolio, managing the alignment with product strategy and company strategy becomes crucial. The company strategy outlines in which markets the company will compete in, but the product strategy is the execution of how to win that market with a winning product.
Creating a solid product strategy at its core is about understanding who the product is for, what value it adds and how it’s sold, but it’s also about considering the business goals of the company. In the end the product exists within the boundaries of the company strategy and contributes to that goal.
If the product strategy is not aligned with what the company is looking to achieve the two visions will end up pulling in opposite directions. In worst cases the product might end up having a negative impact on the company, in others the product fails to achieve the goal set by the strategy, essentially by building the wrong thing.
One telling example of this disconnect from the past years is the now forgotten social media venture from Google, Google+. Google+ was a social media site launched in 2011 that aimed to take the social media crown from Facebook.
Google+ wasn’t Google’s first attempt at social but it turned out to be the biggest failure. Google saw that Facebook users were spending more and more time on the platform and the site was nearing 500 million users. Google saw the value of the data that Facebook had on its users, saw it as a threat and decided the threat had to be countered head on.
Google’s business strategy was to own the social graph. Google was looking to transform their platform to offer more personalized and targeted experiences, eventually translating to more revenue. With that in mind it was reacting to a threat of what it considered a competitor and crafted the business strategy accordingly, an understandable move. It considered it had the resources and the reach to win the battle.
Right tools but hitting the wrong nail
It was how Google set out to achieve the goal on the product strategy side where things went wrong. On paper Google had the tools to succeed, the resources and a big existing user base across multiple different services like Gmail and Google owned Youtube.
The problem was that Google tried to compete with Facebook head on in their own game. There wasn’t a clear value proposition for how Google+ provided more or a new kind of value to the user. Providing an arguably slightly improved experience for the same service was not enough to compel users to switch from Facebook. Google failed to consider two key aspects; how to delight the user and how to overcome the network effect. People essentially enjoy using Facebook because other people are there and it’s difficult to overcome that barrier to have enough people to move to a largely similar platform.
Noticing the lack of traction for the site Google decided to double down and made another big mistake, by forcing people to sign up to Google+. Google rolled out Google+ to their other services like Youtube and Gmail, requiring people to have a Google+ account and their real name on display when commenting on Youtube videos. This allowed Google to boast having 500 million users on the platform while having very little real engagement and infuriating the users at the same time. Google+ filled with accounts that were never active and in some cases people with multiple Gmail accounts had multiple Google+ profiles to their name.
This is where Google should’ve taken a step back to understand why there was no traction, it clearly wasn’t a matter of reach. The Google users were aware of Google+ but decided not to use the product. This is why the influence between the two strategies should be a two way street, it could’ve raised the question if the company strategy was focusing on the right market with the right goal and if the social space was the right arena for Google as a company at all?
Instead it was as if Google looked at their product through the Kano framework (used to understand which product features impact customer satisfaction and how) and decided to double down on the dissatisfier features.
In addition there was a lack of clear focus when it came to what the service was supposed to be, which resulted in frustrating flip flopping for the users such as first not allowing business accounts and deleting accounts that didn’t use a real name but later admitting it was a mistake.
Playing the wrong game
It could be said that Google’s approach to social products just wasn’t fun, offering sort of an excel spreadsheet version of a social network, but going head to head with the market leader in any market is a challenge, and one that requires a good strategy. Trying to compete with a slightly improved product won’t work for long as the incumbent can simply adapt to offer the same functionality. Looking at the successful newer products in the world of social media such as TikTok and Snapchat they succeeded not by winning in the same game as Facebook, but essentially by changing the game. They didn’t replace Facebook, but gained traction through innovation. This is also what Google could’ve done. Double down on a speciality, a niche, find the new market through users who felt underserved by Facebook or change the game to offer something truly new and delightful. This is what the blue ocean strategy is about, swimming away from the saturated red ocean market to find the new opportunity.
In the end Google+ failed because it was built from top-down, not around understanding the user. Google was determined to turn their reach into a new leading product in social networks without understanding what delights the users and what is the key to a social platform; real interactions, not the amount of user accounts. While Google+ had some innovative features such as circles and Hangouts for group video calls, which later became a standalone product, it wasn’t enough to make the product a success.
Google had the resources and the user base but fundamentally failed to build a strategy to captivate the users to enjoy their product. Even when seeing the resistance from their users and trying to finally pivot, they forgot the user and ended up doing the wrong things. In addition there was no feedback loop back to the company strategy which would’ve helped to re-evaluate the whole endeavor.
This is what a good product strategy is really about, it has to be user centric and to work together with the business strategy, not enforce it blindly. Trying to force users to your product that doesn’t add value will never work. If the product is not gaining traction it’s time to revisit the strategy, but again, keeping the user in the middle. Google finally admitted defeat and pulled the plug on Google+ in 2019.
References
BBC News (2019) Google+ to shut down early after data from 52 million users exposed. Available at: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-47771927 (Accessed: 16 April 2025).
Denning, S. (2015) Five reasons why Google+ died. Forbes. Available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2015/04/17/five-reasons-why-google-died/ (Accessed: 16 April 2025).
Imperial College Business School (2022) Why did Google+ fail?. Available at: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/business-school/ib-knowledge/strategy-leadership/why-did-google-fail/ (Accessed: 16 April 2025).
Mashable (2019) The race to preserve (almost) everything on Google+ before it shuts down. Available at: https://mashable.com/archive/google-plus-history (Accessed: 16 April 2025).
Perez, S. (2018) Looking back at Google+. TechCrunch, 8 October. Available at: https://techcrunch.com/2018/10/08/looking-back-at-google/ (Accessed: 16 April 2025).
Schaefer, M. (2018) Three lessons all new businesses can learn from the Google+ failure. Schaefer Marketing Solutions. Available at: https://businessesgrow.com/2018/10/09/google-failure/ (Accessed: 16 April 2025).
Suurin osa Showcasen blogeista on toteutettu osana Laurean opintojaksoja. Koko koulutustarjontaamme voi tutustua nettisivuillamme. Tarjoamme kymmenien tutkintoon johtavien koulutuksien lisäksi myös paljon täydennys- ja erikoistumiskoulutuksia sekä yksittäisiä opintojaksoja avoimen AMK:n kautta!