Posted October 5, 2011 7:43 am by with 13 comments

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on Google+Share on FacebookBuffer this page

Let’s keep this one short and sweet.

The chart below was put together by Michael Degusta who blogs at The Understatement. What this shows though is no understatement at all. In fact, it could be one of the most interesting points about social networking you can make. Is it really just for the commoners? Look at how little Google’s own team uses what appears to be a linch pin service for the company moving forward.

What does this say about Google’s commitment to Google+? It’s like the stockbroker who sells a stock to his “clients” all day long then tells his buddies at the bar after work “I wouldn’t buy that piece of junk with your money!”.

Your thoughts?

Marketing Pilgrim’s Social Channel is proudly sponsored by Full Sail University, where you can earn your Masters of Science Degree in Internet Marketing in less than 2 years. Visit for more information.
  • Well, anyone considered that they see public posts of these people only?
    Also, it is not so surprising for a bigger company with multiple products. Not every product is for everyone in Google.

  • I don’t think that because the top dogs at Google don’t use Google+ is a reason not to use it.

    As they are publicly the decision makers for Google a simple mistake in a post could mean that suddenly everyone knows their name address, what their children look like and much more. Additionally information about a product or service which Google have no announced might be mistakenly posted to the wrong circle or persons.

    If I was them I wouldn’t be using a social network, maybe I’m just overly cautious.

  • @Sam – Valid points for sure. Trouble is that not eating their own dog food so to speak just looks odd. Eric Schmidt is on Twitter but not Google+. Vic Gundotra is trying to become a celebrity through this and commercials but others are not? What if Zuckerberg swore off Facebook for concerns of being “found out”? How would people see his mantra of openness if he wasn’t willing to at least give the illusion of playing his own game?

    • Hmm I see your point, I guess for the most part there isnt really a face of Google+ whereas Zuckerburg is the face of Facebook. Maybe they feel that because the brand “Google” is the face of Google+ and that its not important to have every member of Google participate as with time it will succeed regardless.

    • “Eric Schmidt is on Twitter but not Google+.” This is a point that should have been made in the main article. To Sam Osborne’s point, there is no inherent reason that CEO’s avoiding G+ marks it as a faulty system. However, there is certainly a message sent along by Schmidt maintaining a presence on a ‘rival’ network and not his own.

      In all likelihood, I think this is a combined issue of paranoia, and consumer thinking. Outside of the techie home team, few people using Google + really care about Google’s management team. Much like Zuckerberg, people follow them because of their celebrity status. Social media, for many consumers, is a numbers game. People want to feel popular, so they connect with power-users. The end result is that the only people that would judge G+ for lacking CEO support are the same people that know enough about the industry to know how insignificant that statistic really is.

      All of that being said, G+ was built on the idea of privacy and security, and by avoiding the platform for privacy reasons (if that is indeed their motivation), the CEO’s are giving the appearance that the platform doesn’t meet their privacy standards. I am reminded of the identity-theft protection service a few years back, where the CEO displayed his social security number on television to show how confident he was in the product. Of course, it backfired and his identity was compromised, but it certainly sent a strong message.

  • Kethry

    The real question is: are these folks using something else? Without that information, this isn’t a very useful article. Not everyone is interested in participating in the self importance game of social networking. They’re business men, seeing a demand and stepping in to fill it, whether they participate is irrelevant.
    Also, isn’t it possible they do have accounts, but to keep their private lives private, they used an alias? Yes, Zuckerberg uses facebook, but not everyone is interested in baring their private lives for public consumption.

    • @Kendry – With all due respect, you’re missing the point. They don’t have to give ANY personal information. They just need to be there in some fashion. As I noted above Eric Schmidt is on Twitter. Do you think he is talking about his food adventures? Not likely. This nothing to do with creating celebrity but everything to do with “buy in” on a platform. As for an alias? That would be bad policy since Google+ has been built on the “real name” mantra since the get go.

  • C’mon Frank – What’s with this indignation?

    I am sure Ray Kroc didn’t eat a McDonald’s every day.
    I don’t see Tom Brady bouncing around town in Patriots gear when its not Sunday
    Hell, we have President (actually several) deploying troops when he’s never picked up a rifle in his life.
    Kim Kardashian pitches Carl’s Jr. burgers and I am pretty sure she’s never eaten one
    I even know a guy who doesn’t use SAS software but is charged with marketing it – and he does a spectacular job by the way 😉

    I’ll also remind you that just recently HP hired Meg Whitman to run their company. Last time I checked she ran an online auction site selling Pez Dispensers – not exactly the same as a high tech computer company.

    Point is, the fact that the executives don’t use it means nothing. And there are good reasons for them not to:
    1. I am sure that the Legal department at Google has strongly urged them not to (at least not from a professional standpoint). Nothing good can come from that.
    2. I heard a rumor that running a billion dollar company can chew up a lot of time and might cut into keeping people up to date with pictures of your dog.
    3. I also heard that you don’t necessarily need to be knee deep in the products you sell to effectively market them. See examples above.
    4. It could be that they do play with them but only behind firewalls.
    5. I even heard that some people just aren’t into the whole social network sharing thing – that doesn’t preclude them from enabling people who are.

    Conversely, I know a gazillion people who consider themselves Social Media “Gurus” because they have a Facebook account and know how to use shortened links in Twitter. Are you suggesting they are more capable than the Google Executives?

    This is a baseless argument. The people who developed Google+ likely have forgotten more about social media than I’ll ever know and they are the most important pieces in the puzzle. I’ll also bet that they are very immersed in social tools but just dont come with fancy names like ‘Sergey Brin’

    Google+ should be judged based on the value of the product, not by what muckity mucks use it.

  • Maybe they are to busy for yet another social network. Working to hard like most people not active in social media…or just to old for it, lol

  • Ben

    These aren’t really valid points. You’re looking at public posts only. It’s very possible that all of those people only share with their circles or extended circles. Not only that but they’re all high level executives in a booming company so they’re all extremely busy! Most of them probably don’t use social networks at all and even if they did they probably don’t have much time for it!

  • This makes them quite poor spokespeople for their brand. Though I got to wonder, do they even use any social networking tools? Perhaps they’re not active or even in any social networking mediums at all?

  • Isn’t it they should be the ones to support their brand? Actually, it surprises me that these people behind Google doesn’t even use their new innovation. I wonder if they have tried it once, but these people are the corporate ones and must be too busy to even try.