Google wants to get into the social networking arena with Buzz, a platform that they introduced on 9th February this year. However the social networking tool that is accessed via Google Mail has not taken off so far.

Of course, on the day of launch Google saw a massive response. Searching online with particular terms is considered to be a measure of public interest in something. According to Chitika here were 1,500 searches that day for the term ‘Google Buzz.’ However just three days later searches were only in double digits compared to Twitter who has on average 87 search queries a day.

Google itself reports that from the 26th February on some days there has been only one search for Buzz.

So why has Google Buzz failed to capture peoples imaginations? One explanation is that the social networking market is already saturated and that Twitter has spent four years building followers. Is Google prepared to input the time needed to grow an enterprise in this marketplace?

The fact that Gmail already has 140 million users should have made Buzz an easy tool to use.

A big problem that Buzz has encountered relates to privacy. The tool allows others to see a great deal of private information including which website users are connected to, who they are following and who is following them. Last month Congress members asked for an investigation into Buzz and the privacy issues it raised.

Buzz product manager Todd Jackson said in a blog post:

‘Shortly after launching Google Buzz, we quickly realised we didn’t get everything right and moved as fast as possible to improve the Buzz experience,” said

“Offering everyone who uses our products transparency and control is very important to us.’

Buzz has since been tweaked and it remains to be seen whether Buzz will take off as a social networking tool.

Participation online is available to everyone who has connectivity and being able to ‘have your say’ is an empowering opportunity. But what if what someone wants to say puts your reputation on the line?

Reputation management is important. Tracking your company name and that of your key employees is part of any online marketing campaign. You can control all your online output but you cannot control the public’s response. Ignoring it could cost you your reputation and as we know, in business reputation is everything.

A recent libel case has highlighted the potential damage that an individual can do. In an unprecedented case, Michael Keith Smith, a member of the UK Independence Party, was awarded £10,000 in damages against Tracy Williams a contributor of a Yahoo! discussion group that called Mr Smith a sexual offender, a nonce, a racist bigot and a Nazi.

In Mr Smith’s case, the judge was probably right when he said that few people would have read the comments made by Ms Williams. In fact more people will be curious about her allegations now that the case has gone to court.

Unlike newspapers where there are only a few publications with a large readership the online environment is vast. Anyone can post anonymously online whether it is in a blog, a chartroom, message board or any of the social networking sites and whilst most comments are usually quickly forgotten others can go viral and spread across the internet within minutes.

Some sites are set up specifically to attract comments about others. Ratemyteachers.com, for example, encourages visitors to give their teachers scores for easiness, helpfulness and clarity. It also leaves space for comments.

Getunvanished.com is a new site still in its beta stage which allows people to leave comments about their bosses. This has important implications for businesses not just for individuals.

During regular checks in search engines for your company name, brand or members of your team can help to nip things in the bud. Setting up Google Alerts is useful too and takes the donkey work out of doing regular searches yourself. Reputation management is also a service that can be provided. Propero Digital can help to keep your company name healthy online.

The Smith case may have set a precedent for libellous online comments. Up till now there has been a great freedom of speech afforded to us all but as with any freedom it can be abused. Of course libel laws have always been there but perhaps people will think twice about making online claims that they cannot substantiate.

Google have released a new site which is set to rival the top UK credit card comparison sites. Compare UK credit cards was launched in February and many of the top credit card companies have signed up to be part of the service.

Google promise to make a search on their site take less than a second and there are various search options that enable a suitable credit card to be selected. Options include personal details such as income, age and credit rating as well as preferences such as card issuer and reward schemes.

Ian Morgan, industry head at Google, said:

‘We hope this new ad unit will help users easily find and compare credit card offers without the need to reveal personal information, while providing advertisers with a sophisticated and flexible cost-per-lead model.’

The credit card site is part of Google’s Adwords Comparison Ads which was firstly introduced in the US with mortgage related queries. It seems to be working as an affiliate site.

Although Google seem to have changed this now, when you performed a search on Google for credit cards often the top result on the pay per click section at the top of the page was the sponsored credit card comparison site. The top paid search spot is currently no longer given to the Google site in all cases. Perhaps they are taking note of the critisisms levied at them.

In theory if all the major cards sign up then this will be a great service but at what cost to other businesses? Google will certainly be using their power to give MoneySupermarket.com and GoCompare.com a run for their money.

Presumably the plan is for Google to create other financial search affiliate sites. Is Google abusing their position as the site that is used to perform up to 80% of all searches in the UK? Will companies be forced to advertise with Google simply because it uses its advantage in UK search to funnel people into their comparison sites?

Google has a great sense of humour and they like to amuse the world with their April Fool’s pranks. Thisyear was no different and they created over twenty online tricks to amuse and confuse online visitors. Here are a few examples of their pranks:

Storing anything on Google Docs
On the official Google blog they announced that it was now possible to store real objects on Google docs:

‘Store your keys, remotes, rail passes, and other objects you commonly lose with Google Docs, and you’ll never have to worry about finding them again. Having trouble moving your piano from New York to California? Upload it from your home in New York, then download it once you’re in California. Change your mind and want to share it with your friend in England instead? No problem. With one click you can have your piano delivered to anyone you choose, anywhere in the world.’

Animal Translation

Google placed an advert that linked through to an animal translation app designed for Android phones. The application produces very funny translations based on the animal selected.

Lifesize Picassa

Google offered an option which allowed users to print out a life size model of themselves.object>

Louis Vuitton has lost a five year court case against Google after they tried to ban the search engine giant from allowing other companies to use their name in their adwords campaigns.

Adwords allow companies to bid on any words, including tradenames, in order to attract search customers to their sites when they type in those terms. Louis Vuitton were naturally unhappy that companies selling counterfeit goods were using their brand name to attract visitors.

According to a Bloomberg report, Patrice de Cande, a Vuitton Lawyer, told the European Court of Justice that:

‘Google’s advertisement activities have given companies which sell fake products unprecedented visibility beyond their wildest dreams.’

Google, who state that they have a very strict policy against counterfeiting, fought against the case claiming that restricting who has access to certain words within Adwords restricts the ‘fundamental principal behind the free flow of information over the internet.’

Writing in a blog post, Google’s senior litigation counsel Dr Harjinder S. Obhi said:

‘We believe that user interest is best served by maximising the choice of keywords, ensuring relevant and informative advertising for a wide variety of different contexts. For instance, if a user is searching for information about a particular car, he or she will want more than just that car’s website. They might be looking for different dealers that sell that car, secondhand cars, reviews about the car or looking for information about other cars in the same category.

‘Some companies want to limit choice for users by extending trademark law to encompass the use of keywords in online advertising. Ultimately, they want to be able to exercise greater control over the information available to users by preventing other companies from advertising when a user enters their trademark as a search query. In other words, controlling and restricting the amount of information that users may see in response to their searches.

‘Our guiding principle has always been that advertising should benefit users, and our aim is to ensure that ads are relevant and useful. We will study the decision as we move forward in order to make sure that we continue to deliver advertising that is perceived as both valuable and relevant by our users.’

So, for the moment Google will retain its right to do business in the way that it wants. It is required however, under European Law, for them to swiftly remove any campaign that is using copyrighted words in an illegal way. In contrast to this, businesses that use copyrighted words may still themselves be taken to court if they do not make it clear that they have no commercial link with the trademarked term they are using in their campaigns.