The topic of social log-ins has always been polarizing. One one hand, they offer convenience by being able to centralize logins for users, and can often make inroads to engagement easier by lessening the hoops that users have to jump through in order to find your brand. On the other hand, users may see the login as a hoop itself, a barrier between them and your site.
TechCrunch recently made a post highlighting the stats from social login service Janrain, which allows sites to plug in social media credentials from other services to sign up for their own. Of course, the primary leader seems to be Facebook, with Google Accounts bringing up a respectable second place. As Google+ accounts have been enabled recently, the next set of data could include Facebook’s 46% lead dropping more than it already has.
That 46% represents a 3% drop since Q4 2012, as Google’s share rose by the same amount. While that’s hardly a large chunk, it shows a previous leader losing ground and someone seizing it almost immediately. The question is: why?
The typical reason why users enter a site through social login is convenience. This is the foundation which the concept is built on, as if it’s more convenient to sign up with a separate account, they would. For brands, they must keep this in mind: all benefits to their product are secondary in the users’ mind to a basic need for a smooth, easy transition.
However, as Facebook has grown, the added layers of complication for the user has frown with it. Often having to sign up for a site in the first place represents one barrier, but being asked to give a brand access to their account, even through a prompt for an automated Like or Follow, give another. Throw possible notifications, event invites, or other pestering, it becomes a matter of what users are willing to stand for the original convenience of being able to use their Facebook.
Often, the best-implemented social logins will use the service in the more subtle ways possible. A game that gives users the options of signing up won’t make them choose another username if one already exists. They won’t need to choose a new password or e-mail. They will be able to integrate their already-existing friends list to reduce the amount of work they have to in order to connect. Having a value-added convenience to using Facebook with your product allows you to gain goodwill the old fashioned way; users don’t like feeling that they’re just another asset being monetized.
Perhaps that’s where Google and Google+ are gaining ground. The advantage of their low population is that brands may not see them as valuable, making the overall experience smoother. Without being pestered to join Circles, subscribe to a page or turn their feeds into billboards, they can get around what they wanted to do in the first place: using someone’s service without being encumbered.
The balance between benefiting from your users and providing them a pleasurable service is complicated to strike. Sway too far to one side and you’ll alienate them, and stray too far to the other and you won’t be able to monetize. However, it may be wise to err on the side of caution when adding layers of complication to your service: brands can always find new ways of engaging users to grow, but the PR that comes with a disgruntled base is hard to make up.