A Greenlight global "Search & Social Survey (2011-2012)" surveyed 500 people in order to glean insight into how consumers engage with marketers today, and formulate views on what the future might hold.
The survery involved "students, law enforcement professionals, medical staff, accountants, lawyers, the unemployed, and everyone in between", indicate Facebook could potentially capture close to a quarter of the search market globally were it to launch a search engine of its own.
Facebook is planning to improve its search engine so its users can more easily find shared or liked articles, videos and status updates. However, Facebook has yet to show any public interest in crawling and indexing the entire web with a traditional information retrieval search engine.
Greenlight when asked the user if they would use a future Facebook search engine if the firm were to launch one to rival Google's, "5% said they would 'definitely' use the search engine, while 26% respondents, categorically said that they simply would not use a future Facebook search engine, 17% responded either 'Definitely' and 'Probably', and 48% said either 'No' and 'Probably not'.
The results also suggest that Facebook could capture around 22% of the global search market. "This market share would make Facebook the second most utilised search engine in every major market except for China, Japan, and Russia, where it would occupy an uncontested third place," Greenlight said.
According to Greenlight, Facebook could increase that projected market share to a maximum of 50% within a few years by converting the least overtly loyal Google users over to them. However, that increase would need to come from the 27% of respondents who replied 'Maybe, but only if Facebook's search engine were better than Google or Bing.
23% of Google users have been +1'ing listings in Google's search result
On the flip side, Greenlight also found that Google+ might be more successful than most have initially speculated. For instance, 23% Google users have been +1'ing listings in Google's search results. When compared to the 35% of users that routinely 'like' a brand or company on Facebook. While, 28% respondents said they had no idea what '+1' actually meant.
In other no so releated, but Google news,
Google is reportedly in talks to acquire the social platform "Meebo." The search ginat is expected to pay approximately $100 million for the seven-year-old technology company.
Meebo has over 250 million monthly global visitors and is widely used by both consumers and publishers.
Meebo CEO Seth Strenberg has not commented on the negotiations.
A Google spokeswoman said, "We can't comment on rumor or speculation" response.
Also, a second Google sponsored legal report written by lawyers from the Ammori Group, has appeared and argues that antitrust challenges against Google are likely to fail because Google's critics' arguments lack legal merit and/or make little sense from a policy perspective.
The report begins and concludes that it's ultimately a waste of time and scarce resources for regulators in the US to pursue an antitrust case against Google [via]:
In short, the FTC has better uses for its scarce resources than pursuing an inquiry or investigation that would merely raise the cost of one rival, Google, for the benefit of other rivals that have proposed unworkable and detrimental remedies for their novel theories of antitrust harm that is effected through "search bias."
[…]This article concludes that the cures proposed by the competitors are worse than Google's alleged disease. The proposed remedies might benefit the short-term economic of Google's competitors . . . but benefiting competitors is not the goal of antitrust law. The goal of antitrust law is to promote consumer welfare, competition, and innovation. The proposed remedies, however, would do the opposite: harm consumers, impede competition, and stifle innovation.
The remedies would invite government agencies and technical committees to second-guess and evaluate both mundane and game-changing engineering and user- interface decisions regarding Google Search, reverse long-standing fair use principles rooted in constitutional requirements, and empower competitors to litigate rather than compete against daily innovations and disclosures by Google.
Full report is embedded below: