Shared publicly  - 
Question: if organizational Plus accounts are prohibited until biz accounts are created, but it's pretty clear the Plus team intends to let some media orgs keep theirs anyway (it seems really rude to me that they are creating and growing them against the project team's express wishes) - should ReadWriteWeb just go ahead and launch one too?
Garance A Drosehn's profile photoCraig Newman's profile photoRichard MacManus's profile photoRobyn Tippins's profile photo
No harm in doing so, by the looks, no. I would happily add an RWW account to my circles :)
fuck it- go for it! what's pissing me off is that the oly topic of conversation on G+ is G+ mix that shit up!
I've been wondering the same thing. I want to play by the rules but I also don't want to miss out on a chance to get my foot in the door early.
I think Google is doing the right thing here. I would wait.
We (Samsung) opted not to create one to be respectful to Google's request. We're waiting to see how different official brand pages will be. While it's not a big deal, it is unfortunate that the process is not completely fair since some jumped in without asking.
I think RRW should sign up to be a part of the business pilot program, but have its writers here. That way you are already in the door by the time the business side starts.
I'm annoyed by the businesses who are creating accounts, particularly after Google asked them not to. I understand wanting to get in early, but I feel like Google must have a plan that will let businesses integrate without cluttering the space.
I'm w/ Anastacia. I'd play by the rules. Get the writers in here and hold off on creating a RWW account. I'm sure the team would appreciate that.
I'm not adding any brands or companies to my circles - knowing that functionality is likely to be different and companies who have jumped in will end up having to transfer somehow
I was thinking about this today, specifically about RWW because you've all been great about using it via personal accounts and NOT setting up a business account. But I think the brand gains from you, from Audrey, from Abraham, etc., so I'm not sure right now you need an RWW account (same with Twitter — I'm about 100x more likely to click a Marshall or Audrey or Abraham etc. tweet than the RWW official feed). Have you gotten any official G+ feedback on this yet? (And @Phil Henley has a great point.)
No. They should not.

More so they should take a stance that encourages others to also wait.
Yeah this seems like one of those cases where you have to have strict enforcement or let everybody slide. Otherwise it seems like when Apple was censoring the App Store but letting Playboy keep selling. They'll let the brands that are big enough to be valuable to them (read: likely advertisers) stick around.

Anyway, you should go ahead and create RWW. A lot of people will follow. Once you have 25k followers, I bet they'll transition you to a real brand account.
What are you waiting for ? Just do it.
+Marshall Kirkpatrick Not sure if RWW needs a presence because you rep them so well here. It seems your personal brand is practically synonymous with RWW. When I read your feed, I know I am getting timely, thoughtful content. OTOH, if you break the rules, it could sully both brands a bit.
My thoughts exactly, when I came on board & noticed several profiles as business accounts! I believe you should put that valid question to "the powers that be" & await their response ...
I think it's fine for individual writers to have accounts here, and to post "Here's something I'm working on for RRW" (or whatever), but official organization pages could probably wait a little longer. It's easy to get too impatient, but if google+ does a good job then I expect you won't really lose much of anything by waiting to see what they roll out.
Admittedly my previous post was kind of vague, and I'm not sure how long I would wait before trying an organizational page. But it seems a bit hasty and rude to rush in after just a few weeks, when they're still working on how google+ should be working for real people!

If you do an organizational page, then it's very likely that people will start pestering google with suggestions for how organizational pages should work. that's what would be rude about rushing to create organizational pages when google itself says that they know they're not ready for such pages.
I created the +Chicago Sun-Times account before Google came out against branded accounts. I haven't deleted it, nor have they, because I'm willing to follow Google's wishes on the matter and don't see a huge benefit to pushing ahead and potentially losing the community that's started or having to start over. But I want to leave it there "just in case."
That said, if our competition jumps in and Google continues its uneven enforcement of account policing, I may change that stance.
As a side benefit to holding off, I get to experiment with the space before jumping in in an official capacity.
Sanctioned or not, I won't add a brand/blog account to any of my circles because it would flood the stream. I have the same issue on Twitter and Facebook. Although on FB, if I do bother to like your page I can at least hide all of your updates.
My personal opinion is no but to stay competitive probably.
I do think individual writers should be on here, and then have your official sites include pointers to "Follow Marshall as he experiments on google+!". Not sure how well that would work out for the writers. :-)
Google is being very responsive to customer feedback and very upfront about what they are doing. Given that they're respecting us as users, I think it's good to respect their request and wait.
Waiting is probably the best course. Google will monetize this, they find a way to monetize most everything and usually in a non-intrusive manner. Once Google has it's ducks in a row for organizational sites, they will likely have something that addresses their need to monetize and the organizations' needs to monetize.
+Marshall Kirkpatrick also noting that not being "in the program" might play out to RRW's RWW's advantage. As you'll be able to talk / speculate freely.

Edit: :-P
For those of you keeping score at home, so far 3 out of 8 people who turned ReadWriteWeb into an acronym here have called it RRW. Either way, thanks for all the thoughtful advice, everyone. Would love all the advice you can send.
I would hold off. I reckon the Google+ team are cooking up something pretty special for organisations
I'm with all the rest that say to hold off.
Why note? Social media platforms are for us, and here to enable us to communicate in new wonderful ways. Twitter sure didn't turn out like they originally planned. Besides, these new demands and uses will hopefully help out the team to plan out features.
ask for forgiveness rather than permission
I see many organizations already on G+. Mashable, TNW, etc...
Marshall, I think you should open an account and it should have two posts. One is basically a copy of this one: you respect Google's desire to hold off on business accounts but because the enforcement seems uneven, you've stuck a flag in the sand. The other post: a list of all the writers with a link to their G+ profiles.

I don't understand the irregular nature of enforcement. I should retest my summary post that noted who was live and who wasn't -
I would say wait it out. Though it is incredibly tempting.... 
We're waiting ourselves but I have to say it's pissing me off that Google is letting companies get away with breaking the rules and building up their G+ audience in advance or those that are complying.
@ Oliver Google isn't letting some non-people break the rules. They are inviting a handful to take part in a trial to help deveople a product that will be right for all "non-person" entities. 
Robert, it's not at all how I saw things unfold. First some media pages started appearing on G+, then Google said it was not OK for them to do so yet (see Danny Sullivan's early posts on this topic), and only then they made it possible for brands to ask for an invite (at least via a public channel). Yet the unsanctioned media pages were still up and running last time I checked. It should be a level playing field, not a race that some organizations have already started before others can even line up on the starting line.
@ Oliver it wasn't a race. The Goog have picked a handful of accounts for a trail and to help them develop. Who they have picked would depend on established relationships and the scope of the brand.
Non-person accounts will be available in the future, I would hope people are interested more in Google getting it right.
You can't do a limited trial with everyone.
Lorre S
I'd say wait and be respectful. You have such a strong brand that I can't see a need to rush it. Use the time to think more about your content for G+. What is here that you want to use to your advantage?
But Mashable is here as Mashable. I'm wondering why that's permitted when I'm not allowed to add my own company here yet.
yes, go ahead and be a renegade :)
Definitely not happy seeing 'non-user' accounts when I removed mine after Google made their position clear. The advantage to early adopters is clear, so those of us sitting on the sidelines are potentially penalized, while the organizations who flaunt the rules are rewarded. Not happy.
+Marshall Kirkpatrick , just wanted to mention a useful pattern I've seen: Write a post with a question like this and then leave the first two comments as "Yes" and "No" - then ask people to +1 their choice.
Wait. You are likely to really want some features of the new biz accounts, and by jumping ahead you've created yourself a time/energy sink in trying to move people over. A year from now you will hardly feel this little window where you didn't have a biz presence. (or in your case a little window when your biz presence was driven solely by your writers posting as themselves)
Is no one able to think beyond me me me?
do u have any idea how much exposure +The Next Web . for instance, has gotten by having a presence on Google+ from Day 1?
Don't do it. I'm resisting. I think it's gauche.
Just keep the class that you and your team always continue to provide. There is a reason you guys are the way you are. Let the others waste their time.
+Autism Speaks has a very small presence. We're just using it to test. We seem to be picking up followers just because people are searching for the term "autism". We don't have plans yet to expand -- just making sure no one squats on our org's name.
I'd be curious to see what kind of traffic referrals other sites are seeing from Google+ (namely, the ones who have set up technically forbidden "official" profiles for their brands). We could well be missing out, albeit temporarily. Hopefully Google makes good on their promise to launch brand profiles a week or so from now.
You seem to have great engagement as an individual right now. If you created a logo account, do you think that'd increase? How many of the early adopters who are enjoying the (still!) very personal nature of this network will respond negatively if you choose to flout the site owners' rules and start a brand account instead?

I think you and RWW could do some other things to engage further, without creating a brand account.

One thing I like is badging your personal avatars -- adding a little RWW logo.

Another would be to make sure that all authors are on Google+, and to make sure that each author's account "plusses" out his/her stories as the come out.

Finally, you and/or +Richard MacManus could make sure to share all stories that come from RWW.
I understand that other people are doing it, and thus it might be more tempting to have your company do it...but it is a matter of ethical integrity at this point. Google has made it clear they want the site to be for users only right now, not companies or organizations. I still firmly believe that you should submit to be one of the groups involved in the business pilot and help shape what the business profiles will look like. I understand that a lot of people are looking at Facebook and really wanting to get involved in Google+ fast, but remember how long it was before Facebook opened up to businesses? Even on the current projected timeline Google+ is still moving at a fairly rapid pace.
+Dan Rowinski I think Dan, you've got the approach I appreciate. Giving unequal access to news & business entities is just unfair.& will rebound negatively to G+. I just added all the writers mentioned here to my circles & will be ready to circle the mag when you have a presence.
I probably would not. Like others have said, you can build up your brand and community in other ways. You might even find new and interesting ways, and be rewarded for it.

But, hey, I'm just speaking theoretical because I'm not here to promote anything!
Seems a double standard. Self-serving and to be expected. They shut down our brand page (legal news) but other niche org brand pages remain in place. My bet is that RWW would get away with it (like Mashable, TNW, etc.) - so the question might just be: who do you want to piss off (albeit temporarily)?
I've been wondering the same thing...
It boggles the mind some of the assumptions people are making. Fact: some publications had a G+ page before Google publicly made available an application form to join the trial. The chronology is key.
True Olivier. But it's also pretty clear joining G+ that sign-ups were meant for humans and not entities.
Add a comment...