Is Google+ *Really* More Highly Rated Than Twitter And Facebook? [INFOGRAPHIC]

Recently we investigated findings from the 2012 American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI), which tracks a variety of economic sectors, industries, companies and government services, including social media, reporting scores on a scale of 0 to 100 in customer satisfaction.

This year, four new social channels made the ASCI shortlist, including Twitter, Facebook and Pinterest, to be judged alongside Facebook, which has been a mainstay in the index since 2010.

And your winner? That would be Google+, which rated higher than any other property in the entire social media sector.

Indeed, Google+, which scored 78 out of 100, was only matched by Wikipedia amongst internet properties, finished fourteen points ahead of Twitter and seventeen ahead of Facebook, and beat social media overall by some nine points.

Yep – something doesn’t add up. I’m not sure exactly how ASCI gauges the satisfaction of the folks that it polls, but the organization concluded that Google+ was so highly rated largely because it wasn’t Facebook.

Google+, however, has grown to 250 million users in about a year and appears to benefit from a mobile app that is well liked, along with its ability to integrate other Google services like search, YouTube, and mail via the Google+ platform. In addition, the Google+ social network is not inundated with the kind of advertising that seems to irritate many Facebook and other social media users.

Which is all well and good. But seventeen points (or 28 percent) better? I don’t think so. Google+ might have 250 million “users” (slash auto-registrations) but we all know that only a very small percentage of those actually use the service – the average person spends less than 4 minutes a month on Google+, compared with 7.5 hours for Facebook – so what exactly are they satisfied about? The quality of their fleeting visit?

Indeed, when I originally wrote about this data one or two wags suggested to me that perhaps ASCI only polled Google employees. Even if enough of them were included it might explain this very strange outcome. What do you think? Hit the comments to let me know.

(Infographic source: Direct Marketing News.)