The YouTube video of a very glum Saurabh Sharma, Google+ product manager, announcing that all users must be publicly known by "the name they commonly go by in the real world" set off a barrage of catcalls from around the web criticizing this new policy by the nascent would-be Facebook-killer. Google+'s Names Policy provides a four day grace period to allow all users utilizing pseudonyms to switch over to their real name or face profile deletion.
This policy has a marked impact on all online marketers as in today's totally interconnected social media world the identities of your company's personnel who interact with the public are often better off remaining masked.
Dissidents would be exposed
In the vast majority of cases, the reasons for not using your "birth certificate" name in social networking activities has nothing to do with hiding criminal or terrorist background or intentions. Freedom House ranks 24% of the world's nations as "not free" which means that the citizens of 47 countries have a very real reason to fear expressing their legitimate views on public forums regarding a broad variety of topics for fear of imprisonment, torture, or even execution.
Having your real name attached to a Google+ update which makes the accurate statement that the government of Somewheristan is repressive could be the very last statement you make... which seems to defy the company's famous motto of "do no evil."
Customer service personnel could be tracked
The vociferous critics of this policy are eloquently making these dissident-protecting points, but not much attention has been dedicated to the effects to the expectation of privacy and security which should also be extended to online marketing staff. Google+ policy supporters may claim that many people have relatively common names thus it is difficult to determine which exact individual matches each name.
That may be fine when your Customer Service Specialist's name is Jane Smith, but what happens when her name is much more unique? Correlate that factor to the point that your office's city is easily determined and it is not difficult for any disgruntled customer to locate her home address to engage in some form of misguided harassment. That is a primary reason why so many customer service professionals use a pseudonym in their company activities. Google+ would force these employees to engage customers with their "birth certificate" names thereby increasing the possibility that some unhinged customer would make their complaint personal.
NDAs might be violated
There are many other reasons why various individuals involved in legitimate online marketing activities may want to remain anonymous. Some consultants or freelancers may have various contracts in the same industry and would prefer to keep their client list confidential; some individuals may work under Non-Disclosure Agreements which prevent them from publicly identifying their business relationship; while some employees may be moonlighting and for whatever reason would rather not have their other employer, friends, or even family members learn that they have another job.
Choose privacy vs. your job
The solution of "just stay off Google+" may not be an effective one. The gargantuan corporation is in the process of launching what has been deemed a major business presence program to encourage companies to shift their Fan Pages over from Facebook. Most of these brands have personnel which continuously interact with the public and thus may have to choose between safeguarding their individual privacy and security versus keeping their jobs.
Google+'s Names Policy may actually turn out to be a primary hindrance to the embryonic social network's goal of becoming a powerful business presence facilitator for online marketers. It is a policy which might have a better effect if reversed.