Last night I was watching the Vikings vs Saints game, at the same time I was also cruising around on Facebook. It occurred to me that I really did not even have to have the game on to know what was happening. In a matter of seconds after certain game turning points occurred there was a new post up. There were opinions on Favre, the refs, specific calls, it was almost as if I was getting a summary of a game that I was watching with my very own eyes. So with that said, it is clear that social media has become a very powerful tool in an advertisers tool box. But with such a powerful tool that is often times much cheaper than advertising through traditional media, does this become a case of social media vs traditional media?
While more than 50% of all adults use some sort of social media (texting, blogging, Facebook, etc) a whopping 85% of 18-34 year olds say they use some sort of social media. And according to a recent survey conducted by Forrester Research, more than 50 percent of marketers are increasing their spending in social media. But do these statistics mean it should be one form versus the other? I really think if companies were smart they would see social media just as it is, a tool. Albeit it's a great tool, it's still a tool. It is not the whole tool box, merely a part something bigger. Advertising needs to be a well rounded effort to get your message out there most effectively. This includes a wide variety of forms of advertising. Advertising is complex and its important to find which tools will be most effective in getting your message out there. I believe heavily in social media, but I also believe its important to not put all your eggs in one basket.
So with Pepsi announcing its absence from this years Super Bowl in favor of a more social media based campaign it will be interesting to see how they fare. But I guess we will save that discussion for Wednesday.
