Twitter is going to replace TV.
Hunh?
Yup. Our industry in all its wisdom is pushing the platitude that social media is going to make traditional media obsolete. That the “medium” is the most cost effective way to reach and engage your marketplace and that you’re crazy if you don’t invest a ton of money and effort in making that happen.
I beg to differ. Or at least I beg to ask people to think about the situation a little differently. And to not make it about social media versus traditional media but rather make it about the “context of media”. My belief is that different media have different contexts of engagement. And depending on the context the specific media can or cannot accomplish different communications objectives. As example, at a macro level I have long held that the context of the online world does not lend itself to efficient demand creation. That the context of engagement is about finding what you want (Search, Search, and Search). And that when one is in focused finding mode our capacity to receive unsolicited and unrelated information is virtually nil. That’s why spending on online display is plummeting, and why the social media sites cannot figure out how to monetize their content delivery models. It’s also why SEM works so well. It helps us find what we’re looking for.
Consider the following “contextual” media map, that while unsubstantiated or supported with any facts, is at least plausible.
Out of Home (e.g. billboards)
- I seek and expect nothing - I am active – I am unintentionally open
Broadcast and Print Advertising
- I seek entertainment and expect (and at times seek) intrusion – Intrusion is a part of the entertainment – I am sedentary – I understand the economics (pay for content) – I am intentionally open
Online
- I seek specific information and entertainment – Intrusion is not acceptable – I am active, sedentary – I do not accept the economics – I am intentionally closed
Different media, different contexts, different opportunities to engage with (and advertise to) the consumer. It also points to why the monetization of the social media sites (and other content sites) is so challenging. If consumers are not willing to pay for the content, and their eyeballs are not “open” to advertising, who’s going to pick up the tab? And that when the online and television interfaces finally merge we better get the context right. Because context really is everything.
A needed, contrarian voice to counter the current wave of irrational exuberance over social marketing. I like the framework, there’s a planning tool in there someplace.
Well said. I don’t know why it’s so hard for people to realize that different tools do different things.
Content has to fit the medium and the expectations of people who are there. We’re not enriching uranium here.
Despite the panic in the marketplace, there will always be a place for marketing professionals who know how to match the right message (about the value proposition) to the right audience using the right medium. It’s not as easy as “hire Chiat/Day and buy CBS,” but you have nailed the basic principles.
I agree. Although I love social media, I consider it one more tool in the branding arsenal. It holds very exciting opportunities, but it has its place in the mix with traditional media.
That said, I do think the world is changing and all advertising is going to have to be increasingly nimble, human and relevant.
(Wouldn’t it be funny if sites like Twitter brought back the power of television advertising as people stop being able to use their DVRs because they’re finding out about the endings of their favorite shows on Twitter?)