A reply to Steve Henry’s blog piece on brandrepublic: http://community.brandrepublic.com/blogs/stevehenry/archive/2011/04/11/the-new.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage
Interesting points. Anyone working in social media right now is convinced that it’s going to herald the death of advertising next week.
Just as those who worked in DM predicted their industry would be responsible for the death of advertising due to increasing amounts of data they had access to in the late 80s.
To me, social is a brilliant way to engage with an audience that bypasses print and telly. (Of course, it’s also much, much more than that, but that’d change my point.)
It’s also a way to augment advertising campaigns. (And, hell, what of the potential of social-based advertising that interactive magazine and tablet PCs can offer?)
I also predict a flip side to this: as more and more social tools, sites and apps launch it’s going to become increasingly difficult to tell which is the one that will deliver the best value to you.
Every day Twitter delivers news of new social sites to me. Which is going to be relevant to me? This is when telly and print could work to augment social brands.
Y’know, in much the same way that the world’s biggest search engine is currently using OOH to tell you about its new services.
Social won’t entirely replace telly, at least not for a generation or two. There’s a lot of fun to be had until then (and after).
So to take your f*ck analogy a little further: while we can, let’s enjoy a threesome with both social and advertising. The offspring will be beautiful.