Who's getting what news where?

  vs

For all of us public radio fans, it wasn't surprising when Pew released numbers yesterday that showed that NPR is a source of news for more people than Twitter, Faceboook and YouTube combined. And that even PBS was a bigger source of news than social media.

At the same time this amusing headline crossed my desk: P&G To Lay Off 1,600 After Discovering It's Free To Advertise On Facebook. Procter & Gamble's CEO specifically cited the efficiency of social media in his remarks referring to the "free impressions" (presumably via sharing and PR) garnered by the Old Spice Guy.

The juxtaposition of these two data points illustrates so perfectly the dilemma marketers have.  From an advertising perspective, Google or Facebook ads are much more tangible and cost effective than advertising has ever been before. Advertisers get so much more than just eyeballs on Facebook. They know when those eyeballs react to what you're putting out there. That lttle click thru or like tells them that the human behind that eyeball has responded to your ad. Not only is social media new and different, but social media analytics make it far more tangible. 

On the other hand, many of the people they want to reach are getting information from the most intangible sources out there -- Radio. Top of the Pew list is cable news, of course, and that's only slightly less tangible.

It is this dichotomy that makes social media such a dillemma for marketers, AND why the demand for social media measurement is so strong.  It's great to know that there are real people behind the eyeballs, but if there aren't enough of them. where do you go?

Comments

[Andrea Elkins]

Good post. Need to double-check the figures, though - the Pew research specifically dealt with political campaigns. I don't think you can broadly apply the same usage patterns across "news-gathering" in general.

[kdpaine]

That's exactly my point! We all get so wrapped up in what we're doing about social, we forget that most decisions are still made in response to word of mouth, TV and other sources.

[olivia]

It is still surprising to me that NPR is still on of the leading news sources these days, especially because of the rise in social media. As a public relations and advertising major at the University of Oregon, I find it funny that we learn so much about the importance and impact on social media, when we still need to also remember to focus on traditional channels of communication.

[Morgan]

Katie,
Interesting facts presented in your article. Considering how much emphasis is placed on social media, I was surprised to learn that a majority of people are still getting their news from other sources. I think these statistics will change in years to come and we will see social media as the main source of news.
Thank you for your post.

[Jason]

It is always so interesting to be part of the generation where the social media sites started blowing up. For me personally, my first source I check for news is Twitter. Depending on whom you follow, you get the information you are looking for extremely quick and from the immediate source. Good to know people are still using NPR and PBS though!

[tablo]

thanks for sharing

[Lillie]

In this day in age, reading this really surprised me! I'm glad to hear that with all of our emphasis being placed on social media, there are still plenty of ears (and eyes) receiving radio/TV messages.

[Todd Murphy]

Thanks, Katie, for pointing out a common misconception. The notion that more people get their news from online sources than any other medium is always interesting, yet wrong. The immediacy and addictive nature of social networks perpetuates the idea that all news is online, when in fact it is not. What social media is great at is amplifying news stories created by what we formerly called traditional media (arguably, credible news sources). Measuring that "amplification" is the next frontier. Thank you for your insight.