These days you need both to run a successful campaign. A number of people use either social media or traditional media exclusively (divided by age in general, although not exclusively). A growing majority use both.
The traditional media also sponge off social media to pick trends and public interest items. They don't usually credit their sources but if you follow both you can pick up where the print/tv journos are getting their ideas from.
Look at the political parties, unions, charities and interest groups; they all use social media to push their barrows. You can't rely on it to generate sustained public interest because of the huge amount of white noise these sites carry (and they are effectively worldwide gossip networks) but if you do it right you can reach a large number of interested people regularly. If your messages are thought provoking, entertaining and informative, that number of people will grow exponentially.
As long as whoever is running the page can get the right balance between keeping people interested and boring the pants off them with crappy updates (and as long as they spray for trolls regularly) F'book is an effective and free way of bypassing the whole Editor's desk story-graveyard.
There was no social media in 89. There was no PPRuNe and we were not all having this virtual conversation. In 89, if you wanted to find out what was happening you picked up a mag/newspaper or switched on your tv and learned what Murdoch, Black, Packer et al wanted you to hear. You had a small circle of friends and colleagues who heard other stuff, but it was limited to Who You Knew and What They'd Heard. In 2011 you can fire up your computer or phone and find out what's trendy in Chad this week.
If there had been bulletin boards, social media and similar in 89, the outcome may have been different.
Last edited by Worrals in the wilds; 31st May 2011 at 14:05.
Reason: inneffective spelling of effective