I prompted this one -- saying I usually find myself, when I having a marketing budget these days -- shading toward social media; meaning I spend the money on spreading the word through social, organically, rather than through paid ads. Eason said they tend to spend on promoted Facebook posts, so they get exposed to all their followers there, rather than the 18% (I believe) whom he said will typically see the post, otherwise.
Agreed. I've found this to be the case in a white paper I'm working on for a video advertising exchange. There's more money than content right now -- as opposed to the (perceived) glut in textual content. (I say "perceived," because -- as has pointed out -- there's not a glut of the best content.)
I had asked, "so, all else being equal, if a person has 130,000 Facebook followers they'll get a better shot at a position than someone with, say, 2,000?" ... then said it's important to NOT look purely at the numbers, that a lot of those 130,000 are chimeras. they don't really amount to much, and may have followed that person because, say, you used to work for the , but they may have no idea who you are. See the tweet below from (and now I wonder why 2581!), and