I wonder why they chose Twitter? Maybe if they had run the same campaign on TV (which we keep being told is either already dead or dying) it would have melted down their servers and/or call centre in a matter of minutes. Oops, did I say ‘campaign’? I reckon a single spot would do it. So, run stunts on Twitter (and the two-cent seats were a stunt) because the rate of response will be manageble. Run the same stunt on TV or mass-media and there would be bedlam. I suppose it all depends on how you define ‘effectiveness’.

Promotion with 2 cent air fares sells out – shock horror

Using the term ‘social media’ to get a headline – shock horror

In summary Jetstar are conducting a ‘test’ to see if they can drive efficiencies via ‘Digital’ versus other channels – groundbreaking I think not

Dressed up in a PR bow to appear as a progressive brand and on the front foot of social media…probably

It’s now about smaller interconnected communities of interest. I was glad to read in teh comments that it was a spend across all digital, not just social. I was wondering how they could spend so much on social.

Which is where we are still seeing maintstream agencies, through their digital bolt-on, missing the point, to some degree,

Social media / social networking strategies are not just about marketing, per se. It is about organisations engaging in teh conversation.

I think that ad agencies are going to struggle with this engagement. I think that their clients need to look inward for their social networking / social media strategies. Thet might look at crowdsourcing within their own crowd before hiring out engagement to agencies.

Jimi Bostock
PUSH Agency
Brisbane | Canberra | Sydney | Australia
jimi@pushagency.net

Read the headlines from B&T, AdNews & Digital Media for yourself…

Mumbrella: “… to switch 40% of marketing budget into social media”
B&T: “…shifting up to 40% of its marketing budget to social media and online”
Adnews: “…40% of its $25 million marketing budget on social and digital media”
Digital-Media.net.au: “…40% of its marketing budget to social media and online”

And what does digital media OR online mean? Basically it’s a big pool of traditional & non-traditional media & creative, search and other NON-SOCIAL things…

If Jetstar’s decision is deemed a failure after 12 months or so they’ll move on or back to what they’re currently doing. And rightly so.

Helping clients achieve their objectives is the only point of marketing communications. If Social Marketing fits the bill all well & good. The strategy should not get any special treatment just because it’s flavour of the month.

The key is not to carp from the sidelines but to get involved and find out for sure what works & what doesn’t.

Yeah 40% of it’s ‘new budget’, they can halve their existing ad budget be twice as effective and communicate more effectively with their audience then again do I really want to be constantly reminded of the Jetstar experience?, no thanks…it makes me rattle like their planes

You can’t reach 2M people with a message on social media very simply, however, TV wont create the same level of engagement that a direct conversation on Facebook or a blog will create.

On another note, the way I read it Jetstar are moving 40% of their money to Social Media & digital, depending on who you believe… Compare the different articles yourself…

Mumbrella: “Jetstar to switch 40% of marketing budget into social media”
B&T: “shifting up to 40% of its marketing budget to social media and online”
Adnews: “40% of its $25 million marketing budget on social and digital media”
Digital-Media.net.au: “40% of its marketing budget to social media and online”

Who knows…?