Twitter was mentioned in 26 of 52 national TV commercials — that’s 50 percent of the spots that aired during CBS’ game coverage. Facebook was mentioned in only four of those commercials — about eight percent. Google+, which is reportedly the No. 2 social network in the world, wasn’t mentioned at all.
The author goes on to break down his methodology and stats, summarizing the meaning behind it as:
When it comes to second-screen advertising, it’s Twitter’s world now and there’s no close second place.
Last year, brands split their focus on Twitter and Facebook with eight mentions each. This year, brands recognize that Twitter is where they need to try to attract the online conversation around one of the world’s biggest events.
I would question whether it is brands seeing the need to attract conversation to Twitter, or if it is that brands find it easier to roll out a hashtag in a TV campaign than stand up a Facebook campaign to support an ad.
Brands don’t need to mention Facebook in a TV spot to gain an audience on that platform (although it doesn’t hurt). There are very targeted and cost effective ways to get the Facebook Fans you want, whereas even Twitter’s Promoted Accounts is a bit of a shot in the dark sometimes (yes, there is targeting, but not as accurate as Facebook’s).
If it is because the brands are trying to engage in a true second-screen experience, I can see where Twitter has its strengths, however I think second screen is another area that brands are still struggling with.
So: Is the emphasis placed on Twitter in Superbowl ads because of the platform’s strength, or because of some inherent weaknesses that brands are still trying to come to grips with?