Is Social Media or E-Mail a Better Marketing Tool?

Social media is still in its early stages as a marketing platform for law firms.  According to a recent study performed by Ball State University and ExactTarget, as reported by Digital Response Media, e-mail is still more effective than social media in influencing purchases and buying behavior of those between the ages of 18 and 34.  In addition, although teenagers are the heaviest users among all age groups using social networking, teenagers are more influenced by email marketing and direct mail than any other group.

Would you rather have 1,000 Twitter or Friendfeed followers, or 1,000 subscribers to your e-mail newsletter?  I traditionally would have preferred the 1,000 e-mail subscribers, and I would still give e-mail subscribers a slight edge (in terms of marketing responsiveness) over the Twitter followers.  However, the margin in that slight edge is rapidly decreasing, and Twitter followers can actually be much more responsive from a marketing standpoint than e-mail subscribers.

E-mail subscribers are inundated with spam.  Twitter followers, on the other hand, actively and consciously choose the senders from whom they will receive updates.  Arguably, there is less spam on a service like Twitter than there would be on e-mail.  In theory, that should make Twitter more effective for marketing purposes.  My experience is that Twitter followers are generally more responsive (e.g., for purposes of clicking on links) than e-mail recipients or e-mail subscribers.  Thus, while the study referenced above seems to indicate that e-mail still reigns supreme, I would not count out social media.  In my opinion, new media and social networking are rapidly closing the marketing gap for attorneys and other professionals.  Internet marketing for attorneys and lawyers must include both cutting-edge new media technologies and "old" e-mail technologies.

Which do you prefer: e-mail subscribers or social media "followers?"  I welcome your comments below.