cfx211 - 2:43 pm on May 5, 2011 (gmt 0)
Probably because the big advertisers have more accurate ways of measuring their ROI. What I'm seeing over and over on the social media discussions here is that if you don't understand traditional marketing in traditional media, then you won't be able to make Facebook work.
I would say it is the opposite. I consider myself a fairly sophisticated advertiser, but one who does not have room in my ad spend for "fuzzy" ad spends. Every dollar I spend needs to return results for me. I can't spend money buying goodwill or awareness at the $1-2 CPC levels I see on Facebook for my demos.
A big advertiser (especially one whose main channel is offline, say a Toyota or the Gap), has plenty of room in their budgets for branding or awareness campaigns. Facebook is good for them because there can be a measurable component to their online spend (look 20,000 people now like Toyota Hybrids), but Facebook will not tell Toyota how many Priuses were bought because a Facebook ad cannot measure that.
So if traditional media is launching national ad spends aimed at target demographics without being able to measure the direct correlation between a spend and sales, then yes Facebook is better for traditional marketers. That however is the exact opposite of more accurate. It just means they have always been used to ad buys without accountability.