facebook is THE social media channel, not Twitter.

Figures tell a tale but I'm not convinced about two things.

Firstly, the assumption that bigger is better is not necessarily relevant. Twitter can be valuable to marketers even its reach is a fraction of Facebook as long as they are able to target the right people effectively.

My second point is that Twitter is a different beast altogether. Facebook is more of a platform (an OS even) offering a wide range of functions and experiences. Twitter has a much more specific purpose and attracts a different demographic.

45% of Facebook members will not -ever - connect to someone who is not a friend in real life. It's the ultimate in gated, self moderated communities. They may be there, but they won't necessarily add your company as a FanPage. Twitter is a half-gated community - you have a better chance of reaching them.
The key to Twitter is that what goes on Twitter does not stay on Twitter - it migrates it's way through other communities including Facebook. Facebook has the most viral touch points of any social networks I've seen therefore it's entirely possible to connect to customers on Twitter and leave THEM to move the brand message into Facebook.
You would also do well to look at time on site for social networks - social advertising fail when people log in to Facebook for only a minute or two as they are busy and task-oriented, therefore oblivious to anything extraneous.
Let's not even get into the quality level of discussions on Facebook fanpages vs Twitter @replies.
I guess there are always other ways to read figures and statistics :)

Interesting points and defintely food for thought. I don't necessarily agree with the comment about Facebook users only staying on for short periods of time. It would be good to see some research that supports this. As a user myself I will vary the way I engage with the site - sometimes short and sometimes long stays.

Re: Damian's question - believe the average dwell time on Facebook is 20+ minutes - which is pretty impressive engagement. Anecdotally, the behaviour powering this is treading fb as one's 'inbox' - i.e. a replacement for e-mail.

@Lawrence - Agree on the point that facebook is an OS, that's a given now. Its going to be a race to see who will be the dominant browser OS over the coming 2-3 years, facebook or Google Chrome OS. Twitter is definantly valuable to markters for planting the seed of a campaign as it will reach the influencers of specific groups then possibly flow on from there to have a far greater effect. However, from a marketers point of view, especially in terms of targeted advertising to the masses, facebook is and will continue to be the more lucrative platform. Facebooks advertising manager is only really starting to kick off in earnest. Give it another 12-18months and you could possibly have a product and market that rivals Google Adwords.

@Laurel - A page is a far, far different entity in facebook than an actual person or 'someone'. A page can assume the identity of a company, charity, celebrity, event or business and many more things. The fundamental thing is that it does not represent a persons or business personal persona, merely their public one. I would also argue that facebook is just as half gated as Twitter too. With the creation and now explosive adoption of facebook connect, users can actively 'share' their real identity across the internet. Granted twitter could be more effective in targeting one person. But facebook is far more effective in starting a brand associated movement. In being able to target a specifc demographic with advertising, then create a place (page) for them to congregate and share ideas, thought and feelings about the said brand, you are creating a far more powerfulm, deep and long term connection with that market than you would ever have on Twitter. In terms of Twitter driving traffic into facebook and other online destintations, i agree to a point. Facebook as you state, is the most virally connected social network in the world. If you house a fan base of 50,000+ consumers who love your brand and regularly push them linked content through their news feed, over half of those consumers will be exposed to the link and another half of them will click the link, then view the page you wanted them to see. Thats just one example. To say that Twitter is more active in pushing users to other online destinations and it is therefore more effective at executing a market message is a stretch in my opinion :D Lastly, Facebook fan pages Vs Twitter @replies. If i am a big brand and i want my marketing message to reach as many qualified consumers as possible, im always going to use facebook, because thats where the MASS market are. If im a consumer, im going to take more notice of that branded message I allowed into my facebook newsfeed (because i fanned the brands page) and possibly even comment on it, in doing so letting my friends know that i've just interacted with that brand (via newsfeed notifications) - than @reply the brand itself through Twitter, that is if I managed to catch the actual branded tweet itself, given that I only check twitter once every 4-5 days (as the average consumer). Does quality equal quantity, or is it the other way round in this digital day in age ;)

@Damian @Tim - Agree with both points, facebook is where the long term engagement it. Engagement is the new eyeballs and eyeballs used to equal marketing spend. Time will tell if engagement will follow suit, i think it will, in fact, i think it already has.

@Tim, Facebook dwell time is 20.3 minutes PER MONTH (hitwise). Placing it at around 210 in the top communities online for time on site. Not really that impressive when compared to HUNDREDS of minutes per month in other communities. @Michael 45% of people wont add someone they don't know WELL. A subset of that would be people who add those they know marginally but no one else. It follows only a smaller percentage will add a Brand. I just think that closed communities are dangerous to make assumptions about - the customer may be there but the door is shut except in very specific demographics or applications. Oh, and as far as viral touchpoints are concerned - yes Facebook has a lot, maybe 12? 14? but most things stay on Facebook. Think Facebook photos vs Twitpic. Even the act of taking photos out of a Facebook brand page and putting them publicly somewhere would trigger a reaction from some quarter. Yet Twitpic and public viewings would be unremarked...

Thanks for the detailed comment Laurel, I agree with everything you've mentioned. Now im curious to know your thoughts on facebooks mission to open up more of our personal data given the move they made last week? Will it soon make the 'facebook is a closed network' discussion somewhat redundant? Lastly, do you have a link to the statistic stating a 20 minute dwell time for facebook, im just curious as its the first time I have heard that figure :D Thanks and Merry Xmas!