For those that do research or those that use research to create headlines it is too often a self-serving exercise.  Consider the following statement and related article:

"Companies with the highest levels of social media activity on average increased revenues by 18% in the last 12 months, while the least active saw sales drop 6% over that period.

Among the top 100 brands reviewed, Starbucks came out on top with a score of 127, followed by Dell (123), eBay (115), Google (105), and Microsoft (103). Companies were scored based on the level of interaction across 10 social media channels including blogs, Facebook, Twitter and wikis." --Online Media Daily

http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=110120

Interesting observation - but really, is social medial the cause, the catalyst of why sales for these companies are up?  In the case of Starbucks could it be the introduction of new products?  Or new pricing?  Or perhaps the addition of new distribution channels and new locations?  Are people drinking more coffee because they're unemployed and go sit at the coffee house and commiserate with fellow unemployed and bored friends?

So back to the question, is there a payoff with social media?  Does it pay out and drive revenue?  The researchers say suggest there is and the article says "Yes" and uses this study as the proof point.  I say bah humbug!

An interesting observation or a correlation of two data points is not cause and effect.  I'm a fan of social media.  My company uses it in a consistent and regular fashion.  But this study does not prove that social media drives revenue or has a payoff.

www.iangilyeat.com