You and I both have read the articles boasting the impact of digital media. Much of it comes from internal sources. And, when it's reported externally, internal sources beat the horse long after its expiration. I am very skeptical by nature, not because I'm a pessimist, but because I enjoy being confident in my offerings. We have read the case studies, seen the whitepapers and know many of the newer mediums are more impactful and measurable than tradition. But does that impact lessen as we reach information overload with mass dispersion? When the spillway is overflowing, doesn't the effect of all mediums decrease? Rightfully, the answer to this question is--like many others--dependent on perspective.
The key to understanding the possible impact from any source has to do with critical mass. Let's take Google as an example. People are a bit more reticent to engage in "click-throughs" via Google PPC than they were five years ago. I know I click on them less. And with the increases in click fraud, the resilience of that particular ad method has been questioned repeatedly. However, with the increase in Internet use in the last two years--including those who previously had shied away--we see newer mediums increasing in effect. Twitter is one example . Much like statistical inference, the greater your sample, the greater likelihood you have of "getting it right." The same goes with advertising, the greater your sample from the population, the more of an impact you'll be able to make. 
But some might cry, "but the barrage blurs the bulletin." Or, "I'll have to practice malfeasance in managing to get my message above the melange." This is certainly true for those with limited ad budgets who know nothing of guerrilla marketing tactics. Those with unlimited resources see the digital advertising flood as a welcome breath-o'-freshness, a veritable way to bombard the senses of the public ad nauseum. Those with limited budgets see a different perspective. SMB advertisers on SMB budgets will find it daunting to go head to head against the likes of Coke, Wal-Mart, and Circuit City (oh wait...I meant BestBuy). While some might see the expanding landscape as a vision blurer, others will recognize that the opportunities expand simultaneously. Regardless of your perspective, there are still methodologies and industry champions who'll be making meaningful messages regardless of the increasing ad foray.
The increase in media methodologies will continue to necessitate industry adaptation. It is taking place already, but acceptance is slow. Increasing the landscape necessitates a simultaneous expansion of specific targeting capabilities. Hence, the need for facial recognition capabilities, audience measurement software, large databases of content, and high-powered media playback devices will continue to grow. Companies like TrueMedia and Cognovision may seem obscure and expensive currently, but as the market expands, so will the need for such company leaders.
To conclude, it might best be said succinctly in this manner: the deluge of information that will come as various digital mediums replace the traditional will only blur the message if we fail to adapt to the most useful methods for targeting. In other words, digital signage, SMS marketing, and Internet advertising will only create an advertising vacuum if we fail to "hone to the bone." And because digital allows for "trimming the fat" out of ad budgets by giving better ROI measurement, it means there'll be more money to spend on all sources for branding and advertising. We're not where we need to be and even farther from where we would like to be, but the gap is shrinking. As this ethereal chasm contracts, we must ask ourselves, "what am I doing to make sure I'll be current when the predicted phenomenon = reality?"
