I agree with Jamo that some forms of traditional research are almost absurdly slow by today's standards of data access. But I've found social media tools provide only supplemental insight on a lot of questions. We live in a multi-platform world but we only have tools that measure how people behave on one platform at a time. I think this limitation is one of the reasons for the resurgence of the ethnography as a source of consumer insight. It's one of the few ways we have of observing consumers across their whole purchase pathway, from mobile to social to the site to the retail space.
People are still people. Thank goodness--for my future employment--we are still highly subject to suggestion and we are good at convincing ourselves that we have "relationships" with inanimate objects. But I'd agree that some fundamentals have changed, at least in the sense that digital technology now enables us to get someone to change their behavior without changing their mind. Almost without thinking or feeling at all. Unless the new velocity of a transactions is itself a kind of rush.
Traditional media might have more limited uses but for some objectives, TV is still the best got. As noted in the WSJ today. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904106704576582782104631352.html?KEYWORDS=tv
I tend to think that brands/marketers overvalue consistency, at least for an established brands, an always have. Once an expectation is established, people will assume that future behavior will match past behavior. Of course, a brand can break the illusion, but it actually has to try pretty hard. Of course none of this is true for new or small brands. Time and space always matter.