Are Brands Working for Social Platforms?

For many brands, social media has shifted from communication channel to constant obligation. Timelines must be fed, visibility maintained, and audiences reassured that the brand is still alive. Somewhere along the way, posting became a duty rather than a choice.

The question is, how much are brands really investing in this continuous output, and what are they receiving in return?

There is an assumption that social media is inexpensive. Yet for most businesses, the reality is far from it. Every post carries a cost: planning, copywriting, design, approvals, revisions, scheduling, monitoring, reporting, responding. The cumulative investment in people, energy, and attention is significant. For larger organisations, this is amplified through layers of marketing teams, agencies, freelancers, content calendars, and approvals.

It adds up quickly.

Much of this activity is driven by a belief that constant presence is essential; that the algorithm rewards consistency, and that volume equates to relevance. The demand for perpetual content has become embedded in brand culture. There is a quiet anxiety attached to not posting, or to disappearing for a week, as if absence itself carries risk.

Yet, in parallel, organic reach continues to shrink, engagement continues to fall, and the majority of posts are seen by only a small portion of their intended audience. Many brands are publishing into a space where the odds of impact are reducing by the month.

The gap between effort and outcome is widening.

Most brands can tell you how many posts they published last month, yet far fewer can say with confidence what those posts were actually worth.

Despite an ever-expanding ecosystem of dashboards and reports, only a minority of marketers believe they can accurately measure social media ROI. Time and effort flow in, data comes out, but the link to meaningful commercial value remains unclear.

The metrics we rely on offer comfort, but not always clarity. Impressions, likes, follows, views – they are reassuring, but rarely transformative. They provide movement without necessarily delivering progress. They measure attention in terms of surface interaction rather than lasting value. For brand teams, this creates a challenging tension.

The pressure to produce sits on one side, while the question of strategic return sits quietly on the other.

The problem is not social media itself., it remains an extraordinary tool for connection and visibility, the issue is the imbalance of energy poured in versus tangible benefit gained. For many brands, the commitment is disproportionate to the reward.

There is an alternative approach; one defined not by frequency, but by intention. Fewer, better pieces of content, a clearer narrative, a more distinctive voice. Depth over noise, meaning over momentum. Owned platforms strengthened rather than neglected, and campaigns built with purpose rather than content produced by routine.

Perhaps the question is not how much should we post? but why are we posting at all? What role does this content play in shaping the brand? What does it achieve that justifies its resource? And what would happen if we did half as much?

When brands refocus on clarity, distinctiveness, and meaningful engagement, the work becomes lighter, more valuable, and more aligned with long-term ambition. Which leads us back to the original provocation:

Are we working for the platforms, or are they working for us?

For some brands, this may be a moment to reassess the balance, quietly, honestly, and with purpose.