Do 3rd-Party Social Media Tools Adversely Influence Reach and Engagement?

0
274

Putting your believe as a advertiser or brand in 3rd-party social media apparatuses to oversee all of your posts can be a bit scary.
You may be wondering:
Are my posts getting Best reach and engagement? Do social media stages penalize 3rd-party tools? Are 3rd-party tools really worth the cost?

These are a few of the foremost common questions our Client Advocates get on a every day basis. And up until this research,, we haven’t had any concrete information to say “yes” or “no” to whether or not 3rd-party instruments influence the reach and engagement of posts.
We’re trusting to alter that.
For an entirety month, with the assistance of a few great marketers and brands, we tried more than 200 posts over 35 profiles to see precisely how 3rd-party social media devices stack up vs. local posting.

Today we’re energized to share the try setup and comes about in their aggregate!

Brief summary of results: 3rd-party tools don’t seem to negatively affect the reach of posts

I do cherish to share a speedy outline of what we found (you’ll discover the complete comes about and more on how we ran the test underneath!).

Facebook:

3rd-Party Tools: 9 posts / 81,639 total reach / 9,071 per postNative Posting: 9 posts / 79,380 total reach / 8,820 per post
Twitter:

3rd-Party Tools: 45 posts / 949,890 total impressions / 21,108 per postNative Posting: 45 posts / 975,223 total impressions / 21,671 per post
LinkedIn:

3rd-Party Tools: 9 posts / 63,221 total reach / 7,024 per postNative Posting: 9 posts / 54,646 total reach / 6,071 per post
Read on to check out all of the details!

3rd-party social media tools vs. native posting (setup)

In order to make the research as statistically sound as possible, we centered on three critical factors:

  • Content Quality: Ensuring that we tested similar content across platforms
  • Account Variation: Ensuring that we tested multiple 3rd-party social media tools and social accounts
  • Posting Consistency: Ensuring that we posted at similar times and frequencies

Our tests ran from November 27, 2017, to December 19, 2017.

Putting your trust as a marketer or brand in 3rd-party social media tools to manage all of your posts can be a bit scary.

You might be wondering:

  • Are my posts getting optimal reach and engagement?
  • Do social media platforms penalize 3rd-party tools?
  • Are 3rd-party tools really worth the cost?

These are some of the most common questions our Customer Advocates receive on a daily basis. And up until this research, we haven’t had any concrete data to say “yes” or “no” to whether or not 3rd-party tools affect the reach and engagement of posts.

We’re hoping to change that.

For an entire month, with the help of several awesome marketers and brands, we tested more than 200 posts across 35 profiles to see exactly how 3rd-party social media tools stack up vs. native posting.

Today we’re excited to share the experiment setup and results in their entirety!

How to listeniTunes | Google Play | SoundCloud | Stitcher | RSS

Brief summary of results: 3rd-party tools don’t seem to negatively affect the reach of posts

We’d love to share a quick summary of what we found (you can find the full results and more on how we ran the experiment below!).

Facebook:

  • 3rd-Party Tools: 9 posts / 81,639 total reach / 9,071 per post
  • Native Posting: 9 posts / 79,380 total reach / 8,820 per post

Twitter:

  • 3rd-Party Tools: 45 posts / 949,890 total impressions / 21,108 per post
  • Native Posting: 45 posts / 975,223 total impressions / 21,671 per post

LinkedIn:

  • 3rd-Party Tools: 9 posts / 63,221 total reach / 7,024 per post
  • Native Posting: 9 posts / 54,646 total reach / 6,071 per post

Read on to check out all of the details!

3rd-party social media tools vs. native posting (setup)

In order to make the research as statistically sound as possible, we focused on three important factors:

  • Account Variation: Ensuring that we tested multiple 3rd-party social media tools and social accounts
  • Content Quality: Ensuring that we tested similar content across platforms
  • Posting Consistency: Ensuring that we posted at similar times and frequencies

Our tests ran from November 27, 2017, to December 19, 2017.

Account Variation

Our biggest concern with an experiment like this is that our results would be biased if we only tested Buffer content with the Buffer tool.

We knew it would take multiple marketers and tools to make the data meaningful.

First, we signed up for test for user accounts with CoSchedule and Hootsuite . This would allow us to test three different 3rd-party social media tools to reduce the chance of a particular tool playing a factor in reach and engagement.

Then, we turned to the Social Media Masterminds Facebook Group and asked if any marketers would be up for helping us run a few tests. The response was incredible Then, we turned to the Social Media Masterminds Facebook Group and asked if any marketers would be up for helping us run a few tests. The response was incredible

Judging by the number of comments and generally excitement for this try, we knew we were onto something.

 In the conclusion, we gotten information from 11 distinctive brands, totaling more than 98 posts over Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter. Calculating in these comes about to the in general discoveries significantly made a difference to diminish any one-sided information. A colossal much obliged to everybody that taken an interest!
Now we just had to figure out how we would approach content.

Content Quality

Substance displayed a one of a kind challenge in that we had to be key around what we posted and when we posted it.

 As numerous marketers know, posting the same substance different times in a brief period of time might result in a diminish of reach and engagement with each post.
 We eventually chosen that we would not post the same substance numerous times. Or maybe, we would post three diverse sorts of content (links, images, videos) and do our exceptionally best to guarantee that each piece of substance was super high-quality.

3rd-Party Social Media Tools: Content Quality

But what we realized is that, at the end of the day, it’s nearly impossible to create truly equal content – some posts will inevitably perform better than others based on a hundreds of different algorithm factors.

In short, content is the number one factor that determines success on social media.

More on the implications of social media content later in this post!

Posting Consistency

The final factor that we focused on for this experiment was to ensure that we were posting consistently. Both timing and frequency impact social media results and so we did our best to post at roughly the same time and frequency each day.

  • Facebook: Posted once per day between 6:00am & 12:00pm PST.
  • Twitter: Posted 3-5 times per day between 5:00am & 10:00pm PST.
  • LinkedIn: Posted once per day between 6:00am & 12:00pm PST.

Posting natively proved to be the most difficult part of this experiment! We found that without 3rd-party social media tools we were having to set reminders in our calendar in order to post at the correct times.

Multiplying that by eight posts per day and three social media accounts, we did end up missing a few posts here and there which prolonged the study.

Last, but not least. It might be helpful to provide the Buffer audience sizes on each network.

Current Audience Sizes:

  • Facebook: 106,000
  • Twitter: 927,000
  • LinkedIn: 16,500

 

Putting your trust as a marketer or brand in 3rd-party social media tools to manage all of your posts can be a bit scary.

You might be wondering:

  • Are my posts getting optimal reach and engagement?
  • Do social media platforms penalize 3rd-party tools?
  • Are 3rd-party tools really worth the cost?

These are some of the most common questions our Customer Advocates receive on a daily basis. And up until this research, we haven’t had any concrete data to say “yes” or “no” to whether or not 3rd-party tools affect the reach and engagement of posts.

We’re hoping to change that.

For an entire month, with the help of several awesome marketers and brands, we tested more than 200 posts across 35 profiles to see exactly how 3rd-party social media tools stack up vs. native posting.

Today we’re excited to share the experiment setup and results in their entirety!

How to listeniTunes | Google Play | SoundCloud | Stitcher | RSS

Brief summary of results: 3rd-party tools don’t seem to negatively affect the reach of posts

We’d love to share a quick summary of what we found (you can find the full results and more on how we ran the experiment below!).

Facebook:

  • 3rd-Party Tools: 9 posts / 81,639 total reach / 9,071 per post
  • Native Posting: 9 posts / 79,380 total reach / 8,820 per post

Twitter:

  • 3rd-Party Tools: 45 posts / 949,890 total impressions / 21,108 per post
  • Native Posting: 45 posts / 975,223 total impressions / 21,671 per post

LinkedIn:

  • 3rd-Party Tools: 9 posts / 63,221 total reach / 7,024 per post
  • Native Posting: 9 posts / 54,646 total reach / 6,071 per post

Read on to check out all of the details!

 

Posting Consistency

The final factor that we focused on for this experiment was to ensure that we were posting consistently. Both timing and frequency impact social media results and so we did our best to post at roughly the same time and frequency each day.

  • Facebook: Posted once per day between 6:00am & 12:00pm PST.
  • Twitter: Posted 3-5 times per day between 5:00am & 10:00pm PST.
  • LinkedIn: Posted once per day between 6:00am & 12:00pm PST.

Posting natively proved to be the most difficult part of this experiment! We found that without 3rd-party social media tools we were having to set reminders in our calendar in order to post at the correct times.

Multiplying that by eight posts per day and three social media accounts, we did end up missing a few posts here and there which prolonged the study.

Last, but not least. It might be helpful to provide the Buffer audience sizes on each network.

Current Buffer Audience Sizes:

  • Facebook: 106,000
  • Twitter: 927,000
  • LinkedIn: 16,500

3rd-party social media tools vs. native posting (results)

Now for the fun part!

Do you think 3rd-part tools negatively affect reach and engagement on social media?

Data-Backed Answer: No.

We did not discover a critical distinction in social media reach and engagement whether we posted through 3rd-party devices or natively to each organize. As you might anticipatea few pieces of substance performed superior than others no matter how they were posted.

If you’re interested in seeing all of the raw data from our experiment, feel free to check out the original spreadsheet where we kept track of every single post.

And if you’d like to run your own 3rd-party tools vs. native posting experiment, we’re happy to share below

3rd-party social media tools vs. native posting (takeaways)

This experiment was an eye-opening one, to say the least! It gave us a great perspective on the current state of social media reach and engagement while also reminding us how much time and effort goes into creating great content.

We’re excited to share the three biggest takeaways we learned in the process.

1. Importance of Content

The number one takeaway that we got out of this experiment is that content is the most important factor that determines social media posting success.

It matters more than timing and frequency. And it matters more than whether or not we posted natively to each network or through a 3rd-party social media tool.

In examining the data, there were times when a piece of content “went viral” when posted natively and there were times when content “went viral” when posted through a 3rd-party tool.

Native Posting vs. 3rd-Party Tools Comparison

We’ve had the pleasure of running multiple experiments over the past year and it always comes down to the same thing: content.

For example, simply reducing our posting frequency and focusing on only creating content that we knew our audience would love, we were able to increase our Facebook organic reach by more than 330 percent in 2017.

Sometimes all it takes is a fresh perspective on the types of content we create:

20 Social Media Content Ideas

If you’re looking for a fun way to switch it up and create a ton of high-quality posts in 2018, feel free to check out 20 social media content ideas that have worked for us and just might work for you, too!

2. Power of Video

We’ve talked about the importance of video marketing lots here on the blog in the past – we even mentioned the video trend in a recent episode of the Buffer Podcast.

Now we’re excited to say that we have our very own data to back it up!

Here’s how videos stacked up in terms of reach and engagement on Facebook and Twitter in comparison to links and images/GIFs:

Average Reach Per Post Type On Social Media

LinkedIn doesn’t currently offer native video posting for brands and so we weren’t able to test the data from that network. But rumor has it that they’ll be opening up native video posting for brands sometime in 2018 (yes!).

Whether networks are prioritizing videos in their algorithms or people truly do enjoy interacting with video over other types of posts, we can expect to see a lot more of them in the coming year.

3. Time and Productivity

Folks that work and are successful in the social media industry know that it can take lots of time and effort to create amazing content and grow accounts.

That’s why we’re huge fans of anything that can make our jobs that much easier – extensions, hacks, tools, you name it!

Planning, uploading, and posting to social media natively turned out to be a major challenge for us. We often found ourselves forgetting to upload a Tweet or Facebook post at a certain time.

And quite ironically, when posting natively, we ended up using Buffer to “store” all of our content so that we could quickly copy and paste the image and caption to each social network. We’re not sure what we would have done without that over the course of the three weeks.

For us, utilizing a social media tool like Buffer, Hootsuite, CoSchedule (or any of the other great tools out there) is how we’re able to ship great content consistently and on time.

Cisco 210-060 Brain Dumps with PDF and VCE Engine

See the people to leave, Bing Yong who hurriedly revealed this painted a printed notice, also run to find the qiqin bad newspaper to go. Dao Guangdi manual move.Cao Gonggong hurriedly leaned over Cisco 210-060 Brain Dumps his ears close to Daoguang s mouth, a long time before looked up, looked to the ministers, they hurried to go out. Adult Cisco 210-060 Brain Dumps look.Tseng Kuo fan said, very free to hand over the donor.Chang Da Jun Pi laugh meat does not Cisco 210-060 Brain Dumps laugh, said Xie Zeng right hall is wrong.Yuxiong this body, Implementing Cisco Collaboration Devices (CICD) it is unbearable drama. Do not say less than one third of the prefectural points, even the care hospital, the Department has not fishing a few copper it. 210-060 Brain Dumps Today is because inadvertently touched the chicken Ling, it leads CCNA Collaboration 210-060 to fainting.Dozer unknown, had to go above the lobby, pulled out a Zhu signed, threw it down, drink Tour All the runners promise a , they all act together. Zhang Zuo collar first, the Cisco 210-060 Brain Dumps moment is not much to say, with two military Cisco 210-060 Brain Dumps officers walked swaggered.

Tianchi focuses on 210-060 Brain Dumps the head. The two sisters stood up and hugged again. Zhong Chubo suspected I see that he is fainting, blood is not out, Cisco 210-060 Brain Dumps should there be nothing big The man replied He suffered such a heavy Implementing Cisco Collaboration Devices (CICD) blow, but there is Cisco 210-060 Brain Dumps no blood on his head, but http://www.examscert.com the situation is not good, bleeding Come, it s all right. She CCNA Collaboration 210-060 is definitely not beautiful, but he is still amazing. Within two days, the students were recruited. Cisco 210-060 Brain Dumps Since this year, she has saved money for herself.

It does not matter with anything else, it is completely aura, he runs behind me for a long 210-060 Brain Dumps time and I do not Cisco 210-060 Brain Dumps have to look back knowing he is not there. Do you still feel CCNA Collaboration 210-060 legendary yourself So what Cisco 210-060 Brain Dumps brigade did not talk tesking about his battle story, the thing Cisco 210-060 Brain Dumps he regretted in his life was to attend the English delegation to exhibit everywhere. Only, tears silently slipped out of my closed eyes.I know, Xiao Ying Implementing Cisco Collaboration Devices (CICD) fell asleep. I drive with you.Snoopy lock trinkets on your black NIKE backpack just jump in.My heart is also jumping.Do not know why, is to follow you.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.