Instinctively, humans tend to think that a bigger number means better. For digital marketing, more impressions and more website traffic means a higher chance of generating sales or leads, right?
The same logic is applied for social media marketing too, with more likes, comments and followers suggesting a better page and so better page results for the owner. These metrics indicate popularity and, therefore, infer trust to the viewer.
Free reach
In the early years of social media, the platforms freely gave visibility to profiles and pages, allowing them to build up large follower counts and capture clicks and comments. As user numbers grew in the hundreds of millions, billions of posts were shared every day. Given the sheer volume of stuff being uploaded, both good and bad in quality, the platforms needed to start ranking content. The outcome was that visibility declined for profiles and pages. A widely shared statistic is that fewer than 7% of page followers will organically see its posts.
The algorithm is determining whether posts are shown to audiences, in the name of providing them with engaging content to keep them on the platform. Whether the next post in the feed comes from your business page or another is, in truth, inconsequential to the corporations running the beloved social platforms.
Plenty of high profile social media users, from celebrities to influencers to content creators, bemoaned the fact that when they posted, it was not a given their fans would see it. This is in part why YouTube videos religiously encourage viewers to ‘turn on notifications’ so that the audience gets a direct alert when new content is uploaded. The platforms eventually relented and offered a classic chronological feed but typically these are a click or swipe away and so the vast majority of users never end up using social media in this way.
This sets the stage for why the notion that ‘high followers equals high visibility’ is not as true as it once was.
Algorithm-driven feeds
By the mid-2010s, it seemed like the established platforms - Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, Twitter - had a hold on social media, with challenger platforms struggling to stick. Page owners needed to accept the status quo (or pay for better results - more on this later).
Then in 2017 along came TikTok, with short-form video as its primary format and an algorithmic feed that truly captured the attention of audiences. It’s been proven that within an hour or so of users registering a new account, TikTok’s algorithm is able to present compelling content attuned to the individual’s interests and likes. The result was addictive, with daily use time quickly mirroring or exceeding that of the alternatives.
TikTok provides such an alluring, addictive feed through monitoring watch times and button engagement to serve associated content. It does this without needing the user to follow a profile. Meta and co. had no choice but to start mimicking this method, in light of users choosing to spend their time elsewhere online.
If you think about the posts you see when scrolling down your feed nowadays, how many come from your chosen followed accounts?
The knowledge that platforms have built up about users and their interests plays a bigger part in what you see, rather than merely who you follow.
Bots
Successive reports show that significant proportions of global web traffic is made up of bots. These are computer programs running from machines or server farms across the world, imitating human users. Amongst the bots’ offerings is social follower growth, at attractive, attainable price points.
Businesses are, understandably, interested in the option to boost their follower counts and build their business’ perceived popularity. The issue that actually follows is the bots do not engage with posts, the algorithm, therefore, deems it less relevant content and so does not share it as widely with genuine social users.
The platforms themselves are constantly retaliating against bots too, including by blocking the fake accounts they open. Meta reports blocking millions every day and the consequence is follower counts then reduce.
Those tempted to add to their follower count by buying followers from unofficial sources are advised to think again given that within days or weeks they might not show at all.
Profile ticks
One way Twitter, now X, tries to tackle fake accounts is by charging a monthly fee to show a profile badge, most commonly a tick, as a means of trust. The theory is bots will not have a unique credit card to pay meaning users can easily identify legitimate accounts. It could be suggested this visual symbol offsets the need for high follower counts as audiences can spot the official account in that way instead.
Meta has since joined in with Meta Verified, a paid-for tick scheme, while LinkedIn offers a tick where paid-for activity, such as advertising, is considered for eligibility.
Ads
The final consideration to make where follower counts are concerned is the other side of marketing: paid social advertising. Given the platforms are publicly-traded businesses (bar X/Twitter), they are required to generate revenue and profit quarter on quarter, and they largely do so through their advertising solution.
On the upside for page owners, the platforms have ad formats which direct users to follow an account (e.g. Facebook follower campaigns) or visit the profile (e.g. Instagram, LinkedIn traffic ads). As these are users choosing to click the sponsored post, then choosing to follow (unlike bots), it is more likely these users will continue to engage on future posts.
That said, due to the proliferation of ads on the platforms, users are interacting more selectively. Businesses need to weigh up whether a follower campaign to generate future users to interact on a future product or service post is effective. Instead, many businesses are choosing to boost their sales-oriented posts directly to audiences, cutting out the audience building process.
This too plays into why audience numbers are not what they were, having to compete with direct-to-consumer boosted posts or ads.
Multi-channel user journeys
Social media is right up there amongst the recognised channels for generating awareness and demand. But it is not the only way users start or end their buying journeys. They may discover a brand through a YouTube ad, visit the website from an organic search and then choose to visit the social feed. Trust can be earned through various other online channels you choose to represent your business on before they happen to consider the follower count.
Furthermore, the latest advent of AI platforms with summarised responses is adjusting how users operate online. Whereas before users had to navigate around the internet to build up an understanding of advice, products, brands, now they can get it in one bitesize answer. Data shows users are not clicking through as much to the cited source material, so follower count might not come into consideration at all.
Importantly, social content is a highly cited source by AI, so it doesn’t look like the need for it will be lessening going forwards (AI content slop concerns aside, but that’s a different topic for a different day).
–
For the record, this article is certainly not saying follower counts are irrelevant. Instead, the ways in which social media is being consumed is changing and, therefore, business owners with pages need to adapt what they prioritise and attribute value towards, too.
Given the factors mentioned above, it’s not unimaginable that page owners will be able to hide their follower counts in future. It is already possible on an individual post level to turn comments off or hide like counts and users regularly choose to do so to lessen the performance anxiety associated with a public presence.
