The Shocking Truth About Your Social Audiences
Peter Panda

What if I told you your social audiences — those on Facebook vs. Twitter, for example — were not only not the same, but were starkly different? Would it make you uncomfortable with your content strategy? If you are producing the same or similar content for each network, it should offer cause for concern.

Surely I can’t prove that, right? Well, I probably can. And I did for one client recently.

Take a look at the gender and age profile of Client A for people who talk about them on Twitter:

Social Audiences - Twitter Gender

Social Audiences - Twitter Age

So we’re looking at a slightly male-skewed audience, generally young adult, but with 50% of its audience being 35 and up.

Now look at the same brand’s conversation audience on Facebook:

Social Audiences - Facebook Gender

Social Audiences - Facebook Age

This audience is decidedly female and middle-aged, with 62% of its audience at 35 and up.

These are two different social audiences — not even close really — but those of the same exact brand on two different social networks. At a minimum, understanding this better informs your messaging, targeting and content. You wouldn’t talk to a 66% female audience the same way you would talk to a 51% male one, would you? You wouldn’t talk to a millennial audience the same way you’d talk to a Gen-X one, right?

Yet this particular brand does.

Now, certainly there exists more context than I am at liberty to share that might explain these numbers. The brand in question has quite a successful presence on both channels. But isn’t knowing the difference in your social audiences fascinating?

There are lots of benefits to understanding your social audiences from a conversation research perspective. The differences in their makeup from network to network is only one. The more I dive into researching conversations online, the more gaps I see in how brands are leveraging this information. And I’m guessing that your brand is one that probably has some gaps too.

I would love nothing more than to talk to you about how social intelligence — insights gleaned from analyzing social media conversations — can help you. If the above isn’t convincing enough, drop me a line and let’s chat!

NOTE: Thanks to NetBase for the data. Elasticity uses NetBase as its primary social intelligence platform for our clients. Check them out at




*You can also find this post at


Peter Panda

Pioneering social media panda bear Tagawa “Peter” Panda was born on a Chinese game reserve in 1969. He emigrated to the United States in 1987 speaking no English, with only the fur on his back and $97 stored in a Jansport fanny-pack wrapped around his waist.

In 2003 while searching for food on the campus of Washington University, he discovered a computer lab where he would ultimately teach himself web development, graphic design, and immerse himself into the growing digital media evolution that was erupting at the time.

With his trademark surly demeanor developed during beatings on his boat ride from China to the U.S., as well as having a penchant for eating vast quantities of bamboo, and enjoying Scotch and cigars, Peter is broadly recognized for coining the phrase “social media” in 2004. He joined Elasticity in late 2009 as the agency’s director of social media strategy and wildlife relations. Friend him on Facebook here.

Creative, Culture, Data, Development, Media, News, PR, Social, Strategy | 11.12.2019
Brand Marketing + Reputation Management Firm Elasticity Enters Denver Market
Award-winning brand marketing and reputation management agency Elasticity today announced
Creative, Culture, Data, Media, News, PR, Social, Strategy | 04.27.2020
Regional businesses including Chipotle, Denver Museum of Nature & Science,
Creative, Culture, Media, News, PR, Social, Strategy | 12.18.2019
Most Meaningful: Looking Back at 2019
There is a continuum of unique issues, scandals, campaigns technological