Replicate or silence? The brand dilemma in the age of dissent

The chase for visibility

Automotive is the sector that invests most in sponsored content with 53% of paid posts. This is followed by retail and insurance with almost one out of every two pieces of content supported by advertising. The pharmaceutical sector, on the contrary, stops at 18%, favouring a more organic and informative logic. This data signals a growing algorithmic mediation of communication: to obtain visibility, it is not enough to publish, one must amplify. Social media become hybrid platforms between editorial reporting and advertising push. A complicated relationship between organic reach and investment with the risk of losing credibility in the attempt to chase visibility. "There are pages where seven or eight out of ten pieces of content are created with an average investment behind them. When a page has almost half of its content sponsored, the risk of slipping from being a relationship space to a promotion space becomes real. Balance is the decisive variable. Paid remains a useful tool, today indispensable for reaching new audiences. But the model that probably holds up best over time is the one in which the investment amplifies a strong editorial content, not replaces it. This is the model chosen by some of our companies certified as Top in social media management: among them are Eni, Edison, Hera, Ibsa, Iren, Tim and Zurich Italia,' says Paola Aragno, contract lecturer in communication metrics at the degree course in marketing & digital communication at Lumsa University and vice-president of Eikon.

Managing dissent

Out with the simple digital notice boards of yesteryear. Because the ability to listen, the management of dissent and the quality of relationships are measured by these spaces. Yet the Eikon research recounts a contemporary paradox: while companies declare openness, many are progressively raising barriers. They limit comments, reduce spontaneous interaction, filter confrontation. It is the transition from social media to controlled spaces, where fear of reputational crisis often prevails over the value of authentic dialogue. The most interesting fact is not only who publishes more or invests more in advertising, but the different cultural approach to conversation. Community openness' emerges for brands that close or limit comments more and 'community mood' to measure the level of negativity or positivity of conversations. What creaks, however, is the relationship with dissent. Because the negative comment becomes an integral part of the public experience of the brand. Eikon captures a decisive step: shutting down comments is as much a value choice as an advertising campaign. "One of the most interesting data concerns 'community openness', i.e. the option of closing, limiting or controlling comments as a defensive choice to protect reputation but which risks breaking trust," says Aragno. So if for years companies used social media in a nonchalant and self-referential way, today they realise that those spaces become places of permanent conflict. And they get scared. "The choice between broadcasting and conversation does not seem conditioned by the sector but is a decision of the individual brand. In the same sector there are now realities that have chosen antipodal models of presence: for example, in the insurance sector, which on average removes more, completely different choices emerge with brands that eliminate up to 71% of comments and others that stand at 17%. In the large-scale retail sector, which on average seems to remove less, there are companies that reach up to 87 per cent of comments removed,' Aragno points out. But trust is built on continuity. In the new conversational era, the brand that converses on a daily basis becomes credible and successful.