The top 10 questions clients ask us about social media in 2026

By 2026, most businesses no longer approach social media with naïve optimism. The early days of effortless reach, fast growth, and simple success metrics have passed. What has replaced them is a far more complex environment, one in which visibility can generate opportunity and risk in equal measure.

As a result, the questions clients ask about social media have changed. They are no longer asking how to go viral or how often to post. They are asking how social media fits into the wider picture of reputation, credibility, and long term business health.

Below are the ten questions we are asked most frequently, and the answers we give, based not on theory, but on lived experience.

1. Is organic social media basically dead now?

This is almost always the first question, and it is understandable.

Organic reach has declined across all major platforms, particularly for brand accounts. However, it would be inaccurate to say that organic social media is dead. What has disappeared is passive organic reach.

Platforms no longer reward content simply for existing. They reward relevance, differentiation, and audience behaviour. Content that feels generic, repetitive, or interchangeable is deprioritised quickly. Content that is clear in its purpose, consistent in its message, and recognisable over time still performs.

Organic social media now functions less like a broadcasting tool and more like a credibility signal. It supports reputation, reinforces positioning, and influences perception, even when reach is modest.

In other words, organic social media still matters, but not in the way it once did.

2. Do we really need to post all the time?

No, and in many cases, posting less is the more effective option.

The idea that success requires constant posting is one of the most persistent myths in social media marketing. In reality, excessive posting often suppresses performance by training audiences and algorithms to disengage.

What matters is not frequency, but intent. Each post should have a reason to exist. It should support a narrative, reinforce credibility, or serve a specific strategic purpose.

Silence, when intentional, is not failure. It can signal confidence, seriousness, and control. Brands that post selectively often command more attention than those that post continuously.

3. Why do we get engagement but no enquiries?

This question usually reveals a disconnect between visibility and business outcomes.

Engagement does not automatically translate into intent. Likes and comments can be driven by entertainment, relatability, or momentary interest, without any deeper connection to what a business actually offers.

In many cases, content is optimised to be liked rather than trusted. It may perform well within the platform but fail to communicate value, authority, or relevance beyond it.

To generate enquiries, social media content must do more than attract attention. It must clarify who the brand is for, what problem it solves, and why it is credible. Without that clarity, engagement becomes noise.

4. Should the founder or leadership team be visible on social media?

Often, but not always.

Founder-led visibility can humanise a brand, build trust, and outperform corporate accounts. However, it also introduces reputational exposure. Personal views, tone, and behaviour become intertwined with the brand’s public image.

Visibility should be a strategic choice, not an assumption. It requires boundaries, consistency, and an understanding of long term implications.

Some founders thrive in public. Others are better positioned as strategic voices rather than constant presences. The key is alignment, not obligation.

5. Is it risky to talk about social or political issues online?

It can be, depending on context, relevance, and execution.

Audiences are increasingly sceptical of performative alignment. Commentary that lacks depth or relevance can appear opportunistic, even when intentions are genuine.

There is no universal rule. Some brands are well placed to engage meaningfully. Others are not.

The greater risk often lies not in speaking, but in speaking without clarity or preparedness. Once a position is taken publicly, it invites scrutiny, interpretation, and response.

In many cases, restraint is the more credible option.

6. How long does social media actually take to work?

This question is often asked after frustration has already set in.

Social media rarely delivers meaningful results quickly, particularly for brands seeking credibility rather than novelty. Building recognition, trust, and narrative coherence takes time.

Short term spikes are possible, but they are rarely sustainable. Long term value comes from consistency of message, not consistency of output.

Businesses should expect social media to compound gradually, with progress measured in months rather than weeks. Anything faster should be treated with caution.

7. Why do smaller accounts sometimes perform better than larger ones?

This is one of the most misunderstood dynamics on social media.

Smaller accounts often benefit from clearer positioning, closer audience alignment, and lower expectations. Their content can feel more personal, more focused, and more intentional.

Larger accounts frequently suffer from dilution. As audiences grow, messaging becomes broader, safer, and less distinctive. Engagement may increase numerically while relevance decreases.

Growth without clarity often leads to stagnation. Smaller accounts that know exactly who they are speaking to frequently outperform larger ones that do not.

8. What matters more, followers or reputation?

Reputation, without question.

Follower counts are visible and easy to compare. Reputation is slower, quieter, and far more valuable.

A large audience with low trust offers little protection in moments of scrutiny. A smaller audience with strong alignment offers resilience.

Social media should be understood as a reputational surface. It reflects judgement, consistency, and values over time. Followers may come and go. Reputation accumulates.

9. Should we delete old posts that no longer reflect us?

Sometimes, but not reflexively.

Old content can become problematic if it contradicts current positioning, creates legal or reputational exposure, or no longer aligns with public expectations.

However, mass deletion can also raise questions. It can signal insecurity or invite curiosity.

Decisions about removing content should be deliberate, not emotional. Context matters. So does intent.

In many cases, adjusting future strategy is more effective than rewriting the past.

10. How do we know when to stop posting or change direction?

This is perhaps the most important question, and the hardest to answer definitively.

Warning signs include declining engagement quality, increasing internal discomfort, unclear audience response, and growing reliance on trends rather than narrative.

When posting begins to feel compulsory rather than purposeful, it is usually time to pause and reassess.

Social media should support confidence, not erode it. When activity creates anxiety rather than clarity, strategy has drifted.

What these questions reveal

Taken together, these questions reflect a broader shift in how social media is understood.

Businesses are no longer chasing attention for its own sake. They are seeking clarity, control, and confidence. They want to understand how social media fits into the wider ecosystem of reputation, communication, and growth.

This is not a technical challenge. It is a strategic one.

The role of a modern social media agency is not to provide constant answers, but to help clients ask better questions. To replace noise with judgement. To prioritise long term credibility over short term visibility.

A closing note

Social media in 2026 rewards thoughtfulness more than activity. It punishes carelessness more than silence.

The businesses that succeed are not those doing the most, but those doing what makes sense for who they are, where they are, and what they are building.

Asking the right questions is the first step.