Playbook replay
Share of voice
Quantifies who owns the conversation across social and news, and shows where the gap actually is.
Run for Lumira, a demo brand we invented for this page. No customer data. Nothing here runs against a live account.
Every session here was run once and saved, against a demo brand or public data. On your own account Naise works from your brand voice, your campaigns and your connected channels, so it reasons about your data instead of a stand-in.
A single share-of-voice percentage is almost always misleading. One brand can dominate news and be invisible on social, and the strategic response to each is completely different.
Measuring social and news separately rather than blending them, because the two behave differently and a combined number hides which one you are losing.
Two very different pictures.
Social, branded tag volume
| Brand | Posts | Share | Median ER |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brand X | 4,100 | 46% | 2.9% |
| Lumira | 3,300 | 37% | 4.1% |
| Brand Y | 1,500 | 17% | 2.2% |
News, mentions
| Brand | Mentions | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Brand X | 62 | 58% |
| Brand Y | 29 | 27% |
| Lumira | 16 | 15% |
On social you are a close second with the best engagement rate of the three. In news you are a distant third behind a competitor half your social size.
The gap is press, not product. Brand Y has less than half your social conversation and nearly twice your news presence. That is a PR resourcing difference, not an audience one.
One number that reframes all of it. The three brands together account for 8,900 posts. The skincare category tag in Singapore carried 71,000 over the same window.
So the three of you are competing over roughly 13% of the conversation. Eighty-seven percent of people talking about skincare in this market are not mentioning any of you.
That is the more useful strategic read than the share split. Taking share from Brand X is a fight over 46% of 13%. Reaching the unbranded conversation is a much larger and much less contested opportunity, and your engagement rate advantage suggests you would do well there.
Method note. Branded hashtag volume undercounts mentions that spell the brand without a tag. All three brands are undercounted the same way, so the shares hold up better than the absolute numbers.
Naise created an artifact
Social and news measured separately, with the category baseline that puts all three shares in perspective.
Social
| Brand | Posts | Share | ER |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brand X | 4,100 | 46% | 2.9% |
| Lumira | 3,300 | 37% | 4.1% |
| Brand Y | 1,500 | 17% | 2.2% |
News
| Brand | Mentions | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Brand X | 62 | 58% |
| Brand Y | 29 | 27% |
| Lumira | 16 | 15% |
The reframe
All three brands = 13% of the category conversation. 87% mention none of you.
That was a sample. Run it on your own brand.
Naise reads your brand, your channels, and your market, then does this against your real data.
Run this playbook free