On top of that, the power of organic recommendation has clearly collapsed. In a world drowning in #ad tags, authenticity is non-negotiable. The current model has turned creators into carbon copies of each other, killing their credibility and turning spontaneous recommendations into predictable, transactional chores that users simply scroll past.
To make matters worse, creators jump from one sponsorship to the next, pushing products without any real brand loyalty, leaving consumers feeling commercially exhausted.
But make no mistake: people aren’t questioning the relevance of creators; they’re questioning the survival of a saturated model.
Today’s audience demands more authenticity, credibility, and actual value. These new consumer realities prove that everything is cyclical, and we always end up back at square one. We need to use this as a roadmap to get back to what started with good intentions—a promise of spontaneity, empathy, and truth.
The real question CMOs need to ask isn’t “how many people saw this?” but rather “of the people who saw it, how many did something that proves they actually care?”
A NEW MEASUREMENT MODEL: From mere exposure to genuine interest—rethinking how we measure campaign impact
A video can rack up a million views and not generate a single drop of purchase intent. It can reach a hundred thousand followers without a single comment mentioning the product. Reach only tells us how many eyeballs were in front of the screen, not how many people reacted in a way that actually drives commercial value.
This is especially true in categories like beauty, fashion, or FMCG, where content battles for mere seconds of attention in a crowded feed. The real question CMOs need to ask isn’t “how many people saw this?” but rather “of the people who saw it, how many did something that proves they actually care?”
We want to reach consumers and forge real connections, yet when we measure campaigns, we’re still stuck on “how many saw it” and “how many interacted.” That’s when the questions that truly matter start popping up: Do we know if they actually care about our product?
Do they like the post because of the creator, or because of the content itself? Do we know what they’re saying about our brand? Are they asking questions we could answer to position ourselves as experts, or raising concerns that reveal purchase barriers we didn’t even know existed?
Assigning different ‘weights’ to Likes, Saves, Shares, and Comments
All of this—and much more—is what we need to start treating as a good measurement. It’s not about swapping one metric for another; it’s about changing the fundamental question we ask ourselves: shifting from “how many saw it?” to “how many cared?”
Let’s use the Interaction Rate as our new baseline, so we know exactly how many of the people who saw our content were genuinely interested. But wait—is that interest actually positive? We can’t just stop at the volume of interactions; we have to dig into their quality so we can understand what the consumer truly thinks, feels, and says about our brand and our products.
To do this, we need to accept that not all interactions carry the same weight. We need to break down exactly what they are:
- Likes: Often just a reflex double-tap. While they boost the Interaction Rate, they are the shallowest form of interest.
- Saves: A sign of genuine, functional interest. The user wants to come back to this content—something that also drives the organic “reach & frequency” we so often pay for in campaigns.
- Shares: These organically amplify the content. And when sent in private DMs, they are virtually a digital word-of-mouth recommendation: someone thought of a specific person when they saw our post.
- Comments: Here, we need to measure the Net Sentiment to understand what’s actually being said about us. We have to separate the filler (“so pretty!”) from high-intent comments (“is this good for sensitive skin?”, “where can I buy this?”).
This last layer is probably the richest and most underutilized. The comment section doesn’t just hold brand sentiment; it holds questions that, if managed well, can be turned into valuable content, expert responses, or even direct product insights.
But there’s a catch: “Qualitative success” changes depending on the audience
One of the most overlooked nuances in our industry is that the exact same comment or save means totally different things depending on who is making it. For Gen Z, qualitative success is validated through cultural impact, while for older demographics, it’s validated through authority and education:
- Gen Z: They save and share based on trends, humor, or current pop culture. For them, interacting is primarily a matter of social identity—they share what reflects who they are within their community.
- Boomers & Gen X: They save and comment looking for technical info, ingredients, benefits, and how-tos. For them, interacting serves a purely practical, educational purpose.
This has a direct impact on how we read the exact same KPI. A spike in saves on Gen Z-targeted content likely means it struck a cultural chord. That same spike on content aimed at a mature audience probably means the user wants to refer back to specific info right before pulling out their credit card. Applying the same interpretation criteria to both scenarios will lead to the wrong conclusions.
Volume metrics are still key, but this new landscape demands a qualitative deep dive before any campaign goes live. The new vetting process for brands must answer:
- Do they have a loyal community, or just a passive audience?
- Do they have real, intellectual authority to prescribe in our specific category?
- Is there proven consistency between what they use organically and what they sponsor?
- Exactly what kind of reputation are we attaching to our brand by partnering with this profile?
