A view on one platform is like three seconds, whereas one second is a view on the other platform and both land in the same column of most social reports. Anyone comparing those columns is actually comparing nothing at all. Translation is the first and most important job of the report.
Once that’s complete, this report can pull data about which posts worked, what characterized successful posts, and what tasks require more working hours in the next month.
The decision to be made outside of social reporting is generally between the next production and the placement of paid ads. To differentiate an audience that is a derivative of an audience that saw something once, both require a report. Follower counts do not provide this information. Savings, shares and recurrent audiences are much more helpful.
What each of these social reports use to value metrics across all the aspects of social networking services (SNS) is the same. Impressions, views and reach are combined, and we are left with a meaningless total reach number for which the recommendations are to increase posting of videos.
The author exports everything natively from each platform. They outline where a metric changed its definition during the reporting period and sort posts by type and topic, rather than in reverse chronological order. These groupings show interesting patterns which a chronological order completely obscures.
Most of the exported data doesn’t make it to the report. The data that does is often just the comparison data that could influence what you post: e.g. this data format outperformed that data format at the same level of funding; this subject kept users’ attention for twice as long. Each of these points names the posts behind the data so you can check them yourself.
One rate, whatever the format: $10 per 100 words. You are paying for the writer’s time and judgement, so the price scales with the words rather than with a package tier.
| Typical social-media report | Words | Writing | Fee (1%) | You pay |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Summary report | 1,200 | $120 | $1.20 | $121.20 |
| Standard report | 3,000 | $300 | $3 | $303 |
| In-depth report | 6,000 | $600 | $6 | $606 |
The writer receives 100% of the writing price. Our 1% fee is added on top of it, and 0.5% is donated to tree planting. Full pricing breakdown.
Primary sources wherever they exist — your own data, published research, filings, regulator and industry figures — with secondary reporting used only where nothing better is available. Everything used is listed with links so you can check it.
We write the analysis, label what each figure shows and describe the charts your designer should build, including the takeaway each one has to land. We do not produce finished graphics, so tell us if you need the underlying numbers laid out for a designer.
No, most clients prefer to purchase exports, which is sufficient for us. We can utilize read-only analytics access if you would like us to. It will be removed prior to delivery. Nobody in our organization does any posting, replying, or adjusting your account settings.
From what is publicly available: posting frequency, formats, and visible engagement. Their reach and click data are private, so any comparison is incomplete, and the report places these columns as estimates instead of showing your actual data beside them.
Completely. Copyright transfers to you on delivery, with no attribution requirement and no licence back to us. Nothing written for you is resold, repurposed or republished.
Reviews from completed, paid orders in this category.
We asked if we could round the figure and be allowed to say that it was approximately ninety percent. The writer came back and said that the data showed eighty-six percent, and asked if we wanted to publish eighty-six percent or tell the story of the gap. We published eighty-six percent. That was the best use of our budget.
Every figure on every one of the forty-two pages included a footnote. I checked nine of them individually — they brought me to the right spot. Detector reports got sent with the delivery email, and I didn’t need them, but procurement liked them.
We cater toward detailed donors. Our writer double-checked a participation figure that looked high, and we found that we double counted a cohort. The corrected number with a report footnote explaining how we found the error was sent out. The footnote we included helped us gain more trust than putting out a good number would have.
We do not ask you to take the no-AI promise on trust. Each draft is run through these platforms and the reports are attached to your delivery email.
Originality.aiAI detection + plagiarism
GPTZeroAI detection
TurnitinAI detection + similarity
CopyleaksAI detection + plagiarism
Winston AIAI detection
ZeroGPTAI detection
SaplingAI detection
Content at ScaleAI detection
Send the brief, get a human draft back within 3 days. No account, no subscription, no AI.
$10 per 100 words · all of it to the writer · 0.5% to trees