PR Misconceptions – Posting Times

Individual brand analysis of customers’ social activity identifies optimum times for posting.

While most brands post their social content during convenient office hours, these are rarely the optimal times for content to be seen. Analysis of customer peak online activity on different platforms for three brands—Heineken, Lego and Google—shows that the ideal posting profile can vary wildly from brand to brand and platform to platform. 

#Brand Reputation

Share this report
Side-by-side heat maps comparing the best engagement times on Twitter and Facebook, with darker blue blocks showing peak activity across different hours and days
Share this report

Fill up the form below and receive the full report directly to your inbox

Related reports

Intel: Stock Manipulation

May 19, 2024

Aimed to determine the proportion of fake accounts involved in Twitter discussions about Intel stock, INTC.

Analytics dashboard showing 268 profiles talking about Intel stock, with 60 classified as inauthentic (22%) and 205 authentic (76%). Beneath, a line chart tracks fake account activity and Intel stock price from March 29 to April 4, illustrating a sharp rise in fake activity that coincides with stock movement on April 4.

#Stocks

Pizza Hut – Social Media Analysis

June 10, 2024

Cyabra analyzed the primary factors contributing to the online boycott of Pizza Hut on X and Facebook.

Side-by-side social posts: left, a tweet stating California lost nearly 10,000 fast-food jobs after the $20 minimum wage hike; right, an Instagram graphic showing several pizzas with the text “Pizza Hut has officially brought back the all-you-can-eat buffet,” plus a caption repeating the announcement

#Brand Reputation

McDonald’s – Social Media Analysis

June 18, 2024

Cyabra analyzed the main narratives and fake accounts contributing to negative sentiment around McDonald's.

Line area chart comparing positive versus negative McDonald’s mentions on social media between 25 May and 23 June 2024; headline stats show 1,338 total profiles and 488 (36%) classified as negative spreaders

#Brand Reputation