← All case studies

Case study · Social media operating protocol

A social plan somebody can actually run

Most social media plans describe a tone and a set of themes and then stop. Nobody can execute a tone. This was written for the person who has to open the laptop on Monday and publish something.

Without a protocol against with oneBefore— Different handles per platform— No posting cadence— No tagging on outbound links— Nobody could say what workedAfter— One handle standard, applied everywhere— A calendar with named owners— Every link tagged at source— One row per post per platformThe protocol is what makes the measurement possible.
Consistency is not an aesthetic choice. Without it there is no dataset at the end of the year.

1. The problem with most social media plans

They describe a tone and a set of themes and then stop. Nobody can execute a tone. What a person actually needs on a Monday morning is: which platform, how many posts, of what kind, who supplies the material, and what number tells us it worked.

This was written as an operating document rather than a strategy deck.

2. One archive, six platforms, six jobs

Figure 1

The cadence, per platform

Six platforms, each with its own cadence and its own job Facebook 4–5 / week Instagram 4–5 + 3 stories LinkedIn 3–4 / week Pinterest collection-led Tumblr archive-led Flickr archive-led The same material, published differently on each — because the platforms reward different things and are read by different people. Every entry names a cadence. A protocol without a number is a wish.

Cadences as specified in the protocol. The archive-led platforms carry the collection at volume; the conversational platforms carry the narrative posts that link back to it.

Why the same post everywhere is the wrong answer

A historical image is a browsing object on one platform, a discussion prompt on another, and a professional credential on a third. Cross-posting identical content treats six different audiences as one, and it is the reason most multi-platform presences underperform on all six.

3. What makes it executable

ElementWhy it is in the document
A named post formatA recurring “day in history” post gives every week a spine, so nobody starts from a blank page
A named supplier for the materialA collaborator provides the research on a fixed schedule. The analyst adds imagery and video. Two roles, stated
Numeric targetsConnections per month, follower milestones by date. Not aspirations — checkpoints
Timing that follows the dataPosting windows chosen from observed engagement rather than convenience
Groups and communities to joinDistribution, not just publication. Where the audience already is
Explicit links back to the catalogEvery platform has a stated route to the thing being sold
The test for a protocol

Could somebody who did not write it run it next week? If any step requires asking the author what was meant, it is a strategy document wearing a protocol’s clothes. This one names the formats, the counts, the sources and the targets, which is what makes the difference.

4. What this case is meant to show

The usual social planWhat was written here
Themes and toneFormats, counts and owners
Post consistentlyFour to five a week on this platform, three stories, these windows
Grow the audienceThis number by this date, on this platform
One plan for all channelsSix platforms, six jobs, one source archive
And where this connects to the research

The archive behind this protocol is the same one that produced the durability question in our social research work — old posts still collecting comments from new people years later. The protocol was written to run a business. The pattern it exposed became a research question. That sequence is usually the right one.

Marketing Analytics Consultants

Have a plan nobody is actually running?

We turn strategy into an operating document — formats, cadences, owners and numbers — so the work happens whether or not the person who wrote it is in the room.

Prefer email? info@marketinganalyticsconsultants.com