Many brands are creating content that is accurate, informative, and professionally executed — and still failing to generate engagement, conversation, or customer loyalty.
That disconnect is becoming a serious leadership problem, especially in enterprise environments where communication strategies are often built around accuracy, compliance, and information delivery.
The challenge is not that the content is bad. In many cases, the content is technically excellent.
The problem is that modern platforms no longer reward information alone.
They reward interaction.
In the first article in this series, The Real Reason Brand Content Isn’t Building Loyalty, I explored how many brands get stuck in surface-level communication that never creates emotional connection. This next layer goes deeper.
Because even when organizations move beyond clichés and begin creating genuinely useful content, many still struggle to create meaningful engagement.
That is where Social Penetration Theory becomes incredibly relevant.
Also known as Onion Theory, the framework explains how relationships deepen over time through layers of interaction, trust, vulnerability, and emotional connection. It also offers a surprisingly useful lens for understanding why some brand content creates conversation while other content gets acknowledged and immediately forgotten.
One of the most important layers in that process is the facts layer.
Because facts matter. Accuracy matters. Credibility matters.
But facts alone rarely create emotional movement.
And in today’s algorithm-driven environment, emotional movement is often what determines whether audiences engage, respond, share, trust, or simply keep scrolling.
The Leadership Problem Behind “Helpful” Content
Most enterprise content strategies are still optimized for information delivery instead of relationship-building.
That sounds subtle, but the difference is enormous.
Many leadership teams are investing heavily in thought leadership content designed to educate audiences:
- industry reports
- statistics
- trends
- research findings
- “how-to” posts
- best practices
On paper, this looks like strong content marketing.
But a surprising amount of it creates passive engagement instead of meaningful interaction.
Someone might agree with the content internally. They may even save it for later. But they do not feel compelled to participate in the conversation.
And increasingly, that matters.
Social platforms are shifting away from rewarding static broadcasting and toward rewarding interaction, participation, and dialogue.
Which means many brands are investing significant resources into content that informs audiences without ever creating relationship depth.
Why Facts Alone Rarely Create Connection
One of the core ideas behind Social Penetration Theory is that relationships deepen gradually.
People do not build trust through surface-level exchanges forever. At some point, there has to be interaction, perspective, curiosity, emotional context, and shared understanding.
The same thing is true for brands.
Facts are important because they establish credibility and help audiences understand who you are. But facts alone rarely make people feel anything.
A post that says:
“59% of consumers expect a brand to respond within one hour on social.”
…is useful information.
A post that says:
“59% of consumers expect a response within one hour on social. Most brands are nowhere close. What is actually preventing faster response times right now — staffing, tools, internal ownership, or something else?”
…creates participation.
The difference is not the fact itself.
The difference is whether the content invites people into a conversation.
That distinction matters because algorithms are increasingly measuring engagement quality, not just content distribution.
Social Platforms Are Rewarding Conversation
One of the clearest examples of this shift is happening on LinkedIn.
The platform now displays impression counts on comments, not just posts. That detail reveals something important about how value is being measured online.
In many cases, thoughtful participation inside someone else’s conversation can generate more reach than a carefully crafted standalone post.
That is not accidental.
Platforms are signaling that interaction matters more than broadcasting.
At the same time:
- Facebook reach continues to decline
- Instagram reach continues to decline
- LinkedIn reach continues to decline
Meanwhile, content that generates discussion, comments, perspective-sharing, and interaction continues to outperform passive information delivery.
The implications for leadership teams are significant.
Because this is no longer just a content strategy issue. It is a relationship strategy issue.
Brands that continue treating social media as a distribution channel instead of a relationship environment are likely to feel increasingly invisible online.
The Compliance Trap in Enterprise and Fintech
This challenge becomes even more complicated inside financial services, healthcare, enterprise technology, and other regulated industries.
These organizations are trained to prioritize precision. Compliance reviews shape communication culture. Over time, teams become conditioned to remove anything that feels subjective, emotionally charged, or potentially risky.
The result is often content that is accurate but emotionally neutral.
And emotional neutrality creates a hidden problem.
Customers may understand the information, but they do not necessarily feel connected to the brand behind it.
That distinction matters more than many organizations realize.
One of the biggest misconceptions in B2B communication is the belief that professionalism requires emotional distance.
It does not.
You can:
- be accurate and conversational
- be compliant and still sound human
- share research while also sharing perspective
- communicate expertise while still creating warmth and curiosity
In fact, that balance is becoming increasingly important because audiences are overwhelmed with information.
Information alone is no longer differentiating.
Interpretation is.
Perspective is.
Emotional clarity is.
Facts Should Be a Launchpad, Not a Landing Pad
The issue is not the presence of facts.
The issue is treating facts as the final destination.
Many brands stop at:
“Here is the statistic.”
But the most effective content uses information as a starting point for deeper interaction.
Facts should create:
- discussion
- interpretation
- perspective
- curiosity
- disagreement
- experience-sharing
That is where relationships deepen.
And ultimately, that is what modern platforms are rewarding.
The brands building the strongest communities right now are not simply publishing information more frequently. They are creating environments where audiences feel invited to participate.
That requires a fundamentally different approach to communication.
Read the Transcript
[00:00:00] Why Accurate Content Still Gets Ignored
Facts on their own don’t make people feel anything. And when people don’t feel anything, they don’t respond. They nod along internally, they maybe save the post, but they keep scrolling.
And the algorithm, it sees that passive behavior and decides that your content isn’t worth amplifying.
Hey, hey, and welcome back to this Social Media CX show. I am Brooke Sellas, CEO of B Squared Media, author of Conversations That Connect, and your guide through what I’m calling the May Series, which is four episodes and four layers of the social penetration theory. And one very big argument for why the way you communicate on social is either building relationships or quietly killing them.
If you missed last week’s episode, go back and listen because I talked about how a 1973 communication theory became the backbone of everything B Squared Media has built over the past 14 years, and why most brands are stuck at layer one, the cliche layer, and why they’re wondering why nobody’s engaging with their content.
Today, we’re moving forward to layer two, and layer two is all about facts.
And I know what you’re thinking. Facts are good. Facts are credible. Facts are what smart brands post. You’re not wrong. But here’s the thing about facts, and this is the part that might sting just a little.
[00:01:45] Facts Matter, But They’re Not Enough
Facts are necessary, but they’re not sufficient. Ooh yeah, I know that one hurts. That’s okay. We’re gonna get into it. If your social content is mostly facts, you’re probably getting a lot of what we call passive engagement. Lots of impressions, maybe some likes, but not a lot of real conversation, not a lot of comments, not a lot of stuff that actually moves the needle right now on social.
So let’s talk about why, and more importantly, let’s talk about what to do about it. So in the Social Penetration Theory or SPT or Onion Theory, because we hate saying SPT fully all the time. Layer two is what Altman and Taylor call the exploratory effective exchange layer. Big terms, if that’s okay, I’m gonna break it down.
It’s a very academic way of saying, "This is where you start sharing real information." In a relationship context, this is where we move past small talk and start sharing actual things about ourselves. We share about our job, we share about our background, we share where we grew up, our interests. Basic facts that help the other person understand who you are.
It’s totally necessary because you can’t build a relationship on cliches alone, but at some point, substance has to show up.
[00:03:14] Why Facts Alone Don’t Create Emotion
In content terms, facts look like this: the stat post. The, "did you know that 59% of consumers expect a brand to respond within one hour on social?"
I get it. I would post that. There’s also the how to. "Here are five steps to improve your social care response time." Okay. Yeah, I get it. I see it. There’s also the data drop. According to Forrester, CX quality has dropped for the fourth consecutive year. That’s real. That’s a fact. It has happened according to Forrester.
This is not bad content. It’s good content. It’s credible content. It’s content that establishes you as someone who knows what they’re talking about. But here’s the problem. Facts on their own don’t make people feel anything. And when people don’t feel anything, they don’t respond. They nod along internally, they maybe save the post, but they keep scrolling.
And the algorithm, it sees that passive behavior and decides that your content isn’t worth amplifying. Gasp. Sad, but true.
[00:04:32] LinkedIn Is Rewarding Conversation
Now, let me give you a little algorithm update that I think is going to reframe how you think about content maybe forever. LinkedIn, like right now today, is showing you how many impressions your comments are getting, not your post, your comments on other people’s content.
And I’m seeing something wild in my own analytics, which is that sometimes when I leave a comment on someone else’s post, I get more reach than content I spent time crafting and publishing myself. Let that sink in for a second. The platform, LinkedIn, is literally rewarding conversation over broadcasting.
LinkedIn’s algorithm is basically saying, "We care more about what you say in response to others than what you announce into the void."
[00:05:31] Reach Is Shrinking (Engagement Isn’t)
Facebook engagement, also up by about 11%. Instagram engagement for creators who pivoted to conversation and reels is up 150%, and LinkedIn engagement is up around 33%. Meanwhile, organic reach is collapsing. Facebook is down, so when you publish that post, you’re getting 56% less organic reach.
Instagram, same thing. It’s down 60%. LinkedIn’s down 71%, by the way. So even though I’m not a math person, the math is not complicated. Reach is dying while conversation and meaningful engagement is thriving. And facts, pure standalone, ‘here’s a statistic’ facts, live on the reach side of that equation, not the conversation side.
Now, I wanna be really clear here. I’m not telling you to stop posting facts. Facts establish credibility. Facts give your audience something to hold onto. Facts are the foundation of trust, especially in financial services and when we work with enterprise brands where accuracy isn’t optional.
[00:06:51] Facts Should Start the Conversation
What I’m saying is facts should be a launchpad, not a landing pad. The mistakes most brands make is treating the fact as the destination. Here’s the data. Here’s the statistic. Here’s the research. Full stop. But the most engaging content uses facts as a springboard into something that requires a response.
See what I’m saying? Here’s Here’s the difference. Facts as a landing pad would be: "59% of consumers expect a brand to respond within one hour on social", and the source is PwC. That’s it, that’s the post. It’s credible, it’s accurate, it’s completely passive, right? We’re gonna scroll right past it.
if I were using facts as a launchpad, I might post something like this. "59% of consumers expect a brand to respond within one hour on social. Most brands take 24 plus hours. If you’re in that gap, what’s actually stopping you from closing it? Is it staffing, tools, ownership? Drop it in the comments. I’d like to know."
[00:08:02] Passive vs Meaningful Engagement
Same fact, completely different outcome. One invites passive consumption, passive scrolling, which we know the algorithms and the social media platforms do not want. One, demands a response, and that response would be meaningful engagement, comments, comment threads, the things the algorithms love right now.
And here’s the beautiful thing about that second version. It also works when we’re talking about social care. So when your team responds to a customer with facts alone, it can feel transactional. Here’s your answer. Have a nice day. But when you combine facts with genuine curiosity, here’s what I know, and I wanna make sure this is actually going to solve the problem you’re dealing with.
That interaction also deepens. The customer feels seen and trust builds.
[00:08:58] Why Compliance-Heavy Brands Struggle on Social
Beyond that, I wanna talk specifically to my financial services and FinTech folks for a second. Because this industry has a particular relationship with facts. Your team is trained legally, culturally, organizationally to be precise, accurate, compliant. Which means your content and your care responses tend to be very, very, very fact forward.
And that’s not wrong. Accuracy in financial services isn’t optional. I totally get it. I work in this space with y’all every day. But here’s what I see happening. Compliance culture bleeds into communication culture. Everything gets scrubbed so clean, so safe, so factual that there’s no personality left. No warmth and no point of view.
And your customers feel that. They don’t feel like they’re talking to a brand that cares about them. They probably feel like they’re reading a terms and conditions document that learned how to use Instagram. The opportunity for you, and I really think it’s a real one, is to be both accurate And interesting.
To use facts as the foundation, but build something on top of them, an opinion, a question, a moment of genuine human curiosity. You can be compliant and conversational. I promise. We do it every day with our financial service clients.
[00:10:36] How to Be Accurate and Interesting
Also, this is exactly why we built the talk-worthy content course, because most brands know how to find facts.
They know how to cite sources and pull statistics and write accurate, credible content. What they don’t know is how to take that fact and turn it into something worth responding to. That is a skill, and I promise you, it is a learnable skill. The talk-worthy content course walks you through exactly this; how to move from the facts layer to the opinion and the feelings layers in a way that feels natural and on brand and actually generates the kind of engagement that the algorithms are rewarding right now.
And it’s totally free. You can find the course at bsquared.media, go to resources and courses, and then view the talk-worthy content course. Wherever you’re watching or listening to this podcast right now, I will have the link to this course in the show notes or in the transcript, because if you’ve been doing great, accurate, well-researched content, and wondering why no one’s talking back, this course is your answer.
All right, so where does that leave us? We’ve got week one, layer one cliches. It’s where most brands live, because it’s safe, it’s predictable, and it’s totally forgettable. Layer two is facts, and this is where credible brands live. It’s accurate, it’s trustworthy, but it’s still mostly passive.
Next week, we’re moving on to layer three. And this is one of the ones I’m most excited about because it is drum roll please. Opinions. Now, this is where conversations actually start. This is where the algorithm sits up and pays attention. This is where most brands go completely utterly silent because opinions feel risky.
I’m gonna make the case that the risk of not having an opinion on social right now is far greater than the risk of having one. It’s gonna be a good one, so don’t miss it.
Thank you so much for being here and celebrating B Squared Media’s 14th birthday with me in this lovely May series. If this episode made you think differently about how you’re using facts or cliches and your content or your care responses on social, I wanna hear about it.
Find me on LinkedIn, drop me a comment, send me a DM. Let’s have a real conversation about it, which, as we’ve established, is the point of literally all of this. I also want you to go grab that free talk-worthy content course. And as always, if you loved this episode, please leave me a review. It makes a real difference.
See you next week for layer three opinions because things are about to get interesting. Until then, think conversation, not campaign.