Using StatSocial’s patented Social identity graph, we evaluated millions of the U.S.-based users of six major social networks — Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, YouTube, Pinterest, and Snapchat — analyzing their purchasing habits across numerous categories.
By identifying these social audiences and measuring their purchase behaviors against the average U.S. consumer, we’ve been able to quantify how each platforms’ users are spending their money.
Using StatSocial‘s Silhouette, the industry’s most advanced audience intelligence platform, we have found that Facebook’s users spend the most on pets, YouTube’s on photography, Snapchat’s on travel, and Twitter’s on computing & home office supplies.
Before we hop into the chart sharing our brief analysis, it is important that we explain how StatSocial knows these things, and why our reporting is essential.
Our platform not only understands what consumers are passionate about, where they gather online, who influences their decisions, what media they consume, and what Earned Media they are creating and consuming, but we also know (crucially, to this entry) how they spend their money. By way of strategic attribution partners, we can measure audiences, at scale, to revenue participation and lift.
This summary is intended to only scratch the surface. We wanted to offer a taste of Silhouette‘s unique and precise abilities to determine where and how to spend valuable marketing resources (time and money).
We’ve focused on audiences at the aggregate social platform level. However, our clients and partners frequently need to dig far deeper for insights and attribution in relation to influencer campaigns, earned social, brand fans, media properties, and custom personas.
Please Note:The below results were calculated using the purchase preferences of the average U.S. consumer as our baseline. On the below chart, where YouTube intersects with Collectibles, it says 42.3%. This means that the average YouTube user spends 42.3% more money on Collectibles than the average U.S. consumer.
To start, the average user of image sharing and social platform, Pinterest, spends the most on gifts & holiday shopping. These thoughtful and generous users spend 39.2% more on such items than the average U.S. consumer.They also spend 20.5% more on gifts & holiday shopping than the average user of Twitter, the platform coming in second place here.
Pinterest‘s users are not merely employing their boards to daydream about exotic getaways. The platform’s users spend 64.2% more on travel than the average US consumer.Conforming to expectation, but in spectacular fashion, Pinterest‘s users hugely surpass those of the other five platforms for spending on craft & hobby goods. Its average user spends 69.3% more than the typical U.S. consumer on yarn, glue, sparkles, knitting needles, découpage kits, and the like.
Snapchat leads this pack in some surprising categories.Returning to the topic of travel, while all platforms are strong, to varying degrees, Snapchat is head and shoulders above the others. Its users spend a considerable 86.4% more than the average U.S. consumer on “getting away from it all” (or heading toward it, depending upon your perspective). Perhaps this shouldn’t be surprising, given the number of world travel influencers who are prominent Snapchatters.
Snapchat also narrowly edges out Instagram as the most fruitful venue for marketing apparel, with its users spending 28.4% more on clothing than the average American.While on the topic, Instagram is one of the primary online homes of style influencers. Clearly a lot of fashion, footwear, and clothing marketing bucks are dedicated to capturing the attentions of its users. Our analysis surpasses mere intuition, and confirms that the likelihood of ROI is strong here. The platform’s users spend 27.5% more than the average U.S. consumer on apparel.
Users of the largely photo-centric site/app spend 42.2% more on photography & camera gear than the average, but they do not lead this group when it comes to such items.
All six platforms over-index considerably when it comes to spending on photography & camera equipment, but it is YouTube‘s users who are the most avid photography enthusiasts. Their photo expenditures exceed those of the average U.S. consumer by a significant 72%.
The streaming video giant is also, as might be expected, where you’ll find the users spending the most on music. Mostly dwarfing the other platforms featured here, the music expenditures of YouTube‘s users are 28% greater than the U.S. average.
Facebook is generally strong across a number of categories. Their users lead the pack when it comes to spending on value priced general merch, financial services, books &magazines,jewelry, and sporting goods.
Twitter boasts the biggest spenders on goods from a handful of major categories, such as, computing & home office supplies, and food & beverages.Twitter is also the strongest platform, by some margin, when it comes to telecommunications services. The platform’s users spend 7% more within this sector than the average. More Americans than not have a mobile phone and plan. Exceeding that index at all is a thing majorly worth highlighting. Given how similar the Tweet medium is to the text message, perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised at all.
One category made glaringly apparent for the lack of spending evident from the users of all platforms is membership clubs. Such organizations tend to appeal mostly to older folks who may not participate on social media.
How It Works
When trying to convey the depth, breadth, and scale of StatSocial‘s Social Affinity and Earned Media data, we sum it up like this: Imagine an 85,000 question survey given out to 300 million consumers. Now, imagine this already incredible thing as a living, dynamic data set. This survey is being administered in real time, constantly, being continually refreshed to include all of the most up-to-date opinions, choices, affinities, and actions.Learn morehere.
Marketers and media-sellers know that Earned Media and Influencer Marketing are valuable components of their campaigns. Attributing a definitive worth to either, however, has traditionally been elusive. As StatSocial’s analyses report of with what topics and influencers an audience’s members have been engaging, a marketer can now directly attribute website and offline conversions.The same metrics that marketers have long relied upon to quantify the value of a campaign’s Paid and Owned Media components, are now just as readily available for Earned Media.Learn morehere.
StatSocial‘s vast and comprehensive taxonomy is accessible across every programmatic platform. Our partnership with Liveramp, and direct integrations with such leading platforms asViant, Oracle Data Cloud,Eyeota, andLotame, finds StatSocial‘s insights available everywhere you access audience data.We are also available, via our 24/7 online to get you the insights and audiences you need, when you need them.Learn morehere.
(PLEASE NOTE: An explanation of who we are and what we do is available at the bottom of this entry, in the form of a couple of links and a nifty video. Additionally, as this is a long entry, we have provided well labeled, easily comprehended and colorful charts, skimmed in mere minutes or less — for the reader on the go.)
What are you looking at above? What could it possibly mean?
We realize it’s probably rather self-explanatory, but indulge us as we explain further.
As you might have surmised, we’ve set out to demonstrate the diversity of StatSocial’s capabilities (check out the links at the bottom of this entry to learn more about us, and what we do), by sharing some of our metrics regarding the top music streaming services.
We’ve sorted through the mountains of data at our disposal, using the major commercial genres — basically, most of the prominent radio formats — to see which of the biggest streaming music services most appeals to the fans of each genre.
But first, not so much a history lesson, just a little background on how we as a people got to where we are with this entire area of commerce. We think this quick review ultimately helps one to better understand how findings such as ours are of crucial relevance to a marketer or a brand. This, particularly if the competition is not forthcoming with its own numbers.
This will not be our first trip to the streaming music well, as we’ll be digging deeper shortly; getting into artists, and labels, and explorations beyond the crust, and even the mantle.
For now, though…
They all laughed at Christopher Columbus
When he said the world was round
They all laughed when Edison recorded sound
They all laughed at Wilbur and his brother
When they said that man could fly
They told Marconi wireless was a phony
It’s the same old cry
As Ira Gershwin cited the skepticism met by history’s various visionaries, there was a time when many scoffed at the iPod. Its broad appeal evading more than a few of those short on vision. People regarded it as a niche item. While the reasons were numerous, two were primary; one, there was doubt that huge numbers of people had the desire to spend what was then a lot of money to carry 5,000 songs (or whatever the number was at the time) with them wherever they went. So, the product was for hardcore music nuts exclusively.
Additionally, for the first couple of years of its lifespan, it was Mac-compatible-only. So, to many the expensive little gadget was neat, but it was a luxury item, only appealing to a portion of what was at that time the Mac’s already limited market share.
Within a couple of years it and its accompanying software interface iTunes were Windows compatible, and sales exploded. You know the rest, before long a black turtleneck and jeans became iconic, and a lot of laughter turned to tears as those who could have bought Apple stock cheap counted the millions they left on the table.
Prior even to that, crucially, a student at Boston’s Northeastern University created a software platform he called Napster (apparently a nickname the software’s developer, Shawn Fanning, sometimes went by). Initially developed innocently as a way for the people in a single dorm building to share files with each other easily, it quickly spread out into the public at large, and people the world over were using it — with speeds which would seem ludicrously slow by today’s standards — to download music. This music very often included copyrighted recordings by major artists, and these users were amassing libraries of hundreds or even thousands of songs free of charge.
Some big names — most famously Metallica and Dr. Dre — tried to fight it, but it was bigger than they. It was bigger than the whole music industry, truthfully. They’ve literally just begun to come to terms with that.
The audio quality of mp3 — the audio compression that, in concert with ever increasing broadband speeds, made all of this possible — was maybe slightly better in sound than a terrestrial radio broadcast, and wasn’t even close to what a CD could provide. People hardly cared. It sounded okay, and it was free. Music on tap. The future had arrived.
Experts had been saying for literally decades that file compressions and internet speeds would shrink and/or increase exponentially to where this phenomenon was inevitable. Some of these experts worked for record labels (and film studios, but we’re not talking about that yet), but their bosses were thinking quarter to quarter, and this writing on the wall of which the tech soothsayers were warning them was still a ways off. Or so they thought. They’d cross that bridge when they got to it.
But the bridge came to them, and quickly. They had ample opportunity to get ahead of the issue, but instead when Napster came along, they were caught with their pants down. Other, faster peer-to-peer services followed, such as Kazaa, which additionally allowed for video sharing with relative ease (you could get an episode of a TV show in a mere 24 hours to 5 days).
(The Napster discussed above — which was a peer-to-peer file sharing platform — is not really the streaming audio service on the charts below. It is now the name of a service formerly called Rhapsody. They rebranded as Napster, as it remains a globally recognized name.)
Then BitTorrent came along, and truly the game was changed, as broadband speeds and computer processor speeds were increasing seemingly by the minute, and suddenly and seemingly out of nowhere, as these things often appear, the fastest file sharing platform yet was unleashed on the world.
But this isn’t a history lesson, and there’s really no quick way to explain how BitTorrent works. But as many reading know, it made audio and video sharing faster than was ever believed possible.
I’ll cut this short here, though, and get down to business.
The point is that instead of figuring out a way to monetize the toothpaste that was out of the tube starting with Napster, the music industry’s initial solution was to target random illegal downloaders — traced via IP addresses, provided by ISPs — and sue them, hoping that by making an example of some college kid who just wanted to listen to Slayer, saddling him with a six figure fine and possibly even a criminal record, they’d put an end to this file-sharing chicanery.
While they may very well have had a legal leg to stand on, endless lawsuits of random people is hardly a sustainable business model, and illegal downloading continued unabated, with the sound quality of file compression improving constantly.
Apple rather brilliantly figured out that people would pay for downloading, if you provided a better quality file than the mp3, and did so at the right price point. $0.99 a song ($10 for most single albums, whatever the number of songs) seemed fair to millions of users, and for a long while iTunes’ music store was hugely successful, making the major labels money, while also making them look stupid for not having thought of this themselves.
Okay, you know all this. But we’re providing context. It turns out, most people love music, and love having access to a large variety of it. Both at home and while on the go.
Suddenly the “playlist” became a concept. The old mixtape of yore was more easily assembled, and took up much less space. “Shuffle” also became part of the vocabulary. While making selections randomly from the music available in your own private library, having no idea what song shuffle would play next was a bit like having your own curated radio station.
And of course, while a joke on HBO’s excellent Silicon Valley, bringing “radio to the internet” had long been promised by the experts as inevitable. Smart phones came along, and suddenly “mobile internet radio” was the next logical step.
The Google owned YouTube — where copyright law is observed in a very loosey-goosey way, and where generally they’ll let any old thing be uploaded, only taking it down when someone complains — became an invaluable source of hearing music for free. Whether out of print records from decades’ past, or the latest single by an indie band you read about in a music blog. YouTube, while a video site, also demonstrated the unstoppable demand for a wide variety of music at ones fingertips.
The initial wave of streaming music services actually included some of the big players — Amazon, Google, etc. But the hats they tossed in that first ring, went largely unnoticed.
Pandora presented the notion of “smart” internet radio. Licensing a vast library of music from the catalogs of the various major labels (Universal and Sony, etc.), you could create channels based on favorite acts or songs. If you liked Grim Reaper it would find other music that shared qualities with the music of Grim Reaper. Eventually you could then create a Grim Reaper channel, and save it. Whenever you were in the mood to rock out to what Pandora’s ever-improving algorithms had determined fit the Grim Reaper format, pulling from its ever-increasing library of songs, that sweet rock was just a click away.
A plethora of services sprung up — some deliberately catering to more niche audiences, some aiming for broad appeal — but around 2011, Swedish entrepreneur Daniel Ek’s Spotify, which had actually launched a couple of years prior in Europe, came to the states. It provided a free service with ads, and a subscription option without. It also boasted an easy integration with third party sources such as blogs, and most significantly Facebook and Twitter. This integration brought to Spotify a social element, making it easy to share your favorite songs and your carefully programmed playlists with friends. Spotify’s library was also huge, and constantly growing. (It now contains over 30 million songs, provided by labels both big and small.)
In 2016, though, it is not without competition. As Spotify became more and more how people, particularly young people, listened to music — hard copy sales virtually vanished, and even the purchase of audio tracks for download suffered — artists complained, justifiably, of the pittance they were receiving in terms of royalties. Only a fraction of what had long been the royalty rate for terrestrial radio play.
While the artists may have had a right to their anger, they had signed contracts years before that couldn’t have anticipated the technology. Some artists’ attorneys were shrewd enough to negotiate clauses that set a fair royalty rate for formats and technologies then not yet developed, but such deals were rare. Clauses of this nature are, of course, much more common now.
The labels were having a hard enough time maintaining their own bottom line, and being equitable never their top priority, they were especially not going to part with very much of the small amount they themselves were making; happy, as they were, to be making anything at all.
Then in 2015, Jay Z, the enormously popular rapper and successful entrepreneur acquired Aspiro, a Danish streaming service that boasted lossless audio and about a half million paying subscribers. He renamed the service, and re-launched it to much hype, as TIDAL. A subscription service exclusively, but one where Jay Z (Shawn Carter) and his equally powerful and successful wife Beyoncé Knowles could use their substantial influence to provide exclusive premieres of both audio and video, from the biggest artists of the day. And the aspect they hyped most of all, artists were paid a much more fair royalty rate; “artist owned and operated, and putting the artist first.” Or at least so went the concept.
At the initial press conference, a diverse assortment of music’s biggest names from Kanye West and Nicki Minaj to Daft Punk, Jack White, and even Madonna were presented as co-owners of the new “artist friendly” service.
“They all laughed,” as it were, but it’s been well under 2-years since the service was launched and it has over 4 million paying subscribers.
Spotify, still the king of the hill, has very real competition.
Apple opened the can of worms — in the public’s minds and hearts — and they themselves are now in the streaming audio game, with Apple Music. When Tim Cook and company acquired Dr. Dre and Jimmy Iovine’s Beats Electronics, to much fanfare and some head scratching, they soon thereafter shut down Beats’ subscription music service and launched their own explicitly Apple branded one.
While each of the major streaming services boasts a diverse library of artists and genres, as the major labels (and many indies too) are all too eager to cooperate, as streaming audio has become their most reliably lucrative income source, some — as TIDAL does frequently — negotiate exclusives, of new records, or even entire artist catalogs. Beyond that, for reasons both obvious and easily explained, and sometimes due to causes requiring deeper digging (often answered in the data StatSocial has available), certain services are more popular with the fans of certain genres than others.
As is clearly and unsurprisingly the case, which you can see on the chart at this entry’s beginning, the top streaming service with fans of Hip Hop — its most high profile partner also being Hip Hop’s biggest name — is of course
As the streaming music revolution really began at the start of the decade. Predicted for years (as we’ve said) by those who understood where broadband and mobile technologies, as well as audio compressions, were heading, it wasn’t long before the winners of that first wave began to emerge.
While major players like Amazon (Amazon Cloud Player) and Google (Google Music) were among the first crop of names, their services at that time were more just music player apps that allowed you to access and catalog music files you had stored on their clouds. (Both are now in the game in a way more competitive with the true streaming services, Google Play, of course, included in this study).
The number of people who actually listen to Amazon Prime Music — launched in 2014 — is still largely disputed, and the service lacks access to the catalogs of many of music’s top acts, both past and present. In other words it is not yet the music equivalent of their fairly excellent Amazon Prime Video service.
But let’s leave the past behind for now, and dig into what the chart above teases. Which of today’s top streaming audio services most appeals to the fans of the top music genres.
Classic rock’s numbers are low too, but it’s unsurprising that Apple tops the list rather confidently. iTunes always having done well with acts of that somewhat broad classification. While a lot of kids listen to what would theoretically be their parents’ music — in other words, kids still love The Doors, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, and on and on — it is an album genre to a large degree.
While dominated by more contemporary acts, the current top downloads on iTunes do include Bob Weir’s new album, and greatest hits records by Creedence Clearwater Revival and Bob Marley.
Classic rock, however many units it moves (legitimately), is incredibly lucrative in the grandest scheme. As a genre, no other comes close in terms of concert tickets sales. At least not at premium prices. The 10 highest grossing tours of all-time are all from the 2000s, with the exception of one Rolling Stones tour from the mid-90s. The Stones have two tours on the list, the other their 2005–2007 world jaunt. U2 has two tours (and sorry to those who grew up in the 80s, but they’re considered classic rock now), there’s also a Roger Waters tour, an AC/DC tour, and the 2007–2008 reunion of The Police.
The other two are a Madonna tour from 2008, and a Cirque du Soleil tribute to Michael Jackson tour. Not classic rock, per se, but still from”your parents’ record collection,” as it were.
It may seem likely, perhaps, that TIDAL is the lowest ranking in this category.
Seven surprising minutes with the Geto Boys’ Scarface, in the video below, might change their minds, though. These things are all more connected than we make them out to be. Remember, a hardcore classical buff — particularly if they’re older — really can barely tell the difference between Run DMC and Led Zeppelin.
Interestingly, entries two through five on the below chart are practically in a statistical tie, suggesting that the “classic” in classic rock is not there accidentally. This is stuff a lot of people listen to at least sometimes.
Pop is a singles format, almost by definition (single is still a term that is used, even if no actual physical record exists). So, it makes well beyond perfect sense that the numbers here are large across the board. The next hit is just around the corner, and who can keep dropping that many dollars. And who wants to take up the storage on their phone, or laptop, with yesterday’s hits. Streaming keeps it fresh, and keeps you in the now.
iTunes has always done well with both album formats, and the pop hits of today. So, that Apple’s streaming service caters well to audiences on both sides of that fence makes sense.
We did not gasp at the sight of such low numbers for the masters. Classical has not been a huge seller for many a decade, but those who are its fans are far more likely to purchase records or CDs, or listen to terrestrial or satellite radio.
The differences here are negligible, but the former Rhapsody, now branded as Napster does win the race. Making them, with their nearly 2%, the classiest of the streaming services.
CHRISTIAN AND GOSPEL MUSIC
Again, Napster (the former Rhapsody) wins in a category that’s a bit more niche. However, quite lucrative. Christian pop, rock, rap, and traditional gospel all sell concert tickets, and even routinely move CDs in the six figures.
It’s a specialized area, but by it’s very nature devoted.
It’s worth noting that here and classical are the first times that we’re seeing Spotify — the theoretical king of streaming — near the top of one of these lists.
“Deezer?” you might be heard to ask. Deezer is a French service with over 16 million members, 6 million of whom are paid subscribers. So, it’s a major player in this marketplace.
The blues, however, is seemingly not a major player in the world of streaming music, as the tiny numbers indicate. Still, 16 million users.
So listen bluesman, if even a tiny fraction of their users are listening, I know your lady done left you, but turn that frown upside down.
And again, in this more specialized area Spotify find themselves near the top, in a virtual statistical tie with the French victor.
Alternative Rock, format-wise is a broad umbrella these days. It includes all the old school 90s groups — your Nirvanas and Pearl Jams (the latter of whom are still quite active, and quietly huge), or even older groups like your Jane’s Addictions and REMs. It also encompasses active bands like Radiohead, Muse, Arcade Fire, Coldplay, Foo Fighters, and groups that refuse to break up — no matter how hard you pray — like the Red Hot Chili Peppers.
U2, who we just called “classic rock” above might slip in here as well.
Genres like Alternative Rock and Classic Rock are more artist oriented, and therefore will do better with the album oriented services such as Spotify, and of course Apple Music which tops this list.
Deezer’s European roots, and large European membership, make their first place finish here — as electronic music has been huge in Europe for decades — a natural. Apple Music and Spotify are not surprising either, as acts who “perform” what we’ve come to call EDM sell out arenas.
EDM, if you don’t know, is a catch-all phrase for “Electronic Dance Music.” Obliterating the hundreds of genres that fall under that umbrella, among its serious fans, EDM is a watered down, weekend warrior hybrid of techno, drum and bass, and especially the populist big beat genre. It’s just a big, dumb mish-mash of all the real electronic dance genres that came along in the 80s and 90s.
In the U.S. it’s primarily listened to by those that have come to be referred to as “bros,” which given techno’s largely gay and black origins is quite amusing.
But you’ve likely seen the footage of nameless DJ after nameless DJ play forgettable tracks to outdoor audiences of about 100,000 really good looking people. Many of whom are likely experimenting in one way or another.
These festivals do tend to have spectacular light shows and pyro. It’s just a shame it’s wasted on such nonsense music.
How does Indie vary from Alternative Rock? Well, while there’s always been some cheating when using the term, it should mean the artist records for an independent label. Which, these days, means a label not owned by Universal, Sony, or Warners (as it’s played out over the decades, in 2016 all major labels are owned by one of those three companies).
But labels like Matador, Drag City, Sub Pop, and the largely folk/bluegrass focused Rounder Records would all count, as well as a vast many smaller labels.
Acts with significant international followings such as Ariel Pink, Deerhunter, Future Islands, The National, Cat Power, Belle and Sebastian, Interpol, Beach House, The Postal Service, Sleater-Kinney, Bon Iver, and Yo La Tango (and we could easily go on) all record for independent labels. We suspect a major label act or two might sneak into the format, but they’re not necessary.
Here, finally, Spotify tops the chart, and rather confidently too. Again, I think the album and artist orientation emphasized on Spotify makes them more appealing to fans of genres that revolve around such old fashioned notions.
Latino is a rather broad term. “Spanish language music,” that can incorporate traditional Salsa (a genre of mostly American origin, in fact invented in StatSocial’s beloved hometown), Salsa Romántica, Reggaeton, Bomba, Tejano, and literally hundreds of other genres.
But again, the international Deezer topping the list makes perfect sense. Apple’s second place finish is miles behind.
No genre shy of Country (and possibly Hip Hop) has a more dedicated fan base than metal. Spotify’s huge, dominant numbers here suggest they have this locked down. You may laugh, but this is a very good genre to own.
Deezer’s international audience again makes their slight victory here a natural. Jamaican music, particularly genres such Ragga, Dancehall, etc., are both similar and influential to Hip Hop, so the crossover in fans suggested by TIDAL’s occupying the second slot — surely given how relatively small the numbers are — makes perfect sense.
While we can joke about how Spotify also lives in its mom’s basement, and plays D&D. Or how it lives in its mom’s attic, and stares at its blacklight posters, under one influence or another. This genre’s fans are dedicated and lifelong, and again it is an artist and album oriented format. This seems to be where Spotify is strongest.
If this was progress, I’m glad things stagnated, or even regressed. But hey, what do we know? We’re not a music blog after all.
And our statistics say that ELP are somewhere within the top 2,000 acts with Spotify’s social media audience. That may not sound so impressive, in fact it may not even be that impressive, but it’s probably higher than your band (unless you’re in Pink Floyd or 5 Seconds of Summer, or something).
World Music is such a dated term. But it’s still a format. It seems to simply mean music from anywhere other than North America, Europe, Australia, or the Caribbean.
African and Indian pop music dominate this genre, and South American music — particularly from Brazil — is also big. But the term is so broad as to be a bit meaningless.
Nonetheless, again, the particularly international Deezer comes out on top, which makes perfect sense.
And what was that we hinted at above? Was that talk of where an individual act ranked, in terms of being members of a streaming music service’s social media audience?
Well, the future may very well hold such entries, and such data may be thrust forth into cyberspace. Will you be here to witness it? Bookmark this page, and now go click the links below — if you’ve not done so already — and learn way more about us and what we do.
What does late night TV’s Stephen Colbert have to do with HBO’s excellent Silicon Valley?
Some would surely say that both are funny. We are not an entertainment blog so our varying opinions there are of little consequence. Colbert has had Silicon Valley cast members as well as the show’s creators as guests on his Late Show with Stephen Colbert. So, they do share that.
But we have another connection in mind, one specific to — aw heck, let’s just go there and say exclusive to — StatSocial, the company whose website you’ve either been awesome enough to visit of your own volition, or lucky enough to stumble upon.
What we’re focusing on here is Mr. Colbert’s vaunted position as the top ranked social media Influencer among the social media fans of this particularly awesome HBO series
Show: Silicon Valley Top Social Media Influencer: Stephen Colbert
If somehow unfamiliar, Silicon Valley is a partially satirical, partially too-accurate-for-comfort exploration of the very unique part of the world that shares the series’ title. Exploring everything from tiny start-ups to massive multi-billion dollar, multinational technology behemoths, the show takes on the various worlds of technology, but particularly those surrounding the web, with savagery and accuracy, and yet with characters you actually like and care about.
Stephen Colbert, as it turns out, is the social media influencer who finds the greatest favor among the fans of Silicon Valley. Achieving this seemingly desirable feat with only 13.57% of the program’s fans also identifying as fans of his. It would seem the fans of the HBO program are interested in an assortment of influencers of an unusually sizable breadth and quantity.
Did that make any sense to you, well let’s explain ourselves futher and we promise it will all click for you by sunrise.
Welcome to StatSocial
First off, to both the old friend and the new acquaintance, hello. You’re at StatSocial.com.
Who and/or what are we? We measure and analyze social media audiences. To some that term explains itself, to others it may already be in their vocabulary in some form. If you’re here there’s a greater than average shot that you have some idea what we’re talking about,
To us it is any group of individuals who either gravitate toward one another, or in whom it can be observed that a common trait and/or traits, are shared in a social media context.
We’ll spare you the egghead talk of definite appeal to the anthropologically minded. At the end of the day, and the beginning as well, StatSocial presents itself and sells itself quite consciously and directly as a marketing tool. One we believe essential to anyone seeking to harness the unprecedented ability social media has provided marketers to communicate directly with an audience.
An audience in our analysis needn’t consist of individuals aware of each other. They need only share a common trait or behavior of literally any sort.
The audiences with which we’re concerned — in terms of what kinds of people gravitate toward what kinds of things — are consistent, and they are knowable beyond mere demographics, geography, or even likes and dislikes (and we can get pretty esoteric with those). We can tell you what kinds of personalities these people have, with extraordinary nuance and accuracy.
Let’s start somewhere simple. Even kind of stupid. You know your audience likes cars. That’s knowledge you possess without StatSocial’s assistance.
But do you know what makes of cars. What years of those makes? And did you know that 78% of those audience members also like umbrellas? That kind of specific yet actionable insight is common in our reporting.
You could have sold that lady that car and umbrella if only you’d had StatSocial and knew what kind of cars she liked. And if only she wasn’t a painting.
We can get comical with examples, but we’ll play this one straight. Say, for some reason there was a value in your learning all there was to know about Portland Trail Blazers’ fans, ages 18–34, originating from the Austin, Texas area. We’ll tell you more than you thought possible, and it will be correct. We’ll give you their ages in much more granular terms, we’ll tell you what other teams or sports they like, and we’ll go much deeper than that. Favorite restaurants, shoes, tires. Do they play musical instruments? Is it clarinet?
And we also give you the biggies, like favorite TV shows, movies, consumer goods, sports teams, and on and on.
Something of which there are dozens included in any web based StatSocial report are a vast array of top 100 lists. Hobbies, packaged goods, movies, and on and on. Data vastly exceeding the top 100 is readily available to you, as we index data points on many topics by the tens of thousands, but right there at your fingertips you can know the top 100 this, or that.
In this case, it would be the top 100 favorite social influencers, of the TV show of your choice, readily at your disposal.
In the case of the below, just to give a taste, we provide Silicon Valley’s top 10. It might look a little like this:
click to enlarge
The percentage shown in the blue line at the top is the actual percentage of fans of the corresponding item who are also fans of the audience being analyzed, in this case Silicon Valley.
The percentage shown in the grey line is the baseline from which all our statistics are calculated by default, which is the average behavior of the global social media audience. Unless otherwise noted or requested, you can assume this is the baseline against which we’re comparing all our stats.
The metric to the far right is our “multiple” metric and it is awesome, but we’ll get into it in another entry. Or just poke around the blog. It is already explained somewhere, and explained again in detail, in entries throughout the blog.
What of the remainder of the favorite social influencers among the fans of HBO’s shows?
Show: Ballers Top Social Media Influencer: Dwayne Johnson
When it comes to Ballers, a show about a bunch of dudes who ball — — and it’s not a double entendre like that AC/DC song — I mean, it sort of is, but it’s not about that. You can smell what the kingpin social influencer is cooking. This paragraph is flirting with disaster…
No, it’s not Emeril Lagasse. Although, good guess, Former pro-wrestler and head baller (?), who wrestled under the name “The Rock,” had a catchphrase where he’d ask the audience if they could “smell what The Rock” was cooking. If I recall correctly, the audience usually could.
Unlike Colbert not even the faintest analysis of his victory is necessary as he is the show’s star.
Mr. “The Rock” Johnson administering his finishing move, ‘The People’s Elbow,’ for which even though I hated that era or wrestling I will always give him credit as genius.
Show: Togetherness Top Social Media Influencer: Sarah Silverman
And now we reach, as somehow seemed inevitable, the prolific Duplass brothers, inventors of “mumblecore”… maybe, if there ever was such a thing. It was in theory an indie-film non-movement from the early ’00. The name was a derisive term a critic came up with — possibly even Roger Ebert (RIP) — to make fun of a trend in movies toward no-budget, handheld video camera shot films where nothing happens. A bunch of which I think were made by the Duplass brothers.
These films all seemed to star Greta Gerwig. Except there really never was such a thing as “mumblecore,” we’re told. Or something.
They, these Duplass brothers, really do exist, though. As did their HBO series Togetherness; the top social media influencer among the fans of which is the lovely Miss Sarah Silverman.
Mark Duplass and Greta Gerwig in a movie, the title of which I refuse to find out.
I’m confused by the Duplasses. Maybe they’re edgier than I think they are. They just seemed so Sundance Channel to me, I zoned them out. And the younger brother is kinda handsome and he’s in everything.
And I’m getting too old to care about the Duplass brothers. They look like they workout, or do they?
I decidedly do not. So I won’t be writing any checks with this mouth, unless getting my ass kicked counts as cashing them.
But we love Sarah Silverman. So yay for her, and the Duplasses’ fans for liking her more than other social influencers they also like.
Shows:Last Week Today with John Oliver, Real Time with Bill Maher, Girls, and Veep.
GUESS WHO the top social influencers are on these shows? John Oliver, Bill Maher, Lena Dunham, and Julia Louis-Dreyfuss (all of whom get made fun of somewhere in this blog I’m sure, so I’ll spare them here).
Lena Duham in the mumblecore film Tiny Furniture, which mumbled its way right into Judd Apatow’s heart, who in turn charmed the good folks at HBO. In a way we have Apatow to thank for Kylo Ren. Make of that what you will.
The point being here — and YES, there is one — it’s not news to you nor us that their fans like them. Those shows and those individuals are virtually synonymous. So, we’ll move on.
Show: True Detective Top Social Media Influencer: Matthew McConaughey
Life is a dream.
True Detective does choose Matthew McConaughey as its top social influencer. But a season — a baffling, terrible season — has come and gone since his time on the show. I think we can all admit how badly we missed him. Man, that first season was so good.
Show: Looking Top Social Media Influencer: Neil Patrick Harris
Looking already has to deal with the boneheaded stigma of being “the gay show” — a label they didn’t precisely shun — did they really need to make Neil Patrick Harris their number one influencer? Throw a curveball. Mean Joe Greene (is he on Twitter?). Lyle Alzado, if he weren’t dead from a brain tumor, would have been perfect. Brian Bosworth?
One of only three shows I followed this year, I was suitably impressed. That said, I eventually did stop watching it. I never could quite tell what it wanted to be, in terms of tone. But yes like everyone else in the world I do love me some NPH. For his Hedwig alone, he can be in my top five social influencers.
Here’s the deal with Neil Patrick Harris. For years actors remained closeted — and many still do — for many reasons, but one being a fear on the part of casting directors that audiences won’t accept openly gay actors in straight roles. NPH came out, and continued to play a character on his hit sitcom that was not only straight, but a womanizer. And nobody cared. Dude had guts and broke down bigger walls than for which he gets credit.
Looking on the other hand thinks its much gutsier than it is. Maybe it will find itself in season two.
Show: Westworld Top Social Media Influencer: Chris Pratt
Now I knew Westworld was coming to HBO. I thought it was a TV show based on the Michael Crichton novel, which had in the 70s been adapted into a film version every Gen X-er knows and loves. But when I found this is some crazy high tech cockamamie thing which uses CGI trickery to bring elements from the movies into the show as they were, well my geek heart went all a-flutter.
Yul Brynner sadly died of lung cancer in 1985. But the malfunctioning robot cowboy he played in the 1973 film — about a wild west theme park which uses animatronic robots who wind up going kaka-kookoo and wreaking all sorts of havoc (even if you’ve never seen the film, you’ve seen it parodied) — is now alive and well thanks to creepy CGI. What a wonderful world we live in.
Oh hell yes
Anyway, the top social influencer here is Chris Pratt, with a respectable 36% of fans in common. Our theory is a connection in the viewers’ minds between Crichton’s original theme park gone kooky hit book and movie being revisited — and starring no one less esteemed than Sir Anthony Hopkins — and the recent and extremely successful revival of one of Crichton’s other cautionary theme parks in Jurassic World.
Show: Game of Thrones Top Social Media Influencer: Emma Watson
Emma Watson, who I really want to call Dame Emma Watson (as I’m sure one day we all will — whether she ever has the title bestowed upon her or not), leads the pack of influencers being followed by the fans of the jewel in HBO’s crown. I am of course speaking of a certain game, involving certain thrones. While the Harry Potter series has its violence and “adult” moments, it does seem a somewhat mismatched marriage of the genteel and the profane. But at the same time it makes perfect sense.
I know little about Emma Watson, truthfully, but it seems like Game of Thrones fans would like her. Evidently they do.
Show: Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel
Top Social Media Influencer: Adam Schefter
Adam Schefter, and would you look at that? A puppy.
Adam Schefter is, I believe a sports writer who is believed to be funny? Is that a thing? He is a sports writer, I know that much (look, I watched Looking and Girls — although we’re both psyched about Westworld… I mean, come on!). Therefore his being Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel’s top social influencer probably makes sense?
These things don’t quite.
Show: The Leftovers Top Social Media Influencer: Steve Carrrell (?)
The Leftovers, a not quite post-apocalyptic but post cataclysmic event drama starring Justin Theroux finds Steve Carrrell — who did give a good dramatic turn in the otherwise boring Foxcatcher back a year or so ago — as its number one. 28% of The Leftovers’ fans like Carrrell — as you should, he’s terrific — and that’s enough to make him the influencer with whom they have the most common fans.
Steve Carrell with Oscar on his mind, not knowing that one day he would be influencing the social media fans of HBO’s The Leftovers to such a staggering degree.
Show: Vinyl Top Social Media Influencer: Jimmy Kimmel (?)
And Vinyl, a show produced by Martin Scorcese and Mick Jagger, the latter of whom is on social media (so why not him?), finds Jimmy Kimmel ruling its roost, with over a quarter of the fans of the overwrought dramatization of the decadence, drugs, and vice of the New York City music industry of the 1970s also enjoying a nice prank, and a good natured laugh of the sort Kimmel has been making his bread off of for many a year now.
The real New York Dolls, dramatized to a barely watchable degree in Vinyl. Here they stand in front of Gem Spa, the bodega that stands to this day, on he corner of 2nd Avenue and St. Mark’s Place.
So, is this entry the best demonstration of our wares? Click around, the wares are there, and you’ll comment “ah, there’s the wares.”
Many more HBO entries coming shortly. Most liberal shows? And then we’re getting into a whole Netflix thing. Keep this blog bookmarked. The coming days and weeks are going to be fun.
To learn much more about StatSocial, the curious are encouraged to visit the StatSocial site itself, where you’ll find all sorts of stuff including sample reports.
If you like what you’ve read, please take a few minutes to watch this overview of StatSocial’s data: