Monitoring Is Too Expensive, We Need to Get Rid of This

If my boss said, “Monitoring is too expensive, we need to get rid of this,” my first response would be that cutting monitoring is usually not a cost savings, it is a risk increase. Monitoring is the systematic process of understanding, analyzing, and reporting what people are saying about a brand, its reputation, and the health of the community online, and it is tied to business and communication objectives over time. When you remove it, you lose the ability to see patterns, measure progress against goals, and catch problems early. That can cost far more than the tool ever would.

The second point I would make is that we are already paying for visibility on social platforms, and monitoring is part of being accountable for that spend. Freberg points out that brands often have to pay for sponsored posts or ads to be seen in feeds, and metrics are what illuminate whether that investment is actually working. If we are spending money to push content, but we are not measuring performance consistently, we are basically guessing. Metrics exist so we can learn what worked, what did not, and what to do differently next time without assumptions.

Third, monitoring is not the same as vanity reporting. A lot of people get stuck looking at followers or likes because they are easy and feel good, but those numbers do not tell the whole story unless they are tied to objectives and paired with deeper measures. Monitoring lets us connect basic metrics to advanced and behavioral metrics, like conversion rate and audience actions, so leadership can actually see business impact. Without that connection, it becomes easy for a team to think things are going well just because the numbers look big, even if the campaign is not driving the outcomes we need.

I would also argue that monitoring protects the brand in ways that are hard to replace with manual check ins. Research helps us listen for early warning signs like negative reviews, potential hacks, or emerging issues that can damage reputation and financial standing if they grow unchecked. Monitoring is long term and objective focused, while listening is more about exploring trends and opportunities, and Freberg is clear that both are necessary. If we remove monitoring, we lose the consistent baseline that tells us whether brand health is improving, slipping, or heading toward a crisis.

If cost is the real concern, I would not argue for keeping everything the same. I would propose a smarter approach. First, tighten our monitoring plan so it is tied directly to objectives and only tracks what we actually need, which is exactly how Freberg frames monitoring and measurement. Second, scale the tool choice to the scope of work. Freberg notes that there is no perfect tool that does everything, so the goal is choosing tools that fit the goals and budget, and even using an audit or RFP process to select the best fit. Third, focus on a mix of metrics that matter. Basic metrics give context, but behavioral metrics are what senior leaders often want because they show actions tied to outcomes. That way we are not paying for data that just sits in a report, we are paying for insights that drive decisions.

At the end of the day, monitoring is not about collecting numbers for the sake of it. Freberg makes the point that collecting data without action just creates digital dust, and the real value is applying insights to strategy and execution. If we want to be serious about social media as a business tool, we need monitoring to prove impact, guide improvements, and reduce risk. The better question is not whether we can afford monitoring, but whether we can afford to operate without it.

Reference
Freberg, K. (2022). Social media for strategic communication: Creative strategies and research based applications (2nd ed.) [PowerPoint slides, Chapter 6: Research in Social Media: Monitoring, Listening, and Analysis]. SAGE Publishing.