Infographic breakdown of Social media content marketing costs

Social media content marketing is big business and the costs can be rather hefty. Take Nestle for example, they post around 1,500 pieces of content per day on its Facebook pages. Spending around $127,500 per day on Facebook posts alone.

The Nestle spending is based on say each Facebook post taking two hours combining creative and planning, graphic design, promoting the post and scheduling, approval and community management. The infographic by Percolate looks into the hourly salary of $42.50 with 1,500 pieces x 2 hours – 3,000 hours per day, this shows $42.50 x 3,000 = $127,500 per day on Facebook posts alone.

Infographic breakdown of Social media content marketing costs pic 1

The infographic explains that if an average social marketer uses 7 channels x $127,500 this adds up to a massive $892,500 per day or $325,726,500 per year.

It explains that part of the problem is that organic social reach is going away for advertisers. The percentage of marketers planning on increasing their ad budget by channel is interesting indeed, 63% will increase its ad budget on Twitter, 59% on Facebook and 54% on YouTube.

Rather shocking to see that the average Facebook post has a lifespan of just 3 hours with 50% reach and coming within the first 30 minutes.

For more information please visit the Social media content marketing costs infographic below – How much do you spend on social media marketing?

Infographic breakdown of Social media content marketing costs

Infographic breakdown of Social media content marketing costs

  • Joan Cook

    Interesting thought, but lets consider the costs of a TV ad spend versus social media. The commercial is costly up front and then has a limited life span as well.
    The important thing is to have content that is constantly fresh and socially relevant with a custom strategy for each social platform. What works to reach a facebook follower over 40 may be different than reaching a millenial on instagram.

  • Frank Gainaford

    Interesting, but I have an issue with this as they did not include Google plus, these guys did how ever include YouTube, so this is confusing to me.

    I use Google plus Quite extensively, and Do not understand how these guys can talk of Youtube and yet ignore Google plus. Google Plus and YouTube are cousins that live in the same house and share the same relationships with many and when you share or comment on a YouTube Video, the you are prompted to share to Google plus anyway. so this is very stilted results and in my mind not very trust worthy, as the researchers have done a half baked job, and are expecting us as consumers of their Information to enjoy a raw meal!!

    What are your views on these guys excluding the G+ network from their statistics?