On any given trending Instagram reel or TikTok short, click into the comment section and the chances are you will see a response from a brand. In the comments, brands are reacting, sharing jokes, referencing themselves and trying to be a part of the cultural conversation. 

There was once a time when the words ‘brands’ and ‘social media’ were like oil and water. When social media was arguably more social, with snaps from friends and genuine connections, brands were more often than not bystanders to the conversation.

Fast forward to the present day and algorithms have changed, social sells and influencers reign. Audiences have grown to expect a brand presence. But at a time when nostalgia for analogue is rising and consumers are seeking out authenticity, are audiences growing tired of brands intruding in social media spaces? 

For a while now brands have been expected to be part of the conversation and show personality and values, as well as provide a product or service. But are brands overestimating how much consumers really want to hear from them?

With this in mind, we asked industry leaders: do brand leaders need to get real about how much consumers care about reactive social?

For years, reactive social has been treated as a core marketing capability. Brands built ‘war rooms’, monitored trending topics and raced to join cultural moments in the hope of appearing quick, witty and relevant. But the model is starting to break down.

The problem is speed. Internet culture now moves faster than most brand approval processes. By the time a reactive post is written, signed off and published, the moment it references has often already peaked. What once felt sharp and timely increasingly feels late or forced.

There is also a more structural problem. In many organisations, reactive social has become a box-ticking exercise. Teams feel pressure to “join the conversation” whenever a trend appears, even if it has little relevance to the brand. Brands drift “off-strategy” simply because something is trending, rather than because they have something meaningful to add.

At the same time, smarter brands are moving further upstream in the cultural cycle. Instead of waiting for trends to surface on mainstream platforms, they are monitoring niche communities on platforms such as Reddit and Discord. These spaces often act as early incubators for emerging behaviours, memes and interests.

Brands are also working more closely with creators who already hold cultural credibility within these communities. By partnering with people who understand the tone, humour and dynamics of their audiences, brands can move faster and participate more naturally.

The shift is clear: the brands that win will not be the fastest to react, but the ones who understand culture early enough to help shape it.

What you’re not saying when it comes to reactive social media, is arguably the most important part. Reactive’s role within a social media strategy is to amplify your brand and build relevancy with audiences.

“To what end?” is a phrase we repeat over and over again within the Leith Strategy department. Why are you posting? What’s your key message? Who are you trying to talk to? This is how you make reactive social content genuinely valuable for your brand, otherwise you’re just being paid to make memes about Punch, the Monkey which, although fun, won’t move the needle for your brand.

The next stage is to decipher whether the post is actually ‘good'. A ‘good' post should contain a few core elements. It should, at the very least, be valuable to your audience, whether that’s by being entertaining or informative. But it’s true success lies in the magical alchemy of social media: Is the tone right? Is the creative right for the channel? And so on. There’s far too much to cover here, but that’s what posting is for: getting things wrong in order to get things right. You’ll know if your audience isn’t feeling it when the only engagements come from your mum and supportive colleagues.

Before any brand starts posting reactively, they should look at these key questions so they can develop a reactive strategy that actually amplifies the brand and drives that “just like me” feeling among the audience. My mantra: to what end?"

Reactive social only works when it’s executed with a clear voice, speed and genuine cultural awareness. The real question isn’t whether consumers care about reactive social — it’s whether brands are actually good at it.

Industry focus on reactive social has accelerated significantly since the Jet2 audio phenomenon in 2025, when the airline’s “Nothing beats a Jet2 holiday” advert unexpectedly became the soundtrack to millions of TikTok videos showing chaotic travel moments. What began as a traditional advert quickly turned into a cultural meme, highlighting how quickly audiences can reshape brand messaging — and how important it is for brands to engage with those moments in real time.

In an oversaturated social landscape, most reactive posts do end up adding to the noise because they feel forced, slow or lack personality. But when it’s done well, reactive social can be one of the most powerful ways for a brand to feel culturally relevant and human.

A few brands consistently demonstrate this. Paddy Power has built its identity around sharp, timely commentary on sport and culture. Duolingo has mastered platform-native humour, reacting to trends in a way that feels more like a creator account than a corporation. And Ryanair has turned X into a case study in self-aware brand voice, leaning into internet culture so effectively that audiences actively expect their take on major moments.

What these brands understand is that reactive social isn’t a side tactic — it’s a central part of their social strategy, hardwired into the brand’s social DNA. It requires empowering social teams to move quickly, take creative risks, and speak with a clear, consistent voice.

For brand leaders, the reality is simple: reactive social isn’t essential for every brand, but cultural relevance increasingly is. The brands winning today aren’t just reacting to culture — they’re participating in it.

A lot has changed on social media, but reacting in the moment will always be the foundation. The ability to respond to moments as they happen is what makes these platforms feel live and participatory, to the point where the conversation itself can become as culturally significant as the moment it’s reacting to.

For brands, these moments offer access to collective attention, unfolding in real time. And while that creates opportunity, it also demands restraint. Knowing when to step into a conversation needs to be a key part of the strategy. The value needs to be clear, and the reason for being there needs to make sense — otherwise it risks reading as an intrusion, not a contribution.

This is especially true as audiences become more aware of how brands operate on social.  When handled poorly, it can feel condescending or overly manufactured, like a brand performing participation rather than genuinely adding to it. The bar has gotten higher, and people respond to work that is genuinely creative and entertaining, or clearly rooted in a relevant point of view.

Ultimately, access doesn’t equal permission. Just because a brand can respond doesn’t mean it always should. The task is to recognise when a contribution adds to the moment, and when it’s better to step back than dilute it.

There’s no doubt about the possible earned media value of reactive social. From Aldi’s caterpillar cake-based banter with M&S to Ocean Spray’s musical skateboard meanderings, via KFC’s chicken shortage (um, these are all F&B brands, does that say something about me?), they all did great things for the brand. Reason being they feel deeply authentic, i.e. they show a brand that is both connected to and cognisant of the real world that our audiences are in. So that's a good thing for sure.

But, and yes there is a big but… this success has led many brands to try and eek out these hens teeth moments to create earned media noise. And it’s often so evidently from semi-fictional and/or pretty irrelevant moments which leaves their audience cold, devaluing the credibility of their brand, as nobody likes a try-hard. 

What’s also worrying is there are now endless manuals educating brands on how to do this well, and essentially all they are saying is act like a brand (no shit) and find a moment in time to shine a light on your brand (no shit). 

Surely a better answer is acting like a brand people want in their lives. Be helpful, be funny, tell stories, make cool stuff, create unique partnerships, give people experiences they won’t forget, be kind… the list goes on. 

I’m a fan of two versions of the 70/20/10 marketing budget split, not just the well established Core / Emerging / Experimental channels model, but also the Planned / Proactive / Reactive calendar model. Point being, sure keep money aside for being reactive to the zeitgeist, but don’t prioritise it over more impactful opportunities. And never fake it.

Nobody woke up this morning hoping their favourite brand had something to say about a trending moment. Yet brands continue to invest disproportionate time and budget trying to keep up with the cultural conversation.

The temptation is obvious, it’s fast, visible, and can deliver short-term engagement. But visibility isn’t the same as relevance. The real question isn’t can we respond? It’s should we? And too often, brands haven’t done the strategic work to answer that properly.

Consumers will welcome brands into cultural moments, but only when their presence feels earned. When it doesn’t, the reaction is immediate: “what are you doing here?” becomes a comment that signals a brand clarity failure in public. 

Kickers UK leaned into their vintage heritage when the Beckham drama kicked off, digging into their archives to surface brand images of the Beckham family in their products to add their narrative. It was reactive, but it ran straight through the heart of their brand. That's the distinction that matters.

Build a strategy that gives you clarity on which moments you've earned the right to be part of. When that’s in place, reactive social can work, not as a default behaviour, but as a selective expression of the brand. Without it, brands and their agencies end up diluting your brand identity on social - and the worst part? We’re training audiences to scroll right past you. 

Brand leaders don’t need to “get real” about reactive social. They need to get disciplined about it. Because done well, it’s a multiplier of a strong brand. Done badly, it’s just adding to the noise.

What issues brands respond to and how are equally important. Reacting to something that doesn’t feel authentic or - worse - being accused of virtue signalling will do more harm than good. 

The recurring cultural calendar dates that everyone jumps on because they are easy to plan for (i.e. not even reactive) are a case in point. A brand isn’t fooling anyone if it only posts about a particular topic once a year on that specific date; in fact, it’s only contributing to the noise. 

Most recently, every brand and their dog was celebrating their female talent on International Women’s Day. That might make sense for a female-founded business or one with a largely female customer base, but otherwise it just feels like bandwagon jumping. 

Brands do better when they think about the needs of the customer or prospect so they can add genuine value. Recently people have been turning to their social feeds for up-to-date flight information on the back of what’s happening in the Middle East. Clearly this is an emotive time, and no one can afford to be accused of being opportunistic, but brands that demonstrably help their customers will be remembered for the right reasons. 

By keeping the customer at the centre of all decisions, brands can find the right events and moments to use organically and minimise risk.

So many brands are doing it badly. Actually, not badly. Blandly. So many brands are doing it blandly. And that makes people not give a sh*t. Responding to every trending moment is exhausting. For everyone. So let’s not do it.

We don’t wake up hoping this brand, or that brand, will comment on *insert whatever happened on your feed today*. All we collectively need to do is ask if we belong there, and ask it consistently. The second you stop asking is the second you fail. We need to show up somewhere we actually belong. Because you’re adding something. Because you’re entertaining them. Because your presence makes the moment funny, sad, scary, more wholesome… better. Simple. But evidently very hard in practice.

Reactive social works best when it sits on top of a strong, everlasting, bedded in, known point of view. We need to instinctively know what the brand stands for. If it already has a clear voice, recognisable behaviour, and a relationship with the community it’s tapping into, reacting to culture should feel natural. Without that, question what you are doing. And seriously question it. Reactive doesn’t even need to be bad to be bad. It just needs to be dull to be bad.

The other thing we tend to forget is that the best of the best reactive work isn’t spontaneous. Far from it. There’s always a plan. Clever people. A clear process. Ideas that never saw the light of day. Clients who know their brand inside out. Trust.

So yes, brand leaders should get real. Reactive social does matter, but more the how, where, when, what. You don’t need to react quickly. Have the judgement to know when your brand genuinely has something to add, and if not, respectfully, shut the F up.

Let’s be real for a moment; no one sits at home waiting for their favourite brand to post reactive content. In fact, if you go around asking non-agency folk what their favourite piece of branded reactive content is, you’re likely to get a blank stare as a response. However, if you’re sat scrolling on the bus with seven minutes to spare and you come across Burger King UK weighing in on the difficulty of securing Harry Styles tickets, you might chuckle. Over four million people did. Or if you’re a die hard United fan and you see your favourite food delivery brand post about the demise of Liverpool, you might share it with your mate. Over seven thousand people did. The world is on fire, some light relief doesn’t go amiss, even if it’s provided by a brand. 

Generating earned reach through reactive content is, understandably, very attractive to brands. You’re not spending precious media budget, yet your content is being seen by (hopefully) thousands, if not millions, of people. Timing is more important than the production value of reactive content, meaning brands can get away with low-fi executions. Sounds like a no-brainer. Overall, I’m a firm believer in balance. Should brands spend all of their creative resources on chasing virality in the form of reactive content? Probably not. Should they use reactive content as one of their earned reach tools in their social strategy? Absolutely.

Reactive social can be really powerful, but it's often misunderstood. The industry tends to frame it as a marker of cultural relevance, and the thinking goes that if a brand can quickly jump into a trending moment, it proves they're plugged into what people care about. In reality, most consumers aren't sitting there waiting for brands to react to the latest meme or news story.

Where reactive social does work is when it feels natural to the brand and adds something entertaining or insightful to the conversation. The problem is that a lot of brands feel compelled to participate in every moment, which quickly dilutes any impact. When everyone's reacting, very little stands out.

Brand leaders probably do need to be more realistic about the role it plays. Reactive social can generate spikes of attention, but it rarely builds long term brand relevance or salience on its own. That still comes from fame paired with consistent creativity, distinctive ideas and a clear point of view over time.

The most effective brands treat reactive social as a part of their wider ecosystem, not the centrepiece of their marketing. They show up when they have something genuinely worth saying and stay quiet when they don't. In a world where every brand is trying to join the conversation, restraint can be surprisingly powerful.