A common instinct when a lab decides to “do social media” is to set up accounts everywhere at once — LinkedIn, X, Instagram, maybe a YouTube channel for good measure — and post a little on each. Six months later, most of these accounts have five posts total and haven’t been touched since spring. The lab hasn’t built a following on any of them, and what little content exists reads as scattered rather than as an active presence.
Spreading thin doesn’t multiply effort, it divides it
Each platform has its own format, its own audience expectations, and its own version of what a good post looks like. A post that works well on LinkedIn — a bit of context, a professional tone — often falls flat posted unchanged on X, where shorter and more direct tends to perform better. Maintaining that distinction across three platforms takes real time, and most labs don’t have three platforms’ worth of time. The result of trying anyway is usually three mediocre accounts instead of one good one.
Pick the platform your actual audience is on
The right platform depends entirely on who the lab is trying to reach. A lab mainly trying to connect with other researchers, funders, and potential collaborators is usually better served by LinkedIn, where that audience already spends time professionally. A lab with strong visual material, or one specifically interested in reaching undergrads and the general public, often does better focusing on Instagram instead. There’s no universally correct choice — the mistake is trying to be equally present everywhere rather than committing to the one place that matches the actual goal.
Consistency on one platform beats sporadic posts on three
An account that posts something worthwhile every week or two builds a real pattern that followers come to expect and check in on. Three accounts each posting once a month never build that rhythm on any of them. This is the same underlying idea as why a stale X account looks worse than no account — visible inactivity reads poorly, and spreading thin across multiple platforms is one of the most common ways labs end up with several quietly inactive accounts instead of one active one.
Existing but quiet accounts on other platforms are mostly fine
A lab doesn’t need to delete an old, unused account on a platform it’s not focusing on, as long as it’s not prominently linked and obviously stale. What does look bad is an account linked directly from the lab website with a last post from two years ago — that’s a visible sign of neglect a visitor will notice. Either post there occasionally, or remove the link and let the account sit quietly unlinked rather than showcased.
Add a second platform only once the first is solid
Once a primary platform has a real rhythm — posts going out reliably, some actual engagement, someone who’s comfortable running it — expanding to a second platform is a reasonable next step, especially if a specific lab member is genuinely enthusiastic about a different one. The key is treating that expansion as additive, not as a way to relieve pressure from a first platform that never got solid in the first place. A second platform started before the first one works usually just recreates the same thin-spread problem one platform later.
Common questions
How do we pick which single platform to focus on?
Whichever platform the lab's actual audience already uses and where someone in the lab is willing to post consistently. For most academic labs that's LinkedIn or X; for labs with strong visual material or an interest in reaching the public, it's often Instagram.
Does having accounts on other platforms hurt us if we're not posting on them?
Not much, as long as they're not obviously abandoned with a last post from years ago. A quiet account that hasn't posted in eighteen months looks worse than no account at all, so it's worth either posting occasionally or removing a visible link to it.
Should we ever expand to a second platform?
Once the first one is running consistently and the lab has spare capacity, yes. Adding a second platform before the first is solid usually means both suffer, so it's worth resisting the urge to expand too early.
What if different lab members prefer different platforms?
That's a reasonable way to eventually justify a second platform, but it shouldn't come at the cost of the primary one. If a student is enthusiastic about a platform the lab hasn't focused on, let them run it as a genuine second channel rather than splitting the primary account's effort to accommodate it.