If your job is to manage social media platforms, then you know how difficult it can be to assume multiple identities at once. Helpful productivity tools have been developed to provide assistance in such circumstances, which is why the Hootsuite vs Buffer debate is one worth considering. Many see social media as being something for Facebook or Twitter, but those are only two out of several audiences that can be reached.
When you need an interface, then Hootsuite and Buffer are two applications that can help you manage your social media data better on multiple platforms simultaneously. Here are some of the key points to look at it in this debate.
Hootsuite vs Buffer: Managing Tasks
Both applications are designed to allow users an opportunity to manage their social media posts on multiple websites. The platforms allow for posting on multiple social media sites with scheduled update times. Users are given some light analytics at the same time, such as CTR and total views. There are opportunities to delegate certain tasks to assigned team members and tasks can be personalized thanks to the existence of certain extensions and add-ons.
All in all, both Hootsuite and Buffer provide users with an experience that offers an above-average level of customization so that the entire experience can be personalized.
The difference between these two platforms in terms of functionality becomes a discussion about cost. Hootsuite is very reliant on micro-transactions for their accounts, so anything beyond a single person attempting to manage their social media brands is likely to cost upwards of $1,000 per year. For teams that need more than 10 people involved on social media, Hootsuite requires an enterprise-level solution.
Buffer offers a basic plan that is $120 per year, which allows users the opportunity to schedule 100 social media posts per month Business plans can allow several thousands posts per month, with the large business plan priced at $399. Buffer’s plans are all-inclusive, so there is never a licensing cost for additional team members.
Hootsuite vs Buffer: Social Media Tasks
Hootsuite is a well-rounded platform that provides management access to all major social medial platforms. Users are able to curate content, schedule posts, and engage their communities in meaningful ways thanks to its design. One of the best features Hootsuite offers is conversation monitoring. It is possible to filter social conversations using various methods, from location to hashtag, and there is mult-language support with this feature. That makes it a lot easier to find the conversations which matter to build a brand.
Buffer may allow for added posts at a cheaper cost, but there is also limited functionality on social media with the platform. Many of the services that you’ll find on Buffer are designed to work best with Twitter. You can add extensions to Buffer to diversify its focus, but they are third-party options that receive no help from the platform should something go wrong with them. Search options are available to make conversations easier as well, but the design is related more to Twitter than it being a method of cross-platform support.
Hootsuite vs Buffer: Scheduling
Hootsuite offers a straight-forward scheduling option. Once you’ve composed the content which you wish to post, it will automatically schedule it for you to have the optimal level of impact. If you don’t want an auto-scheduling feature, there are extensions which give users some limited control over when new content is distributed to followers.
Buffer offers a more complete scheduling system. You can create a daily posting schedule on the platform for when you want your content posted. It allows you to dictate the process of auto-scheduling without limitation and you can change the times each day while maintaining a full calendar. It is such a simple system to use that with the right extensions, you can click on a web page, turn it into a tweet, and have it be scheduled at a time that is best for you in just seconds.
Hootsuite vs Buffer: Link Shortening
Hootsuite offers users the opportunity to use link shorteners like owl.ly and htl.li as part of the content creation process. When viewing the performance and uptime history of these URL shorteners, there is an average level of access.
Buffer allows users to access popular link shorteners, such as bit.ly, which limits the number of new accounts that may need to be created just to manage a social media presence. You can set your default to buff.ly or j.mp iif you prefer as well.
Hootsuite vs Buffer: Sharing Pictures
Social media requires many different forms of content to create a strong ROI. Composed text is critical, but so are visual content components. Photographs, digital images, and videos must be part of any social media campaign if it is going to be successful on a long-term basis.
Hootsuite has some limitations when it comes to images. They show up as shortened links instead of an embedded image, so on some platforms, like Twitter, the image won’t automatically populate. If you wish to schedule an actual picture or video on the platform, there really is no simple and effective way to do it.
Buffer takes advantage of the pic.twitter image process. You can directly upload a photograph into Buffer or retweet someone else who has already provided an image. Users are given the option of turning off link shortening at the same time, which means the pictures will automatically populate on the tweet. The downfall is, of course, the fact that this tends to be a single platform option. The same limitations that Hootsuite encounters apply to the other platforms.
Hootsuite vs Buffer: Conclusions
If you are managing multiple social media platforms simultaneously, then Hootsuite seems like the logical choice. Although it has higher costs for larger plans there is more overall functionality. Posting images may be difficult and there are challenges with URL shortening which may need to be addressed, but you’ll have multiple platform access on one dashboard profile and that can be extremely helpful.
For those who have a primary focus on Twitter and no other real social media presence, then Buffer may be the better option. It is designed more for the tweeting experience and provides users with options to customize the look and feel of each tweet. Search options for engagement with followers on Twitter is manageable as well, but these advantages tend to disappear for those who must manage multiple social media profiles at once.
In the Hootsuite vs Buffer debate, both platforms have specific strengths and weaknesses which may apply at the individual level. Both offer a free trial to get to know the platform, which makes it easier to determine which one can provide the best services for your specific needs.