Every brand eventually asks the same question after a campaign: "Is that a good number?" A 3% engagement rate — is that a win or a disappointment? The honest answer is that it depends entirely on the platform, the industry and the objective. Generic "the average engagement rate is X%" stats are close to useless, because a beauty Reel and an e-commerce seeding post aren't playing the same game.
So instead of quoting someone else's averages, here are benchmarks drawn from our own campaigns — real numbers, real brands, verified results.
A note on honesty: these are headline results from individual campaigns, not a statistical average of a huge sample. Treat them as reference points for what strong performance looks like in each category, not as guarantees.
Engagement benchmarks by category
| Category | Campaign | Engagement signal |
|---|---|---|
| Consumer tech | G-Shock GA-2200 | 23% avg engagement |
| Consumer tech | Sony ZV (Xiao Hong Shu) | 7.03% ER (3.5x platform avg) |
| Consumer tech | Digi x Capture App | 3% ER |
| Consumer tech | TP-Link awareness video | 1.45% ER |
| E-commerce | Lazada 11.11 Supershow | 11.38% ER |
| Food & beverage | JIF peanut butter recipes | 2.65% ER |
| Food & beverage | Cooltopia Ramadan | Beat the 2% benchmark |
What the benchmarks tell us
A 2–3% engagement rate is a solid, healthy result for most mass-market campaigns. That's the range where food, telco and broad consumer campaigns tend to land — and it's a genuinely good outcome when the audience is large and general. When we note that Cooltopia "beat the 2% benchmark," that 2% figure is the realistic bar for a broad FMCG push.
High single digits and above signal exceptional fit. The 7%+ and 23% results didn't come from bigger budgets — they came from tight creator-audience matching and formats built for interaction. When engagement climbs that high, it's almost always because the creators were right, not just numerous.
Platform changes the baseline. The Sony result is the tell: 7.03% was 3.5x the platform average, which means the "good" number on Xiao Hong Shu is different from the "good" number on TikTok or Instagram. Always benchmark against the platform, not against social media in general.
Why generic benchmarks mislead you
Three factors move engagement more than anything else, and they're exactly what industry-wide averages ignore:
1. Objective. An awareness campaign optimised for reach will "underperform" on engagement by design — it was never trying to maximise interaction. TP-Link's 1.45% came from an awareness prank video whose job was views, not comments. Judged against its actual goal, it did its job.
2. Creator tier and fit. As our numbers show repeatedly, smaller and better-matched creators post higher engagement rates. A benchmark that mixes nano and mega creators into one average tells you nothing about what your roster should expect.
3. Format. A vote, a challenge or a contest engineers interaction; a straight product placement doesn't. Compare like formats, or the comparison is meaningless.
How to use these benchmarks
- Benchmark against your objective first. Engagement goal? Aim high. Awareness goal? Don't punish a low ER — check reach instead.
- Benchmark against the platform, not "social media."
- Benchmark against the creator tier you actually used.
- Track your own trend line. Your most useful benchmark is your last campaign. Beating your own past numbers matters more than matching someone else's.
"Good" isn't a single number — it's a number in context. Set the context correctly and you'll stop celebrating weak results or dismissing strong ones.
Want to know how your campaign stacks up against benchmarks like these? Send us your numbers and we'll give you an honest read.
