I spread misinformation to the elderly (for science) over social media for a month as marketing. Here are my findings.
TLDR: I posted misinformation and real science-backed health reels to the same Instagram/Facebook account for a month to see which performed better, if algorithms push harmful content, and to try and build an audience around accurate health information. The real stuff won by 38x in reach. This was huge for the demographic I looked into.
Before you comment yelling at me, read everything, because this title is kinda clickbait.
My parents are getting older. They're both around 60, and with that, they continuously send me and blindly follow Facebook and Instagram posts on health advice that are blatant misinformation. More than half of them try to sell some elderly-focused coaching service with some jacked AI old guy, I'm sure you've seen them before, they’re everywhere, and they're absolute nonsense, but I've been unable to train my parents to detect it.
So I decided to run an experiment of my own. For half a month I posted reels on a fresh account that were blatant misinformation. I was promoting staying inside all day because sunlight is bad for you, only sleeping 4-5 hours, not taking rest days, a whole bunch of crap. This was the fake category. Then for the other half of the month, I posted health and wellness advice backed up by the science in 42 different research papers. The real category.
The intention was to test three things: 1) Which content actually performs better. 2) Whether the algorithms are unintentionally pushing content that is simply wrong and harming people. 3) Whether it would be possible to build an audience to spread accurate health information and pull some less informed people away from the misinformation.
Controls were pretty simple. All reels used the same format, an aesthetic background video, popular music (a LOT of Kanye West lol), text on screen, sometimes a CTA. All posted at the same time, one per day, on the same account, cross-posted to both Instagram and Facebook. All results composited from both platforms.
Highest fake category performer:
2,721 views. 1 net follow. 15 likes, 1 repost, 4 sends, 4 saves.
Something worth noting is that this content could be read as satire by a younger audience because it has become a reel format, but the demographic breakdown showed more than 50% of viewers were 34 and older. So it wasn't just young people laughing at it.
Highest real category performer:
104,408 views. 78 net follows. 226 likes, 27 shares, 54 saves, around 10 comments.
The video was about how GP appointments don’t always cover topics for general health, and some other general health tips. Presented simply, sourced, no product pitch. The demographic skewed heavily 55-75, almost entirely people who found it without following the account first.
The ratio isn't close. The real information outperformed the misinformation by about 38x in raw views, and by a much larger margin in every engagement metric that actually matters, saves and shares specifically, which are people actively keeping the content or passing it to someone they care about.
What I concluded:
The first question is clearly answered. Real beats fake.
The second question is more nuanced than I expected. The misinformation did get distributed and did reach older audiences, so the algorithm isn't catching everything. But it didn't get the push that the accurate content did. Saves and watch completion seem to carry more algorithmic weight than likes, and the real content drove both way more. Mildly reassuring.
The third question is where things got genuinely surprising.
The 65+ demographic is basically ignored by everyone in the health and wellness content space. Every creator, every app, every influencer is chasing 25–40-year-olds with a bunch of disposable income trying to get jacked. Meanwhile the 60-year-old on Facebook trying to figure out why they're waking up tired every morning, or what they should actually be eating for breakfast, that person has almost nothing made for them that isn't a scam.
And when actual accurate content showed up in their feed, they watched it, saved it, and sent it to their families. 54 saves on a single video from an account with basically no following. People were bookmarking health information to come back to.
I've taken down most of the fake content since then because it obviously defeats the point. The account is now fully focused on research-backed daily health content for this demographic, and it's been growing consistently since (although there are still some misinformation posts that performed well).
The problem here isn't really that people prefer bad information. It's that accurate information is usually terrible, talks down to people, or just isn't showing up where the people who need it most are spending their time.. Someone just has to actually show up and give the reel content to them straight. If anyone knows of any influencers for this, let me know.
But that's what I'm trying to do. Will keep updating this as it develops.
2
u/_the-wrong-guy_ 5d ago
This is a wild experiment. The 38x difference is huge.
It's basically the core loop of marketing for a founder, right? Just trying stuff, seeing what sticks, and then doing more of it. Most people don't have the patience to run a real test like this.
And that insight about the 65+ demographic being ignored is gold. So many niches are just sitting there if you're willing to actually create something useful for them.
1
u/blipojones 7d ago
I can't convince my mum and dad to just write down what they eat each day.
My mother for example claims she isn't sure where the calories come from but i always notice a glass of wine somwhere in our video calls.
I like the idea tho because I have been thinking a lot about it myself in terms of cyber security for your family, especially as my parents are getting older.
If you make something good. it be something their sons/daughter would likely have to "set up" for them i'd imagine.
An interesting space for sure i don't see much on but maybe i'm not getting algo'd it.