Greece’s decision to ban social media access for children under 15 from 1 January 2027 should be seen as more than a domestic policy move.
It points to a broader shift in how governments, regulators and society are beginning to think about the role of social platforms, especially in the lives of younger users. Cyprus is also examining the issue, while a growing number of other markets are moving in a similar direction, each through its own legislative or regulatory route.
For brands, this matters because it says something larger about the environment in which they communicate. For years, social media offered reach, speed and targeting capabilities that few other channels could match. It gave brands, especially newer and more agile ones, the ability to build visibility quickly, speak directly to audiences and generate momentum without the cost barriers that traditionally came with large-scale brand building. That value has not disappeared. Social still has an important role to play, and for many organisations it remains a highly effective part of the communications mix.
What has changed is the context around it.
As pressure grows on platforms over issues such as safety, addiction, age verification and the wider social impact of prolonged use, brands would be wise to look more carefully at how much of their communications model is tied to social alone. This is not because social media is suddenly irrelevant, nor because brands should take an alarmist view of every regulatory discussion. It is because the assumptions that shaped the social-first era are beginning to shift, and strategy needs to shift with them.
Many brands have made social media more than just a channel. In practice, it has become the main vehicle for awareness, engagement, customer acquisition, storytelling and, in some cases, even corporate reputation. That can work for a while, particularly when performance is strong and content is landing well. But overreliance on any one environment creates obvious vulnerabilities, especially when that environment is shaped by factors outside a brand’s control. Platform rules change. Algorithms evolve. Paid efficiency weakens. Audience behaviour fragments. Public trust rises and falls. And once regulation enters the picture more seriously, operating conditions can change faster than many brands are prepared for.
This is why the real issue is not whether social media continues to “work.” In many cases, it still does. The more important question is whether brands have built enough around it to remain visible, credible and relevant if its role changes.
That requires a broader view of communications.
A brand should not exist only in feeds. It should be present across a wider set of channels and experiences that reinforce who it is and what it stands for. That may include earned media, executive profiling, thought leadership, partnerships, owned content, newsletters, search visibility, events, activations or community-led initiatives. The right mix will vary from one organisation to another, but the principle remains the same. The stronger the brand, the less dependent it is on a single platform's logic to remain present in people’s minds.
This is especially important for businesses that have grown rapidly through social-first models. In many of those cases, social has been commercially efficient and genuinely transformative. But growth achieved through platform performance is not the same thing as long-term communications resilience. A brand that can only generate attention within a platform's structure has not yet developed enough independence from it.
That is where this moment becomes strategically useful. It invites brands to ask harder and more constructive questions. If social performance were to decline materially, what other communications assets would still be working? If one of the major platforms became more tightly regulated, less trusted, or less effective, where else could the brand build visibility and connection? Are communications efforts creating familiarity alone, or are they also building understanding, trust and recall?
These are not abstract questions. They go directly to the quality of brand strategy.
There is also a more subtle point that deserves attention. As public debate around social media intensifies, particularly regarding children and teenagers, brands may also need to think more carefully about the behaviours they encourage online. Metrics such as reach, time spent and engagement remain commercially attractive, but they do not tell the full story. The brands that are likely to be better positioned in the years ahead will be those that understand how to use digital channels effectively without appearing careless about the wider environment in which they operate.
For communications advisers, this is an important moment to elevate the conversation. The answer is not to present social media as a problem to be abandoned, because that would be neither realistic nor strategically sound. Nor is it to pretend that nothing is changing. The more useful role is to help brands respond with balance and foresight, recognising that social still matters, but also understanding that it should no longer be expected to carry the full burden of communications strategy.
Ultimately, the issue here is not whether brands should keep investing in social media. Most should. The issue is whether they are investing enough in everything else that gives a brand depth, resilience and credibility over time. If recent policy developments in Greece, the discussion now taking place in Cyprus and the wider international direction tell us anything, it is that the conditions around social media are becoming more complex. Brands that continue to treat it as their entire communications universe may find themselves more exposed than they realise.
A stronger strategy is one that keeps social in the mix, but not at the centre of everything.
*Dimitris Ioannides, CEO, Purpose Communications
