This is to ensure that those duplicate and ‘non-human’ social media accounts don’t artificially inflate internet adoption figures. Internet user numbers: with a handful of exceptions where no other data is available, we’ve stopped using data sourced from social media platforms to inform our internet user numbers. As a result, we’ve changed the way we talk about social media user numbers to make it clear that the figures may not represent “people.” We’ve also changed the source we use for social media users in China, which has resulted in some changes to historical figures, including global totals. This is because some social media accounts may represent animals, businesses, places, and various other kinds of ‘non-human’ entities, while some people may also manage more than one social media account on the same platform. Social media users: the figures we publish for social media users may not represent unique individuals. We’ve explained these changes in the footnotes of each relevant chart within the report, but I’d like to highlight two of those changes here: To ensure we can report the most accurate data, we’ve made important changes to the ways we calculate and talk about some of our numbers. Just before we get stuck into the numbers, I’d like to say a very big thank you to all of the data partners and providers who’ve made this year’s reports possible, especially:īefore we begin: important notes on changes to our methodology Why we need to change the metrics that guide our social media ‘mix’. Why mobile is essential, but not the only answer and The rapidly growing importance of ecommerce

The evolving demographics of online audiences

Some of the key themes to look for in this year’s reports include:Ĭhanges in how people search for information and brands

Listview android studio percentage