Do you need to be on every social platform?
No. Every platform has its own audience and its own use: it is better to concentrate on two or three that fit than to spread the same content across ten interfaces.
No. Being present on every social platform is rarely a good strategy, even for a large brand with real resources. Each network has its own audience, its own codes and its own purpose, and mixing them dilutes the message more than it amplifies it.
Why spreading thin costs more than it returns
Producing content that works on a platform takes time: format, tone and posting rhythm differ from one network to the next. Splitting that same time across five or six platforms means, at constant resources, posting less often and less well on each. A plan concentrated on two or three well-chosen platforms usually produces more than a token presence everywhere.
How do you pick the right platforms?
The choice follows the audience and the objective, not a list of networks to tick off. LinkedIn suits a B2B target or a founder's own voice; Instagram and TikTok a consumer audience receptive to imagery and short form; YouTube long or tutorial content; Reddit or Discord niche communities, with codes and a tolerance for promotion very different from the mainstream networks.
A concrete example
A local craftsperson serving nearby customers is better off concentrating on Instagram and Facebook, where that audience already is, than opening a TikTok account they will not have time to feed. Conversely, a brand aiming at a young national audience will gain more on TikTok and Instagram than on LinkedIn.
Should you close the other accounts?
Not necessarily. Reserving your brand name on a platform you are not prioritising keeps someone else from taking it, without committing you to posting there. The rule stays the same: two active, well-kept accounts beat six abandoned ones.