Your brand
34.2%
+3.1pp vs prior
Feature
Share of voice for cannabis brand teams
Benchmark your brand against competitors by forum, with a scoped denominator your team can defend in planning reviews.
30-day window/3 selected from 18+ monitored communities/4 named brands + uncategorized mentions/1,284 total mentions
Top competitor
28.7%
-1.4pp vs prior
Your brand mentions
439
of 1,284 in scope
Forums in scope
3
selected from 18+ monitored
Your brand
Competitor A
Competitor B
Competitor C
Uncategorized
What it measures
What share of voice means in grower communities
In broad monitoring tools, share of voice tends to become an awareness metric calculated across every channel the tool can reach. The number gets large, the denominator gets vague, and the team presenting it in a quarterly review cannot explain what it actually measures.
In grower communities, the metric is more specific. It tells you how much of the tracked recommendation conversation your brand owns relative to the competitors that matter, inside the specific forums where growers compare outcomes, troubleshoot failures, and influence each other's purchasing decisions.
The most commercially valuable community is not always the loudest one. A cannabis subreddit may generate the largest headline number, while a dedicated grower forum is where product trust is actually built or lost. A useful benchmark has to show the split so the team can weight forums by commercial relevance rather than raw volume.
The math
Why the denominator matters more than the percentage
A brand showing 30% share looks strong until you learn the competitor set includes only two other brands, the time window is seven days, and the forum scope covers a single subreddit. Change any of those inputs and the number changes with it.
Your brand's tracked mentionsTotal tracked mentions across owned + competitor sets in the same frame
Forums selected · Time window set · Competitor brands configured
Not a market share claim
Share of voice is a scoped competitive benchmark. When your team changes the forums, time range, or tracked brand set, the number should change too. That transparency is the point, not a limitation.
Honest by design
The numerator counts mentions that belong to your configured brand and product set inside the exact scope. The denominator is the total tracked conversation across all brands in the comparison window. The methodology page explains the full attribution and benchmark rules.
Forum-level view
What the forum split reveals
Brand A appears strongest overall. The forum split shows that lead depends on high-volume chatter rather than trust-forming communities. Brand A looks comfortable in the blended number, but it trails in the forums where product trust forms through direct experience.
That difference changes the quarterly plan.
See the portfolio use case| Forum type | Brand A | Brand B | Brand C |
|---|---|---|---|
High-volume subreddit Casual mentions, broad chatter | |||
Troubleshooting forum Detailed product comparison | |||
Recommendation forum Direct product advocacy |
Operator workflow
How teams use the benchmark in practice
The number alone does not change a plan. The workflow around it does.
Lock the comparison set before reading the score
Choose the owned brands, competitor brands, and forums that reflect the decision being made. A portfolio team evaluating seed bank positioning across three communities needs a different frame than a nutrient brand tracking a single competitor in one subreddit.
Read share by forum, not only in aggregate
If a competitor is gaining in a forum that carries more purchase influence for your segment, the aggregate will not surface it. The forum-level split shows why blended numbers can hide the shift that matters.
Pair the number with momentum and attribution
Share of voice tells you where the market stands. Momentum tells you whether the position is holding or eroding. Attribution tells you what is driving the movement.
Competitive intelligence workflowIn practice
What a shift looks like when it lands
Weekly operator view
Signal
Share-of-voice shift detected
Forum
Equipment discussion threads (grower forum)
Movement
Competitor B gained+4.2ppYour brand declined-3.1pp
Driver
Repeated recommendations for Competitor B in troubleshooting threads after a product refresh. Your brand's mentions held volume but shifted toward neutral and negative sentiment.
Owner
Competitive intelligence lead
Quarterly leadership view
Scope
4 named brands + uncategorized bucket across 3 forums · configured quarterly window
Trend
Brand held lead in two forums. Lost share in a third where a competitor concentrated community engagement.
Driver
The shift correlated with a product education gap identified through attribution analysis.
Action
Team assigned the education gap to product marketing, scheduled a community response through the approval workflow, and flagged the competitor's gain for next quarter's resource allocation.
Owner
Portfolio strategy lead
Reading the signal
How to interpret a shift without overreacting
Shrinking lead
You lead, but the gap is closing
Check whether the competitor gains come from positive advocacy or from your brand mentions turning negative. A narrowing lead driven by negative sentiment requires a different response than one driven by a competitor's community investment.
Contestable forum
You are close enough to contest
If the gap is narrow and the forum is commercially meaningful, share of voice helps justify where extra community attention will matter this quarter.
Low priority
Loud but not strategically useful
If the forum does not influence purchase decisions for your segment, a low share there is not a problem worth solving.
By vertical
Which segments use share of voice
Different product categories create different recommendation dynamics. Full vertical depth lives on each dedicated use-case page.
Seed banks
Quality complaints become recommendation shifts
The workflow catches share-of-voice movement that correlates with germination or phenotype issues expanding across forums.
Seed bank workflowEquipment
Defect narratives shift recommendations toward competitors
The workflow catches a rival gaining share after a product refresh or reliability thread gains traction.
Equipment workflowNutrients
Unanswered confusion turns a competitor into the default
The workflow catches share-of-voice erosion that correlates with unresolved guidance gaps.
Nutrient workflow