Social Media Marketing
Planable
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Planable · planable.io
Report an error on this page Is this your product? →
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
The captured evidence for Planable is a single page announcing that Social Listening is live — see what's said about your brand, your industry and your competitors — and the bench scored from that alone. Publishing, analytics and reporting, collaboration governance, platform coverage, sovereignty and pricing transparency each show a low of 0 and a high of 0. The only criterion scoring above 0 is engagement inbox, spanning 0 to 2, and that spread is a genuine split over what the announcement proves. The data protection officer scored 2, reasoning that it evidences mentions of people's speech being ingested somewhere while we found no public information on retention of that archive. Three judges scored 1, crediting a single monitoring signal — mentions are at least being heard — alongside no public information on a unified inbox, assignment or conversation history. The skeptic and the agency lead scored 0, treating the announcement as monitoring rather than a queue. In passing, no public prices appear, so judges reported no annual invoice computable from public pages; sovereignty attributes are none on record.
Speaks for it
- Social listening is live, with the captured page covering brand, industry and competitor mentions
- Engagement inbox is the only criterion scored above 0, reaching a high of 2 on the strength of the listening announcement
- Judges credited the announcement as a genuine monitoring signal — mentions are at least being heard somewhere
Held against it
- We found no public information on publishing: scheduling, a calendar, bulk upload or overnight failure handling
- We found no public information on a unified inbox, assignment, statuses or per-person conversation history
- We found no public information on analytics and reporting, from stored metrics to client exports, or on which networks are supported
- We found no public information on approval steps, user roles or an audit trail of who published what
- No sovereignty attributes are on record, with hosting, the contracting entity and subprocessors unstated
Best for
- You need a live signal on brand, industry and competitor mentions and already handle publishing and reporting elsewhere
- You want to start with monitoring only and take questions about queues, approvals and analytics directly to the vendor
- Your immediate need is hearing what is said about the brand rather than answering it through a queue
Avoid if
- You need evidenced scheduling, a working calendar and overnight failure handling for brand accounts today
- Your agency requires approval chains, client-facing review and white-label exports
- You must show a board or a data protection officer an audit trail, a data processing agreement and named subprocessors
- You need cross-network analytics with retained history and client-ready reports
The scores
Publishing & calendar
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Scheduling across networks: per-network formatting, the calendar as a working surface, bulk operations, and what happens when a post fails at 3am.
0 — One post to several networks at once with no per-network variation and no calendar.
3 — A calendar with scheduling and basic per-network text variants; failures are discovered by noticing the post never appeared.
5 — Per-network content, media and first-comment variants, drafts, a usable calendar with drag-and-drop, and failure notifications with a retry.
8 — Bulk upload and CSV import, evergreen or queue-based scheduling, link shortening with UTM rules, preview matching each network's actual rendering, and stories, reels or shorts supported where the API allows.
10 — Publishing is dependable at volume: hundreds of scheduled items across many accounts without collision, best-time recommendations from the account's own history, and every failure surfaced with the platform error and a one-click recovery.
The Community Manager
Nothing captured shows scheduling, a calendar, or what happens when a post fails overnight. I found no public information on per-network variants, drafts, bulk operations or failure notifications, so this sits at the bottom. 1
The Agency Lead
The one captured page speaks only to social listening; we found no public information on scheduling, per-network variants, a working calendar, bulk operations, or what happens when a post fails overnight. Nothing in the evidence demonstrates publishing at any level, which places it at the bottom of the scale. 1
The Brand Governance Officer
We found no public information on scheduling, per-network variants, the calendar, or what happens when a post fails; the single captured product fact is a social listening announcement, which says nothing about publishing dependability at 3am. 1
The Analyst
The single captured page announces social listening and nothing else; we found no public information on scheduling, the calendar, per-network formatting variants, bulk operations, or what happens when a post fails overnight. With no publishing capability visible in the evidence, this sits at the bottom of the scale. 1
The Data Protection Officer
The only captured statement is that social listening is live; we found no public information on scheduling, per-network formatting, a working calendar, bulk operations, or what happens when a scheduled post fails. Nothing public here evidences even the basics of publishing. 1
The Skeptic
The single captured page announces social listening and says nothing about publishing at all — we found no public information on scheduling, per-network variants, a calendar, bulk upload, or what happens when a post fails overnight. 1
Engagement & community inbox
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Comments, mentions and messages in one queue — the half of the job that is customer service wearing a marketing badge.
0 — No inbox; engagement happens in each native app.
3 — Mentions and comments listed per network with no assignment, no status and no history.
5 — A unified inbox across the connected networks with assignment, status and internal notes, and the conversation history visible per person.
8 — Direct messages included where the API allows, saved replies, SLA timers, sentiment or priority flags, spam and hidden-comment handling, and escalation to a helpdesk.
10 — The inbox is a service desk: every public and private interaction in one queue with ownership and response-time reporting, moderation rules that act automatically, and a per-person history spanning networks.
The Community Manager
The one thing on record is social listening being live — what's said about the brand, the industry and competitors — so mentions are at least being heard somewhere. I found no public information on a unified queue, assignment, saved replies or per-person history, and that queue is the whole job for me, so this sits just above the floor. 1
The Agency Lead
We found no public information on a unified inbox, assignment, statuses, internal notes, or conversation history. The sole engagement-adjacent fact is a social listening announcement, and listening is monitoring rather than an inbox, so it does not move the score for me. 1
The Brand Governance Officer
The one evidenced capability is social listening — seeing what is said about the brand, industry and competitors — which is monitoring rather than a service queue; we found no public information on a unified inbox, assignment, statuses, internal notes or per-person history. 1
The Analyst
The one confirmed capability is social listening — seeing what is said about your brand, industry and competitors — which surfaces mentions but is not a comment or message queue. We found no public information on a unified inbox, assignment, statuses, saved replies, or per-person conversation history, so I can credit only that single monitoring signal. 1
The Data Protection Officer
A single announcement says social listening is live — the product sees what is said about the brand, the industry and competitors — which evidences that mentions of people's speech are ingested somewhere. We found no public information on a unified inbox, assignment, per-person conversation history, or any retention period for the comment and message archive; those conversations are personal data the operator processes, and the silence on retention is what decided this. 1
The Skeptic
No queue is captured anywhere: we found no public information on a unified inbox, assignment, statuses, notes or conversation history, let alone SLA timers or helpdesk escalation. 1
Analytics & reporting
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Measurement across networks with different metrics and retention windows, plus the reporting an agency hands a client.
0 — Per-network vanity counts pulled live; no history kept.
3 — Basic post and profile metrics with a short history and no cross-network comparison.
5 — Metrics stored beyond the networks' own retention, cross-network comparison, competitor benchmarking, and scheduled exports.
8 — Custom dashboards, white-label client reporting, paid and organic combined where the API allows, UTM-based attribution into web analytics, and audience demographics over time.
10 — Reporting answers what worked and why: metrics normalised across networks with the differences documented rather than hidden, full historical retention independent of platform windows, and exports an agency can hand over unedited.
The Community Manager
The captured page says nothing about post metrics, retention windows, cross-network comparison or client reports. I found no public information on analytics and reporting at all, which is worth the lowest score. 1
The Agency Lead
No captured material mentions metrics, cross-network comparison, retention beyond platform windows, scheduled exports, or white-label reporting — the monthly deliverable I owe every client. We found no public information on any of it. 1
The Brand Governance Officer
Nothing in the captured pages speaks to measurement: we found no public information on metrics, retention beyond platform windows, cross-network comparison, dashboards or client-ready exports. 1
The Analyst
We found no public information on metrics, retention beyond the networks' own windows, cross-network comparison, competitor data, scheduled exports, or UTM attribution into web analytics — the exact questions I score on. Nothing captured lets me begin to judge measurement, which is the lowest score I can report. 1
The Data Protection Officer
We found no public information on post or profile metrics, retention of performance history beyond the networks' own windows, cross-network comparison, or client-ready exports. The listening announcement concerns capturing speech, not measuring performance. 1
The Skeptic
A banner saying listening is live for brand, industry and competitor mentions is not measurement; we found no public information on stored metrics, history beyond network retention, cross-network comparison, dashboards or client exports. 1
Approvals, roles & brand safety
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
How a team of several people and an agency publish to a brand account without an accident — and who can be shown to have approved what.
0 — Shared login, no roles, no approvals.
3 — Separate users with a coarse admin split and an optional single approval step.
5 — Roles per network and account, multi-step approval workflows, comments on drafts, and an activity log.
8 — Client or brand workspaces with strict separation, configurable approval chains including legal review, content locking after approval, and an audit trail of who changed and published what.
10 — Governance a regulated brand could pass an audit on: complete audit trail of edits, approvals and publications, enforced approval before anything reaches a network, granular permissions per account and action, and no shared credentials anywhere in the design.
The Community Manager
I found no public information on user roles, approval steps, comments on drafts or an activity log. With nothing showing how several people and an agency publish to a brand account without an accident, this scores at the bottom. 1
The Agency Lead
Approvals, client workspaces and audit trails are the reason an agency like mine would buy this class of tool, and we found no public information on roles, multi-step approval chains, client-facing review, content locking, or an activity log. Nothing captured demonstrates any of it. 1
The Brand Governance Officer
This is the record I answer to the board with, and the captured pages give me nothing to work from: no approval workflow, no roles or granular permissions, no audit trail, and no way to show who approved what before it reached a network. 1
The Analyst
We found no public information on user roles, approval steps, comments on drafts, content locking after approval, or an audit trail of who changed and published what. None of the governance surface appears in the captured evidence, so I cannot score above the floor. 1
The Data Protection Officer
We found no public information on separate users, roles, approval steps, or an audit trail showing who approved and published what. For governance of who inside a team may see the personal data arriving in comments, nothing public was found either. 1
The Skeptic
We found no public information on users, roles, approval steps, draft comments or an audit trail — nothing captured shows how a team of several people or an agency would publish to a brand account with any separation or record of who approved what. 1
Network coverage & API resilience
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Which networks are supported through official APIs, how quickly the vendor follows platform changes, and what the customer keeps when a network breaks or leaves.
0 — A few networks, some through unofficial means, with no statement about API status or platform changes.
3 — The major networks through official APIs, but feature gaps undocumented and platform changes communicated after they bite.
5 — Official API integrations across the main networks with the per-network limitations documented, and a changelog when platform behaviour changes.
8 — Broad official coverage including the newer networks, a public status page for integrations, advance notice of deprecations, and full export of the customer's own publishing and engagement archive.
10 — Platform dependency handled as an engineering commitment: official partner status where it exists, per-network capability documented and kept current, rapid response to API changes with the history to show it, and an archive that stays the customer's whatever a network does next.
The Community Manager
The capture gives no statement on which networks are supported or through which APIs. I found no public information on integration status, advance notice of platform changes, or export of the customer's own archive, so there is nothing to score above zero. 1
The Agency Lead
The captured page names no supported network, states nothing about official API integrations, and shows no changelog, status page, or export commitment. We found no public information on coverage or on how the vendor follows platform changes, which is the floor for this criterion. 1
The Brand Governance Officer
We found no public information on which networks are supported, whether through official APIs, how platform changes are communicated, or what archive a customer keeps if a network breaks; resilience against platform dependency cannot be judged from these pages. 1
The Analyst
The captured material names no supported network and offers no API status information, per-network limitation notes, changelog, or export of the customer's publishing and engagement archive. We found no public information on any of this, which scores at the bottom. 1
The Data Protection Officer
The captured page names no supported networks, and we found no public information on official API use, per-network limitation documentation, a status page for integrations, or export of the customer's publishing and engagement archive if a network connection ends. 1
The Skeptic
I count the network logos and there are none to count: the capture names no supported networks, no statement of official API use, no per-network limits, no integration status page, no deprecation notice practice and no export of the customer's publishing and engagement archive. 1
European sovereignty
panel opinion
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Where the archive and the community conversations are processed, who the contracting entity is, which subprocessors touch them. Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline. Note that the networks themselves are non-EU by definition — this criterion judges the tool, not the platforms it talks to.
0 — Non-EU vendor and contracting entity, hosting unstated, subprocessors unnamed.
3 — EU hosting offered as an option while the contracting entity is non-EU, or the subprocessor list is absent.
5 — EU hosting as standard and an EU contracting entity, but parts of the chain — AI features, analytics, support tooling — are non-EU without an explained safeguard.
8 — EU or DACH hosting on named infrastructure, EU contracting entity, complete subprocessor list published, and the handling of message content from the networks described with its legal basis.
10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: vendor, entity, hosting and every subprocessor European, certification published, and a DPA that squarely addresses the personal data arriving from the networks in comments and messages.
The Community Manager
No sovereignty attributes are on record: hosting, the contracting entity and any subprocessors are all unstated in the captured material. For a criterion about where my community's conversations are processed, that absence is worth the lowest score. 1
The Agency Lead
No sovereignty attributes are on record: hosting is unstated, the contracting entity is unstated, and no subprocessors are named. We found no public information on where the archive or the community conversations are processed, or on any data protection agreement covering them. 1
The Brand Governance Officer
No sovereignty attributes are on record: hosting, the contracting entity and every subprocessor are unstated on the captured pages, and no DPA or certification is evidenced — for a European brand account that silence is itself the answer. 1
The Analyst
No sovereignty attributes are on record — hosting location, contracting entity, and subprocessors are all unstated in the captured evidence, and the provenance of the capture is itself unknown. Since the lowest published definition for this criterion is unstated hosting with unnamed subprocessors, that is the score. 1
The Data Protection Officer
No sovereignty attributes are on record: we found no public information on hosting location, the contracting entity, a subprocessor list, or a data processing agreement addressing the personal data arriving from the networks. With social listening live and no published statement on where any analysis of that text is performed or on what legal basis, every element of this criterion is unevidenced. 1
The Skeptic
No sovereignty attributes are on record: hosting is unstated, the contracting entity is unnamed, and we found no public information on any subprocessor list or on how message and comment content from the networks is handled. 1
Pricing transparency
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether a team can compute the real annual invoice for their account and user count — including the tier where approvals and the inbox begin — from public pages alone.
0 — No public prices at all; every tier is a sales conversation.
3 — A per-user headline exists, but the number of social accounts included, or the tier where approvals and the inbox appear, is unstated.
5 — Per-user or per-account prices public with billing period stated, but at least one commonly needed capability (inbox, approvals, reporting) sits in an unpriced tier.
8 — Every tier priced publicly with account and user limits, feature boundaries, the cost of an extra account or seat, minimum term and VAT treatment stated.
10 — Complete price computability: annual invoice derivable for a given number of social accounts, users and client workspaces, with every add-on priced.
The Community Manager
No price appears in the captured material — not a per-user figure, not a tier, not where an inbox would begin if one exists. A team cannot compute any annual invoice from public pages alone. 1
The Agency Lead
We found no public prices, no tiers, no account or user limits, and no indication of where approvals and the inbox would sit in a plan. A team buying for a dozen client brands cannot compute any part of an annual invoice from what was captured. 1
The Brand Governance Officer
We found no public information on pricing: no per-user or per-account figure, no billing period, and no indication of the tier where approvals and the inbox would begin, so a real annual invoice is not computable from the captured pages. 1
The Analyst
We found no public information on prices, billing period, account or user limits, or the tier where approvals and the inbox would begin. From the captured pages a team cannot compute any annual invoice, which places this at the lowest point. 1
The Data Protection Officer
We found no public prices at all — no per-user or per-account figure, no tier structure showing where approvals or an inbox would begin, and nothing on minimum term or VAT treatment. A team cannot compute any annual invoice from what is public. 1
The Skeptic
We found no public prices on the captured page — no per-user figure, no tiers, no account or seat limits, no VAT treatment — so a real annual invoice cannot be computed from public information at any user or account count. 1
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 29 Sep 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- AI can misread a source. Extraction and judgement are automated; a citation guarantees traceability, not infallibility. If something here is wrong, say so — no account needed, every report is decided within 5 business days, and accepted corrections are published.
What we left out
A claim that does not survive our checks costs us the claim, not the page. This is what was taken off this one.
- 30 product facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 9 pricing facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 7 legal facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 2 compliance facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 integrations fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 support fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 6 of the readings below were written against an earlier fact sheet — a fact has been corrected, added or pulled since. Until the panel next runs on this product you are reading the older judgement. Know more? Tell us
Sources (10)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page planable.io Checked 29 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Publishing & calendar — found from sitemap planable.io Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Engagement & community inbox — found from sitemap planable.io Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Engagement & community inbox — found from sitemap planable.io Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Analytics & reporting — found from sitemap planable.io Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Analytics & reporting — found from sitemap planable.io Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Approvals, roles & brand safety — found from sitemap planable.io Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Approvals, roles & brand safety — found from sitemap planable.io Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Network coverage & API resilience — found from sitemap planable.io Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Network coverage & API resilience — found from sitemap planable.io Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →