i've heard the algorithm complaint so many times i could write it myself. "reach is down, engagement is down, the algorithm changed, it's not like it used to be." and look — some of that is true. platforms do change their distribution logic. reach does fluctuate. but the algorithm is doing a lot of work as an explanation for things that are actually about posting habits.
here's what i've noticed: the accounts that complain most about the algorithm are usually the ones that haven't changed what they post in two years. same format, same cadence, same type of content. the algorithm didn't kill their reach. their posting did. the algorithm just stopped compensating for it.
this is uncomfortable to say because it puts the responsibility back on the creator. it's easier to have an external explanation. the algorithm is a good villain — it's opaque, it's controlled by a company you don't like, and it changes without warning. but the algorithm is also, fundamentally, a system that rewards content that people engage with. if people aren't engaging, that's information.
the brand building of brand building has a useful frame for this: the difference between distribution and content. distribution is what the platform does. content is what you do. you can't control distribution. you can control content. most algorithm complaints are about distribution. most distribution problems are content problems.
what actually helps: looking at your last twenty posts and asking honestly which ones you'd engage with if you saw them from a stranger. not which ones you're proud of — which ones you'd actually stop scrolling for. the creator perspective of creator perspective is useful here because it's honest about this in a way that brand accounts usually aren't.
the algorithm isn't your friend and it isn't your enemy. it's a system that responds to signals. the indie creators of indie creators has figured this out — they post less, but they post things that actually land. more at xcalitoy.