A recent social listening report from Capstone-Intel showed that in terms of preference from Filipino social media users, GCash has received over 40.1 percent satisfaction while Maya garnered 19.3 percent preference. However, in terms of social media reach, Maya has received 136,999,285, higher than the 62,975,335 reach of GCash
Capstone-Intel Corporation is a high-impact research company that uses innovative research technologies, tools, and methods to convert data and information into breakthrough insights and actionable intelligence outputs. It is committed to helping its clients solve problems, find solutions, grow markets and constituencies, build reputations, navigate risks, manage crises, and be the country’s leading private research and intelligence agency.
Background
Financial technologies, particularly digital payments, have gained supremacy at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic where all are confined to the corners of their homes. As the spread of the virus escalated, the Philippines was confronted with adapting to the changing payment modes in order to contain the spread of the spread and lessen human-to-human interaction in every financial transaction.
In line with this, various digital payments have now become a part of Filipinos’ daily transactions – lessening the burdens that come with cash payments and threats of receiving counterfeit money.
Methodology
Capstone-Intel Corp. examined the online presence of GCash and Maya in the country as a topic of discussion for one month, from Ferbuary 18 to March 19, 2024, by utilizing all publicly accessible posts from social and non-social media platforms in order to gather the sentiments of the public about the two digital payment services.
Over five commonly used digital payment services were included in the data gathering but only GCash and Maya have significant data that can be translated.
Facebook Performance
Capstone-Intel found that “GCash” garnered a 502,382.0 engagement score for its 21,464 total post count, which yielded over 1,057,467 total reaction count. The bulk of the engagement score and total post count were all attributed to the payment service’s accessibility to various payment centers and the usage preference of Filipino social media users talking about “GCash.”
When broken down, “Facebook like” accounts for 48.1 percent of the total reactions, with 508,293. Followed by “Facebook love” with 423,880 reactions (40.1 percent), “Facebook haha” with 53,370 (5 percent), “Facebook sad” with 44,844 (4.2 percent), “Facebook wow” with 16,109 (1.5 percent), and “Facebook angry” with 10,971 reactions.
On the other hand, Capstone-Intel likewise found that “Maya” garnered a 97,335.2 engagement score for its 2,764 total post count, which yielded over 428,582 total reaction count. Compared to GCash, Maya has fewer posts on Facebook which resulted in its lower engagement score and presence on the social media platform.
When broken down, “Facebook like” accounts for 41.3 percent of the total reactions, with 177,116. Followed by “Facebook sad” with 128,334 reactions (29.9 percent), “Facebook love” with 82,913 (19.3 percent), “Facebook haha” with 30,199 (7 percent), “Facebook wow” with 8,950 (2.1 percent), and “Facebook angry” with 1,070 reactions (0.2 percent).
Looking at the data, the majority of “Facebook love” reactions can be seen as the satisfaction of users regarding the use of the two digital services. However, the “Facebook like,” which was higher than the users’ preference can be translated as social media users’ neutrality in terms of using the two digital payment services.
It is also worth noting that some Facebook reactions, particularly the “haha,” “sad,” and “angry” reactions were seen as negative reactions by social media users about GCash and Maya.
Specifically, these reactions came from poor service, expensive transfer fees, and untimely maintenance which affect users’ payment behaviors as stated by users on the top posts.
Online mentions
Capstone-Intel likewise revealed that “GCash” received 85.2 percent positive mentions while “Maya” has gotten over 92.5 percent positive mentions. This means that the article mentions about the “GCash” and “Maya” were mostly angled positively, but Maya had more positive mentions than GCash since the majority of negative mentions for GCash talk about the mobile payment service’s frequent system downtime – affecting the seamless user experience.
On the other hand, it is also worth noting that “GCash” received 62,975,335 social media reach, while its non-social media reach yielded over 6,086,495 non-social media reach.
For Maya, Capstone-Intel revealed that it has gotten over 136,999,285 social media reach, while its non-social media reach yielded over 183,081,413 non-social media reach.
Sources of top posts
In terms of top posts, 74.5 percent of mentions for the “GCash” came from X (formerly Twitter), followed by Facebook with 11.5 percent, and TikTok with 5.7 percent topic mentions.
Meanwhile, 31.8 percent of mentions for “Maya” also came from X (formerly Twitter), followed by news with 27.7 percent, and TikTok with 16.6 topic mentions.
Looking at the data, both GCash and Maya use a nearly similar campaign on how they are going to be talked over online as they both manifested the use of TikTok as shown in the data gathered by Capstone.
It is also significant that most topics mentioned for the two digital payment services are held on X (formerly Twitter). According to the data, these mentions are mostly negative, discussing both GCash and Maya’s inefficient digital infrastructure.
