Hi Tania,
We haven’t gotten to the implementation stage, yet. I’m advocating for less faces on socials, and then either invest in a platform only parents can access (i.e. Pixevity) or else host more galleries on our website. It’s a little prickly because the person who currently oversees our socials is not the same person who manages the website. Proposals to reduce our exposure across Meta, or else redirect content to our website, are sometimes being taken the wrong way.
I think it’s important, though, to clarify what the source of truth is for parent/community engagement content vs marketing/enrolment recruitment. i.e. a current parent may still want a full gallery of 30+ photos so that they can find their child’s face, but a prospective parent only needs a snapshot of what we do. We’ve had 10-15 years where Facebook (and more recently, Instagram) have often represented both, and so begins the process of expanding our resources and retraining not only ourselves, but also our families.
From the financial standpoint, this becomes complex because Meta platforms have always been free (we are their product!). So, when we submit budget proposals for more website storage, or third-party platforms, we get hit with the ‘we never had this cost before’.
TL;DR: Constantly feel like the Devil’s Advocate!