MAM
How advertisers have ‘reacted’ to Facebook Reactions
MUMBAI: So, the social media giant Facebook has rolled out a whole new range of emoticons for users to ‘react’ with. This has come after the long standing legacy of the ‘like’ button. The new reactions, namely ‘Haha’, ‘Wow’, ‘Love’, ‘Sad, and ‘Angry’, were highly anticipated by the advertising fraternity until Facebook revealed that it won’t be letting advertisers use these new reactions as a way to create targeted ads. For now, reactions would only be counted as additional ‘likes’, meaning that an “angry” reaction would be treated the same as a “wow”.
Though initially put off by Facebook’s decision to keep the new reactions out of their reach, advertisers and digital marketers have found ways around this. What makes these new reactions such a lucrative tool for digital marketers is its immense power to look into consumer insights.
“There is a lot of learning from it on a broader scale, but since Facebook as of now isn’t revealing the exact numbers of ‘angry’ or ‘wow’, advertisers are having a hard time in making the most of it. But, you can actually can see who has liked it or ‘loved’ it if you hover over the new emoticons. Once you physically count that list, you can put a number of it. Though tedious, but not impossible,” points out Isobar India MD Shamsuddin Jasani Aka Shams.
Now why would a marketer go through the trouble of physically counting these reactions? What’s in it for her or him?
“It’s a great tool to understand, learn your consumers for a brand. You can see what tonality and emotions consumers have for content. We can figure out what kind of posts, communication and content that are working with a brand’s TG. Beyond that, the use is still limited and it will take some time before people start using it extensively,” Shams shares, adding that the new offering is all about analytics.
PnB Metlife digital marketing, ecommerce and digitization head Abhishek Rathi too feels that the new reactions can prove to be a powerful tool for marketers like him. Especially for re-targeting of campaigns. The net adoption of these features is what marketers are closely paying attention to, Rathi says. “Right now we have to wait and watch if people are actually using it or not to make a significant difference. Currently the majority of what we can work with on Facebook are likes and shares. Comments can give you some consumer insight but isn’t a huge help. Similarly we need to wait and see exactly how we can use these features in marketing.”
“The first thing that I predict is the number of engagements on the posts going up,” Shams observes, “ It’s not always that you like something, you might really like it, love it, or dislike it. Having more to the spectrum to react with also makes people interact with the site more. Earlier people were restricted by only the dislike button, but now the new emoticons are making engagements go up.”
Given its potential use for brands, media planners especially on the digital front, are contemplating on how to incorporate these reactions under their bouquet of services. Shams feels that reactions have a huge scope when it comes to accentuating data and analytics further.
“Of course the planners, who need to buy the right kind of inventory for their client will have to take the new reactions into consideration. It is still difficult to correlate who liked it or loved it and accordingly bought it, as the analytics are not in place right now,” shared another well-known media planner who wished to remain anonymous.
But it is the creatives or the content creators who can make the most of this new feature. Content creators will be able to gauge what reactions their work is getting and where they need to tweak to get the desired result.
“When we are talking about corporate social responsibility or a social cause, it helps to know how our viewers and consumers are reacting to the campaigns; the emotions behind their likes. It’s the next level of engagement,” says Rathi.
Brands which are most likely to jump on this bandwagon and try out the new Facebook reactions for their campaigns are the youth oriented brands, brands with brand language that lets them experiment and try new things. Citing an example from his own client base, Shams says, “Myntra’s brand Anouk, which we handle, has a communication that many like while others may also dislike. It is very clear in what it wants to say to its audience. These reactions can be a help to the brand. Brands which are steadier in their brand communication will wait and watch first.”
Ecommerce and digital start-up companies will be the next to take the new feature seriously for their marketing. “Then you have the likes of Coke and Pepsi who will soon follow,” Rathi adds. The sport leagues can also be big takers for this new feature, Rathi feels. “The IPLs, ISLs, kabaddi leagues and tennis leagues of the world can make a huge advantage from these as it is an association of pride and entertainment. Anything which involves a whole community will try to make the most of this tool,” he adds.
Another advertiser who wants to stay ahead of the curve is United Beverages Limited. UBL has started to look at how these new reactions can affect its marketing strategy. Not only that, UBL, Marketing SVP Samar Singh Sheikhawat shares that UBL is also keeping the ‘angry’ reaction in mind.
“Brands need to be more responsible and responsive now. We need to be more on the ball, because unlike earlier, the ‘angry’ button can become the new ‘dislike’. Not that it has never happened before. In the real world, there are consumers who like one product, others love the same and there are few who can even hate it. Earlier that emotion seldom got reflected to the brands, but now the game is changing,” he says.
With so much excitement among brands in making use of Facebook reactions in marketing, one has to wonder if it’s ethical to use such data at all. “That’s true. We need to be careful how the information is used and it needs to be monitored well. As a marketer I am thrilled about the opportunities this gives us but personally I am not comfortable with my personal data, likes and dislikes being shared with companies who can make use of such data. But if it is an aggregate that you are sharing, it will not be so much of an issue. Suppose 50 per cent of ‘love’ or 20 percent of ‘angry, etc. From a privacy standpoint I don’t think it’s in the interest of customers to share individual data points.”
Sheikhawat on the other hand has a slightly different perspective. “I don’t see how it can become unethical. The fact of the matter is when you sign up for Facebook. you share your personal data. When you get a new app or service, you let it access your Facebook data, including your preference. When you make any of your reactions public, you are sharing it with the rest of the world. It is already happening and consumers are aware of it.
On a positive note, many marketers also observe that NGOs and campaigns for social causes can get a huge help from the added feature. Several marketers are of the view that if the data is readily available to marketers, consumers who are aware will not adopt the feature as much and therefore its effectiveness even from an aggregate standpoint will go down.
For the majority of people, the true test of health insurance is not when they purchase a policy but rather when they have to use it. Additional paperwork, approvals, and payments can add to the already stressful experience of a hospital admission. For this reason, selecting the appropriate plan is just as crucial as knowing how claims operate.
Cashless and reimbursement are the two primary methods of using mediclaim insurance while in the hospital in India. Both are valid, both are widely used, and both have advantages and limitations. The more important question is which is simpler in practice, particularly in an emergency, rather than which is “better” in theory.
To answer that fairly, it is important to look at how each process actually works inside hospitals, what challenges people face, and what kind of situations make one option smoother than the other.
What Does Cashless Treatment Really Mean in Practice?
Cashless care is often promoted as the most practical way to use health insurance, and in many cases, it truly is. Under this system, you visit a network hospital partnered with your insurer, where the hospital contacts the insurance provider on your behalf, submits your medical records, and requests approval for treatment. If the claim is approved, the insurer directly settles the covered portion of the bill with the hospital, and you only pay for non-covered expenses such as deductibles, co-payments, or room upgrades, which can be a major relief for families who may not be able to arrange large sums of money quickly.
However, cashless treatment is not always as seamless as it appears. Approval is not instant in every case, as the hospital must submit medical reports, estimated costs, and justification for the treatment. The insurer then reviews whether the illness is covered, whether waiting periods have been completed, and whether the procedure is medically necessary. As a result, there can be delays in approval, especially for planned surgeries, but once approved, cashless treatment remains financially smoother since you are not required to pay the full amount upfront.
How Does Reimbursement Actually Work on the Ground?
Reimbursement works in the opposite way, where you pay the entire hospital bill first and later claim the amount from your insurer. This option is commonly used when treatment takes place in a non-network hospital or during emergencies when immediate cashless approval is not possible. From a paperwork perspective, reimbursement requires more effort, as after discharge you must collect all documents—such as hospital bills, pharmacy receipts, diagnostic reports, discharge summary, and payment proofs—and submit them to the insurer within a specified time, usually 15 to 30 days. The insurer then reviews the claim based on your mediclaim policy terms and reimburses only the eligible amount, deducting any non-covered expenses like non-medical charges or excluded treatments.
Although this process is more demanding, it offers greater flexibility, as you are not limited to network hospitals and can choose any facility you trust, which can be especially useful in rural or smaller towns with limited network options. In sudden medical emergencies, however, most families prefer cashless treatment because it removes the need to arrange large sums of money upfront, shifting the financial burden to the insurer and hospital. That said, cashless treatment does not always work seamlessly in real emergencies—if the hospital is not part of the insurer’s network or if pre-authorisation is delayed, families may still have to pay first and later file for reimbursement. In such situations, reimbursement becomes unavoidable rather than optional, which is why experienced policyholders often say that the ease of a claim depends less on the method and more on the hospital, the insurer, and how well-prepared the family is with documentation.
Which Is the One That Has Less Paperwork?
Cashless treatment usually involves fewer documents for the patient, as most of the communication between the hospital and the insurer is handled by the hospital itself, and you mainly need to provide your policy details and ID. In contrast, reimbursement places a greater documentation burden on the policyholder, where missing or unclear documents can lead to delays or partial claim rejection, making the process feel more complex for many people. That said, some patients still prefer reimbursement because it gives them a greater sense of control over their bills and treatment decisions, rather than relying on insurer approvals within the hospital.
Which Option Works Better With Different Types of Hospitals?
Cashless treatment works best in large private hospitals that have dedicated insurance desks and strong coordination with insurers, and in metro cities, the process is usually smoother because hospital staff are familiar with health insurance claim procedures. On the other hand, reimbursement works better when treatment takes place in smaller hospitals, specialised clinics, or government facilities that may not be part of insurer networks, where cashless options may not even be available. This is why having a medical insurance plan that supports both options is important, as it provides flexibility instead of limiting you to a single rigid process.
Which One Is Financially Safer?
From a family’s perspective, cashless treatment is financially safer because you do not need to pay the entire bill upfront, which is especially important for middle-income families who may not have access to large emergency funds. In contrast, reimbursement can pose a financial risk when hospital bills are very high, as arranging the money in advance can be stressful and sometimes even require loans or support from relatives, even if the insurer eventually reimburses the amount. However, reimbursement is not inherently worse; it simply demands greater financial readiness and patience.
So Which Is Actually Easier?
The simple truth is that cashless is usually easier to use, while reimbursement tends to be more flexible. If your priority is convenience and immediate financial relief, cashless is the smoother option. On the other hand, if your priority is freedom to choose hospitals and independence from network restrictions, reimbursement may feel more practical. Ultimately, the ease of either process depends on how well you understand your mediclaim policy, how organised your documents are, and how effectively the hospital and insurer coordinate during treatment.
Why Not Make Any Claim Process Smoother?
Regardless of whether you choose cashless or reimbursement, a few key practices can make all claims easier, such as renewing your policy on time, keeping your policy details easily accessible, choosing network hospitals whenever possible, maintaining all medical records properly, and understanding the exclusions and waiting periods in your plan.
Conclusion
There is no single “perfect” claim process under health insurance. While reimbursement offers flexibility, cashless offers financial comfort. Rather than considering one of them to be always better, the approach that will be the best one is to understand both and apply them accordingly to the situation at hand.
When you have a good health insurance plan, you can easily go either way without being overly stressed. Insurance companies may also take an active part in making the cashless and reimbursement journeys easier, with the example of such insurance companies as Niva Bupa Health Insurance that focus on more open claims processes, network hospital assistance, and provide families with systematic guidance. Both operations have a chance to work, turning insurance into a support system in sad times. The bureaucratic necessity becomes a support system when families get knowledgeable and prepared and when insurance companies provide useful services.
