Social Voice-of-Customer — Bloomers Tiktok

489 relevant TikTok records · 68 brand-mentioning · generated 2026-06-19

⚠ Separate bucket. This is ambient social/forum voice (TikTok), a fundamentally different speech genre from solicited reviews — it is never ranked against the review report. Share-of-Voice measures presence, not sentiment. Brand attribution is in-text with abstain; single-mention attributions are within attribution noise.

Share of Voice — who owns the recent organic conversation

42.6%
Bloomers is a minor voice in the recent organic TikTok conversation (29 of 68 brand mentions in the trailing 18 months). Competitors own the word-of-mouth in the communities where this category is decided.

Share of the brand mentions across 68 recent brand-mentioning records (denominator = 68 total recent brand mentions; a comparison post counts once per brand). Trailing 18 months. Presence, not sentiment.

Bloomers ← CLIENT
42.6%
n=29 recent · 29 all-time · CI 32%–54% · tiktok
Knix
33.8%
n=23 recent · 23 all-time · CI 24%–46% · tiktok ≈ tied (overlapping confidence)
Thinx
22.1%
n=15 recent · 17 all-time · CI 14%–33% · tiktok ≈ tied (overlapping confidence)
Jockey
1.5%
n=1 recent · 1 all-time · CI 0%–8% · tiktok
Soma
0.0%
n=0 recent · 0 all-time · CI 0%–5% · tiktok ≈ tied (overlapping confidence)
Bali
0.0%
n=0 recent · 0 all-time · CI 0%–5% · tiktok ≈ tied (overlapping confidence)
⚠ Capture-recall caveat. Share-of-Voice measures who we captured more of — not necessarily who is discussed more. If our capture recall differs by brand, this over- or under-states a brand's true conversation share; the confidence band reflects sampling noise only, not capture bias.

Category discourse — the bigger story

86% of relevant posts (421 of 489) name no brand at all — pure category conversation (menopause/perimenopause fit, leak protection, dupe hunts). This is the unmet-needs space buyers discuss before choosing a brand.

Category-pain map — what the community actually discusses

Aspect prevalence across relevant posts in the reporting window (the 15-aspect social taxonomy, discovered from this corpus). category = problem-space / shopping behaviour; product = product experience. Click to read posts (evidence highlighted).

31% of aspect mentions are social-only themes a review funnel structurally can't capture (where-to-buy, dupe-hunting, social proof, price-seeking, sustainability). This is the differentiated intelligence in the ambient bucket.
Style Aesthetic Coverage category13% of posts · 5% negative · n=63
Comfort Irritation product10% of posts · 20% negative · n=49
Leak Absorbency product9% of posts · 9% negative · n=45
Menopause Perimenopause Incontinence Fit category8% of posts · 30% negative · n=40
Recommendation Request Social Proof categoryreviews miss this8% of posts · 0% negative · n=38
Where To Buy categoryreviews miss this6% of posts · 0% negative · n=29
Price Value Seeking categoryreviews miss this4% of posts · 17% negative · n=18
Materials Fabric Preference category4% of posts · 6% negative · n=18
Sizing Fit Advice category2% of posts · 12% negative · n=8
Health Safety Concern productreviews miss this2% of posts · 100% negative · n=8
Sustainability Ethics categoryreviews miss this1% of posts · 0% negative · n=7
Durability Quality Decline product0% of posts · 100% negative · n=2
Fitting Service Retail Experience category0% of posts · 0% negative · n=1

Topic-mix over time — how the conversation evolved

Directional only: the seed-stability check found the topic-mix shifts under seed hold-out (max drift 16.4%, above threshold) — read as a direction, not a governed measure. Share of captured discourse (conditional on collection method), per quarter. Within-period rates (never raw counts); only quarters above the evidence floor are shown. Never co-plotted against the review topic-mix — a different genre.
Aspect2025-Q32026-Q12026-Q2
Style Aesthetic Coverage2%26%14%
Comfort Irritation4%18%11%
Menopause Perimenopause Incontinence Fit2%12%10%
Recommendation Request Social Proof1%8%10%
Leak Absorbency1%20%10%
Materials Fabric Preference1%3%5%
Where To Buy—19%4%
Price Value Seeking1%9%3%
Sustainability Ethics—2%2%
Sizing Fit Advice1%3%2%

By brand — read the mentions

Most-upvoted (salience-ranked) attributed mentions per brand; the evidence span that drove attribution is highlighted. Click to expand.

Bloomers n=29
Knix n=23
Thinx n=15
Jockey n=1
Soma n=0 — no recent mentions
Bali n=0 — no recent mentions
How to read this. Every number is computed in SQL over the governed metric_social_sov / social_brand tables (the model never generates figures); each brand expands to the verbatim posts (evidence span highlighted) behind it, linked to the source thread.
Window & lanes. Headline comparison = trailing 18 months; full history is retained (excluded from the comparison only, never deleted).
Limitations. TikTok capture was brand-seeded (the captured SET is a seed artifact); comment context is not yet used (standalone classification); SOV is presence-only. Single-mention attributions are within attribution noise.