How the social operation measures up.
This assessment scores Perfetti Van Melle's two brands in the set, Chupa Chups and Mentos, against the regional competitive field on nine dimensions of social-media management. It draws on the established frameworks the discipline already uses, and rests on public data alone, so each verdict can be weighed against its evidence.
A field that is not yet mature, and an opening Perfetti can take.
Across nine dimensions of social-media management, the regional field scores a median of 2.1 out of 4, short of established practice. Mentos sits just above the field at 2.6, carried by an early move to creator content, while Chupa Chups sits at the bottom at 1.4, present mainly through paid reach. The single highest-return lever, creator collaboration, is barely used by either brand, which is exactly where the opportunity concentrates.
A single composite score from 0 to 100, built from all nine maturity dimensions, ranking every brand in the set. Perfetti Van Melle brands are shown in blue.
- 1. Strategy & positioning Channel breadth · Publishing consistency · Voice & identity
- 2. Channel portfolio & platform fit Platform coverage · Native-format use
- 3. Content & creative Format diversity · Output volume
- 4. Audience & engagement quality Engagement rate vs set · Share of engagement · Sentiment quality
- 5. Creator & partnership strategy Collaboration cadence · Engagement lift
- 6. Paid / owned / earned balance Shared-media share · Earned amplification
- 7. Cadence & operating model Posting frequency · Consistency · Community response
- 8. Localization & cultural relevance Arabic-language content · Cultural-moment activation
- 9. Measurement & governance maturity Brand safety · Measurement orientation
Each brand is scored from 1, Nascent, to 4, Leading, on each of the nine dimensions above, using the data-anchored rubric set out later on this page. The index is the simple average of those nine scores, rescaled from the 1 to 4 range to 0 to 100.
Every dimension carries equal weight, one ninth or about 11% of the score. No weighting and no correlation adjustment is applied: the dimensions are treated as equally important and scored independently, which keeps the index transparent and reproducible. A weighted version, for example giving more weight to engagement quality and creator strategy as the commercial levers, can be produced on request, and would change the ranking.
Index = mean of the nine dimension scores (each 1 to 4), rescaled to 0 to 100 as (mean − 1) ÷ 3 × 100. Skittles is a global, English-only account, shown for completeness.
How this is assessed
Nine dimensions, each scored on a four-level maturity scale and benchmarked against the regional field. The scale and the frameworks behind it are set out below; every score is anchored to a stated, data-derived threshold rather than opinion.
Absent, accidental or ad hoc, with no discernible logic.
Present but inconsistent, siloed or experimental, and largely reactive.
Consistent, deliberate and benchmarked against peers, and proactive.
Best-in-class for the category, differentiated and strategically integrated.
The maturity scorecard
Each brand against the regional competitor median, dimension by dimension. The deeper the blue, the stronger the maturity.
| Dimension | Chupa Chups | Mentos | Category median |
|---|---|---|---|
| Strategy & positioningSOSTAC · RACE | Nascent | Emerging | Emerging |
| Channel portfolio & platform fitAudit method · Hero-Hub-Help | Emerging | Leading | Established |
| Content & creativeContent pillars · 3H · mix ratios | Nascent | Emerging | Emerging |
| Audience & engagement qualityBenchmarking · Share of Engagement · AMEC | Emerging | Emerging | Emerging |
| Creator & partnership strategyPESO · influencer frameworks | Nascent | Emerging | Emerging |
| Paid / owned / earned balancePESO | Emerging | Leading | Emerging |
| Cadence & operating modelAudit method · community SLAs | Nascent | Emerging | Emerging |
| Localization & cultural relevanceGCC localization practice | Nascent | Emerging | Emerging |
| Measurement & governance maturityAMEC · brand safety | Emerging | Established | Established |
The category median is the midpoint of the seven regional competitors scored alongside the two PVM brands: Haribo, Bazooka, Juicy Drop, Borgat, Zello, Extra and Nova. Global Skittles is held out of the benchmark, as it runs an English-only account with no Arabic-speaking audience.
Dimension by dimension
Strategy & positioning
Whether activity reflects a coherent strategy and a distinct position against the category.
Sub-criteria: Channel breadth · Publishing consistency · Voice & identity
The brands that perform have a plan and hold to it. Marketing teams that work to a documented strategy are far more likely to report success, yet nearly 40% have none written down.1 Presenting the brand consistently pays: companies estimate it lifts revenue by 10 to 33 percent.2 And consistency beats volume: a 2026 benchmark of more than 2,000 brands found no link between how often a brand posts and how well it engages.3 What matters is one recognisable position, said the same way all year, with every post doing a job: reaching new people, starting a conversation, or turning a follower into a buyer.
Chupa Chups holds strong global equity but does not express it in the Gulf. The organic accounts published in only two of the past thirteen months, and the brand now appears almost entirely through promoted TikTok. That is reach with nothing behind it: people may see a promoted clip, but there is no running story to follow and nothing that turns a viewer into a fan.
Mentos carries a clearer regional intent, present on all three platforms and pivoting toward creators in late 2025. The weakness is consistency: four active months in thirteen means the position surfaces in bursts rather than as a sustained presence, so the strategy reads as a sequence of campaigns instead of one coherent line.
Bazooka and Juicy Drop set the regional standard, publishing against a consistent position close to weekly, and Borgat holds a sharp local identity. At the other end Zello and Extra are effectively absent, which is where Chupa Chups now sits.
Recommendation. Convert the strategy from campaign bursts into an always-on calendar, with a defined weekly cadence per platform and one message running through every post.
Channel portfolio & platform fit
Coverage across Instagram, TikTok and YouTube, and how native the content is to each platform.
Sub-criteria: Platform coverage · Native-format use
Audiences want video, and they want it built for each platform. Almost two-thirds of consumers, 63%, say a short video is how they would most like to learn about a product.1 The engagement gap proves it: Instagram Reels run at 0.52% against 0.37% for static images, with static engagement down about 17% in a year.2 Reach also differs sharply by market, so one Gulf-wide feed is a mistake. In Saudi Arabia TikTok reaches around 38.6 million people while Instagram reaches only about half the population; in the UAE TikTok reaches about 12.5 million and Instagram around 70%, with Snapchat far weaker.3 A strong brand shows up where its audience is and makes vertical video for the feed, not a recycled photo.
Chupa Chups has collapsed to a single active channel, promoted TikTok. Its content is fully video, which is the right format, but a single-platform presence, with nothing between the paid pushes, leaves the brand dependent on paid distribution for any reach at all.
Mentos is present on Instagram, TikTok and YouTube, all video-led, the strongest channel shape of the two brands and the reason it scores well on coverage. The qualification is depth: the channels are fed too rarely to build the steady, everyday presence that holds an audience between bigger moments.
Bazooka, Juicy Drop and Nova run genuine multi-platform, video-first presences. Haribo is the cautionary case, an Instagram-only operation still leaning on static images, the weakest-performing format in the category. Global Skittles is excluded from the field here, as it carries no Arabic-speaking audience.
Recommendation. Hold the three-platform footprint, then add a steady stream of lightweight everyday video so reach no longer depends on paid plays.
Content & creative
Thematic structure, format diversity, and the balance of value against promotion.
Sub-criteria: Format diversity · Output volume
People reward content that gives them something and abandon a feed that only sells. Around two-thirds, 66%, say the brand content they find most engaging is content that entertains or teaches,1 while 35% will unfollow a brand for too many promotional posts and 51% for content that feels irrelevant.2 The familiar guides, such as keeping hard selling to about one post in five, are rules of thumb rather than findings, but the unfollow data is real. A strong brand runs three to five recurring themes the audience comes to expect and keeps selling to a small share of the mix, giving the rest over to entertainment, useful answers and things worth sharing.
Chupa Chups output is thin and single-format, in the bottom quartile of the set for volume. With almost no organic publishing there are no discernible pillars and little of the value-led content the 80/20 guide calls for. The feed is promotion or nothing.
Mentos shows more variety, three formats across its platforms, but volume sits below the regional median. There is the start of a pillar structure in its creator work, without the cadence needed to make recognisable, repeatable themes.
Juicy Drop is the category's content benchmark, sour-challenge and reaction formats that travel on their own merit, and Bazooka holds clear recurring formats. The shared weakness, including both PVM brands, is the near-absence of practical posts, the where-to-buy and how-to-use answers that real audience questions call for.
Recommendation. Define three to five Gulf-specific themes, hold promotion to about a fifth of posts, and add a practical theme that answers the where-to-buy questions already filling the comments.
Audience & engagement quality
Not engagement volume alone, but its quality and the brand's relative pull in the category.
Sub-criteria: Engagement rate vs set · Share of engagement · Sentiment quality
Here there are hard numbers to measure against. The 2026 benchmark across more than 2,000 brands puts the median TikTok engagement rate at 2.01% of followers, about 3.4% measured against views, and the median Instagram rate at just 0.30%, with a genuinely strong Instagram rate near or above 1%.1 Food and beverage, the closest category to confectionery, runs ahead of the all-industry median.1 Engagement is also still falling, with Instagram down around 16% in a year, so the test is the current median, not last year's.1 What counts is whether the people who see a post react to it: a big view count with almost no engagement signals weak content, however large it looks.
Chupa Chups carries a large share of category engagement, but it is bought. Promoted reach inflates the totals while engagement by views sits below the regional median and positive sentiment is the lowest of the two brands, near a third of comments. In plain terms, the audience is reached but not moved.
Mentos engages above the regional median by views, a genuinely better quality signal, but on a small base. Its creator posts hold most of that engagement, which points to the lever rather than the current volume.
Bazooka, Juicy Drop and Nova are the quality leaders, earning roughly one to nearly three percent engagement by views organically at real posting volume. The paid-led accounts, Chupa Chups, Mentos and Extra, convert spend into plays at a fraction of a percent. That gap between earned and bought engagement is the central finding of the year.
Recommendation. Re-brief performance around engagement by views and share of engagement, and shift weight to the creator and organic content that earns it.
Creator & partnership strategy
Use of earned and shared media through creators, and how fully that opportunity is worked.
Sub-criteria: Collaboration cadence · Engagement lift
Working with creators has the clearest return in the playbook. The widely-cited influencer benchmark puts average return at $5.78 earned for every $1 spent,1 and 86% of consumers make at least one influencer-inspired purchase a year, with many buying monthly or more often.2 Momentum is still building: in the 2026 benchmark most brands plan to raise their influencer budgets.1 The brands that win run creators as a steady, year-round programme rather than a one-off, choose creators who genuinely fit, and label paid posts clearly. In this category a single strong creator post can earn hundreds or thousands of times what a brand's own post does.
Chupa Chups ran no creator collaborations in the window. It is absent from the single highest-return activity in the category, while competitors and its own sister brand demonstrate the lift.
Mentos has proven the model on its own account, lifting engagement from roughly sixty to two thousand per post through collaboration, then ran it only three times. The proof exists; the gap is cadence. Three posts a year is a pilot, not a programme.
Juicy Drop sets the bar, where one creator post returned 119,559 against an owned median of 17. Bazooka and Borgat run creators regularly. Several brands use the lever two to four times a year, and three do not use it at all, which is the open space PVM can claim quickly.
Recommendation. Stand up an always-on monthly creator programme briefed on engagement, with a mix of larger and smaller creators and paid posts clearly labelled.
Paid / owned / earned balance
The media-type mix, and reliance on owned broadcast over earned and shared reach.
Sub-criteria: Shared-media share · Earned amplification
The most persuasive media is the kind a brand does not pay for directly. 83% of people trust recommendations from people they know above any form of advertising, and about two-thirds, 66%, trust online consumer reviews.1 Content made by real users carries weight at the till: 79% say it strongly shapes what they buy, against 12% for brand-made content.2 So the healthiest brands earn and spread reach rather than only buying ads or broadcasting their own posts. Reach you pay for stops the day the budget stops; reach from creators and from people resharing keeps working. Saves and shares are the clearest sign content is being passed on rather than shown once.
Chupa Chups is the unbalanced case, almost entirely paid and owned with no creator or shared layer. Its reshare volume comes from promoted videos rather than an organic flywheel, so reach ends with the media spend and leaves no owned audience behind.
Mentos has begun to rebalance: fifteen percent of its posts are creator or shared media, which is why it scores well here. The risk is durability, the shared layer rests on very few posts and would not survive a pause.
Across the set, saves and shares sit near zero and TikTok amplification is close to nil, so almost no brand holds a true earned flywheel. The closest to balance are the consistent organic operators, Bazooka, Juicy Drop and Nova. Both PVM brands and Extra sit at the paid-heavy extreme.
Recommendation. Move budget from promoting low-engagement posts toward creator and community content, and track saves and shares as the test of whether reach is compounding.
Cadence & operating model
Posting rhythm, consistency, and responsiveness as proxies for operating discipline.
Sub-criteria: Posting frequency · Consistency · Community response
Showing up reliably and answering people has a measurable payoff. 73% of consumers expect a brand to reply on social within a day, and the same share will buy from a competitor when a brand fails to respond.1 Posting more is not the fix: a 2026 benchmark of more than 2,000 brands found no link between how often a brand posts and how well it engages.2 A strong brand posts on a rhythm the audience can rely on and replies, ideally within about an hour.
Chupa Chups posts at 0.17 a week, the bottom quartile, across only two active months, and made no replies in the comment sample. Its leading comment theme is where to buy, demand meeting an inactive, silent account.
Mentos posts at 0.39 a week across four active months, below the regional median, with a single reply observed. The rhythm is irregular and the community layer is barely staffed.
Bazooka and Juicy Drop set the operating standard at roughly 2.5 posts a week sustained across the year. Community response is thin across the whole set, almost no brand replies at the speed best practice expects, which leaves an easy advantage open.
Recommendation. Set a minimum weekly cadence per platform and a community-response standard, starting with the unanswered purchase-intent comments.
Localization & cultural relevance
Fit to the Gulf: language, dialect, and activation around local cultural moments.
Sub-criteria: Arabic-language content · Cultural-moment activation
Language and local timing decide whether content lands. 76% of shoppers prefer to buy when the information is in their own language and 40% will not buy at all in another,1 yet Arabic still makes up just 0.6% of website content despite more than 300 million speakers, an open space for brands that speak it well.2 The Gulf is also among the most active social audiences in the world, and during Ramadan media use rises sharply, with engagement shifting to the late evening after iftar.3 A strong Gulf brand speaks Gulf Arabic, not only formal Arabic or English, plans around Ramadan, Eid and the National Days, and treats each market on its own rather than as one place.
Chupa Chups runs Arabic on fewer than half its posts and activated only one of the five key cultural moments in the window. For a brand with deep regional equity, the cultural calendar is largely unused.
Mentos activated three of five moments and runs roughly a third of its posts in Arabic, a better base than Chupa Chups but still English-heavy for a regional account, and light on the National Day and Ramadan moments that drive Gulf reach.
Borgat holds the most native Gulf audience in the set and is the localisation reference. The category-wide blind spot is Kuwait: Kuwaiti dialect appears roughly seven times across the 18,397 comments analysed, almost entirely on one brand, so the market is effectively uncontested.
Recommendation. Plan against the full Gulf calendar, shift the language balance toward Khaleeji Arabic, and treat Kuwait as a deliberate, ownable target.
Measurement & governance maturity
Brand-safety posture and the outcome-orientation of the visible metric mix.
Sub-criteria: Brand safety · Measurement orientation
Two things mark a mature operation. First, it keeps content safe and on-message, with little negativity and a plan for when something goes wrong. Second, it judges itself on results, not reach. Nearly nine in ten marketers believe social drives revenue, yet only 35% can clearly attribute it, and 68% still judge social mainly on engagement metrics rather than revenue.1 Counting impressions is easy; the better question is what the audience actually did. A strong brand ties its reporting to engagement quality and outcomes, and holds the brand-safe standards that protect it.
Brand safety is sound, negativity runs near one percent and there is no crisis signal in the comments. Measurement orientation cannot be read from public data, but the reliance on promoted reach suggests reporting still rewards impressions over outcomes.
Mentos is the cleaner of the two on safety, with negligible negativity, and its consistent, on-brand creator work reads as disciplined. As with Chupa Chups, outcome measurement sits behind the dashboard and cannot be verified from public data.
Negativity is low across the whole category, one to two percent, so brand safety is a shared strength rather than a differentiator. The open question for every brand, not only PVM, is whether internal reporting has moved from reach to outcomes, which public data cannot answer.
Recommendation. Re-anchor internal reporting on engagement quality and share of engagement, and keep the brand-safe community standards that are already working.
Figures are drawn from published industry benchmarks and consumer studies. Engagement-rate benchmarks vary by report and method; they are used here to set the order of magnitude, not an exact target.
Scope and limits
This assessment scores everything public data can support, up to engagement, and names what it cannot reach rather than estimating it. The methodology sets out every limit in full.
Engagement rate is reported by followers or by views only. Reach-based rates and the AMEC output layer cannot be measured.
The paid leg of the media mix, social ROI and the AMEC outcome layer sit outside public data and are flagged, never scored.
Competitive standing is read through share of engagement, not follower momentum, which is not publicly visible.
Snapchat sits outside this round, as the data connector was not in place. It can be added in a later pass.
