Instagram MapsThe demonstration setup
Casa Lume posted four times in the current 30-day window. The previous 30-day window is used for comparison. Demonstration only: figures are invented. Assume all views and reach below cover only the listed posts within the current window, not lifetime views, Stories or older content; the account-level unique total covers that exact same scope. Real exports must be checked for these differences before making this calculation.
| Post | Format | Reach | Views | Views per reached account |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | Reel | 4,200 | 6,900 | 1.64 |
| B | Carousel | 2,100 | 2,600 | 1.24 |
| C | Photo | 1,300 | 1,450 | 1.12 |
| D | Reel | 3,600 | 5,800 | 1.61 |
Views per reached account = views / reach. For A: 6,900 / 4,200 = 1.64.
Step one: do not add the reach
Adding post reach gives 4,200 + 2,100 + 1,300 + 3,600 = 11,200. That is not the number of different accounts reached, because the same account can appear under several posts. In this demonstration the account-level reach for the whole window and matching scope is 8,900 unique accounts. The 2,300 difference represents duplicate account counts beyond each account’s first occurrence, not 2,300 identifiable people or the size of any specific pairwise overlap. Without the whole-window total, that difference would be unknown.
Views can be summed: 6,900 + 2,600 + 1,450 + 5,800 = 16,750 total views. Across 8,900 reached accounts that is 16,750 / 8,900 = 1.88 views per reached account.
Step two: compare with the previous window
| Measure | Previous 30 days | Current 30 days | Change | Formula |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Posts published | 5 | 4 | -1 | current - previous |
| Account reach (unique) | 8,100 | 8,900 | +9.9% | (8,900 - 8,100) / 8,100 × 100 |
| Total views | 14,300 | 16,750 | +17.1% | (16,750 - 14,300) / 14,300 × 100 |
| Followers at start | 12,310 | 12,400 | snapshot | |
| Followers at end | 12,400 | 12,530 | snapshot | |
| Net follower change | +90 | +130 | +40 | end - start |
| Net change as share of start | 0.73% | 1.05% | 90 / 12,310 × 100 and 130 / 12,400 × 100 |
Both windows are 30 days. Percentages are rounded to one or two decimals.
Fewer posts produced more reach and views here. That is a description of two windows. With four posts, one Reel can move the totals, so the example cannot say why the numbers changed.
Step three: follower and reached geography side by side
| Place | Followers share | Reached share | Difference (points) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Portugal | 38.0% | 31.0% | -7.0 |
| Brazil | 21.0% | 27.0% | +6.0 |
| United States | 9.0% | 12.0% | +3.0 |
| Spain | 6.0% | 5.0% | -1.0 |
| Other or not listed | 26.0% | 25.0% | -1.0 |
Demonstration assumption: both columns use their full eligible audience as denominator, not just the returned top rows. Follower geography is an end-of-window snapshot; reached geography covers the full current window. Other = 100% minus listed rows. It is a remainder, not a place.
Brazil is a larger share of the reached audience than of the follower base. That is an observation about these two audiences. It does not show that Brazilian viewers prefer the content, only that they appear more among those reached.
Measured next steps
None of these are predictions. Each is a small test with a note of what would count as an answer.
- Publish four posts again in the next 30 days, with two Reels and two other formats, and compare reach and views against this window.
- Try one Reel at a time better suited to Brazil time zones and one at the usual time, then compare their views per reached account.
- Record follower and reached geography on the same dates again so the comparison stays like for like.
- Keep a log of any promotion, collaboration or pause in the window, so unusual results have a possible context.