This is Bakamo’s public research. Each study reads the unprompted conversation around a contested question — an election, migration, a public debate — and reports what people say to each other, not what they say when asked. Every study links to its full report.
The Studies
Before the 12 April 2026 parliamentary election, Tisza supporters produced a substantially higher share of inner-directed social media expressions than Fidesz supporters: a gap of 12.4 percentage points.
Identified the migration narrative frames that cross every border (security, identity, economy and demographics, humanitarianism, and the political-establishment frame) and mapped how their weight shifts country by country.
Analyzed more than 8 million shared links and 1,000+ media sources around the French presidential election, and found that 43 percent of shared links pointed to non-traditional sources.
At the height of the 2015 refugee crisis, mapped how Hungarians discussed the situation on social media and how government communication was reshaping that conversation.
The Atlas
A selection of our work, wherever the conversation lives. Each entry states the Social Truth we found: the shared meaning, tension or assumption beneath an unprompted conversation.
What people call premium pet food is not a category in their minds. It is a stage on which owners perform their love — as trainers, as nurturers, as healers. The product is the script.
A polarised electorate is not divided by what people want. It is divided by two opposing psychological architectures — the Employee, who locates safety inside the system, and the Entrepreneur, who locates it in personal agency. Identity comes first. Politics follows.
The middle of a contested public conversation is not undecided. It accepts the problem exists and rejects the language used to name it. The door is opened by class, not race.
A new beverage category cannot be sold on what it removes. People do not seek the absence of alcohol — they seek a different way to be present in the moments alcohol used to mark. Until the category offers that, it is a substitute. After, it is a choice.
Skin is a social currency before it is a body. In markets where lightness still carries advantage, "celebrate who you are" rings hollow against a culture organised around changing who you are.
Public sphere, Europe
On May 1, Amsterdam introduced an ad ban on meat and fossil-fuel products. We explored the reactions of social media users across various channels. The language was English.
What we found is that the discourse predominantly focuses on the meat part of the ban, and to a significantly lesser extent on the fossil-fuel part. The fossil-fuel half is largely waved through as common sense. The meat half is where the conversation concentrates.
By and large, opinions fall into two opposing sides — and which side people land on tends to track whether they're an omnivore or follow a meat-free lifestyle. In this discourse, diet predicts stance more reliably than politics.
Supporters celebrate the policy. They expect that reducing the visibility of meat will normalise vegetarian and vegan options over time, underpinned by a belief that less advertising means meat stops being the default. Other supportive arguments include retribution for the environmental damage attributed to the meat industry, and a smaller group who back the ban because they think fewer ads would have a calming, aesthetic effect on the quality of city life. The stance is anchored in a self-identity as environmentally conscious and forward-looking.
Opponents read the ban as an attack on a normal, everyday way of life — elitist, performative, and a step toward broader censorship. A recurring move is whataboutism: gambling ads are permitted, but meat is where the line is drawn? The register here is largely ridicule and sarcasm rather than evidence, while the supportive side tends toward research, precedent, and moral framing. As a result, the two camps rarely engage directly.
Beneath the meat divide sit two deeper questions that also separate the camps: whether advertising actually changes behaviour, and whether a collective authority should decide what may be promoted. The fossil-fuel half of the ban functions as a useful point of comparison — the same policy, the same city, and the same censorship objection available, yet only meat generates sustained debate. In this discourse, the stronger driver of reaction is dietary identity rather than free-speech principle.
Work with Bakamo
Tell us yours. We read the conversation around it first, then build the instruments that measure what we find.