Because "more followers" is a vague, misleading and often counterproductive goal. First, it is too fuzzy to steer anything: how many? in how long? for what purpose? Without specifics, you can neither measure progress nor know whether you succeed. Second, follower count is a "vanity metric": it flatters the ego but says little about real value. You can have many inactive, off-target, even fake followers that bring nothing: no engagement, no customers, no value. Conversely, a smaller but qualified, engaged community (followers matching your audience, who interact, click, buy) is worth infinitely more. Aiming for "more followers" sometimes pushes harmful strategies (clickbait, giveaways attracting irrelevant profiles, buying followers) that inflate figures without creating value. The real question is not "how many followers?" but "what results?": awareness with the right audience, engagement, traffic, leads, sales. Follower count can be one indicator among others, never the single goal.

Yes, often — because each network has its strengths and doesn't serve the same goals equally well. It is coherent to have an overall strategy broken down into goals adapted per network according to what each does best. For example: LinkedIn can carry B2B lead generation, Instagram awareness and brand image, TikTok visibility with a young audience, YouTube traffic. Each platform excels at certain goals and suits others less — assigning each the goal matching its strength optimises your efforts. Keep overall coherence: per-network goals must serve your global strategy and unified image, not pull in all directions. And remember you chose few networks (1 to 3): this is not about multiplying goals but assigning each its best role. In practice: define your global goals, then for each chosen network specify its main mission and the indicators to track.