"Fewer than 1 in 100 accounts use it"

Verdict: the vendor's own estimate, presented as a fact. It may well be roughly right. It is not a measurement and there is no source to check it against.

Where the number appears

In the free report, as the framing for the first of three "secrets" — the claim that the comment-and-message loop is an untapped mechanic. It then reappears in the emails as a saturation answer: you do not need to worry about everyone else doing this, because almost nobody is.

Can it be checked

No. Nobody outside the platforms can count what share of accounts use a given mechanic, and the platforms do not publish it. Any figure of this shape from any seller is an estimate.

Is it plausible

Directionally, yes. Most accounts post and hope; a minority use automation of any kind. Whether the true figure is 1 in 100 or 1 in 20 is unknowable from outside, and the difference between those two matters quite a lot to the saturation argument.

What it is doing in the sequence

Answering an objection before it is raised. "Won't everyone be doing this?" is the standard second thought after "this sounds clever", and a scarcity-of-practitioners number closes it off.

That is a legitimate move and it is also the reason to hold the figure loosely. A number that exists to neutralise a doubt is a number that should be checked, and this one cannot be.

What would actually matter instead

Not how many accounts use the mechanic, but how many use it in your niche, for the kind of offer you would promote. That is checkable in an afternoon: look at comparable accounts and see whether commenting a word triggers a message. Five minutes of that beats any published statistic.

The verdict

Treat as the seller's estimate, not as data. The underlying claim — that this is less used than link-in-bio — is uncontroversial. The specific ratio is not established, and nothing about the decision should rest on it.

The mechanic itself is set out here · the other six claims