OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to evaluate “real-world benefit” discussions from publically available de-identified sources (social media and internet forums) that can be obtained through social listening. METHODS: A third party vendor collected posts from Facebook and Twitter over the previous year for a variety of 15 prescription and over-the-counter (OTC) products.  Data vocabularies were standardized using a vernacular to MedDRA dictionary for medical conditions and a custom curated vernacular dictionary for drugs and OTC products.  Next, noise was systematically removed via natural language processing and each post was characterized as a Mention (drug mentioned but no adverse events) or a Proto AEs (potential adverse event mentioned within the context of drug use).  Finally, the data was de-identified prior to making it available to the research team who then manually reviewed each post and collected “real-world benefit” attributes. RESULTS: Overall 2159/7529 (29%) of Mentions and Proto AEs contained “real-world benefit” information; of the 2159 posts, 1207 (56%) were positive benefits discussions and 952 (44 %) discussed lack of effect.  Of the positive benefits discussions (N=1207), 94 (8%) contained benefit time-to-onset, 28 (2%) contained duration of benefit, 125 (10%) indicated partial benefit, 514 (43%) indicated full benefit, 37 (3%) contained benefits discussion within the context of cost, 196 (16%) contained benefits discussion within the context of adverse events, and 138 (11%) contained benefits information as compared to other treatment options. CONCLUSIONS: Social listening has the potential to provide a large amount of information about “real-world benefit” as discussed from the consumers’/patients’ perspective.   This is the first step in understanding how Social Listening can contribute to better characterization of benefit/risk profiles using the consumers’ own voice.