A micro influencer and a UGC creator are often the same person, which is exactly why brands overpay. The confusion is not about who they are, it is about which of their two services you are buying.

The two services

As a micro influencer, they publish on their account and you rent their audience's attention. As a UGC creator, they hand you a file and you publish it yourself. Same camera, same face, completely different transaction and completely different price basis.

Where the money leaks

A brand that pays micro influencer rates and then also runs the video as an ad has paid for reach and taken content, often without the licence to do so. Conversely, a brand paying UGC rates and expecting the creator to post is asking for audience access it did not buy.

What to write in the agreement

Two lines: what gets delivered to you, and what gets published on their account. Then price each separately. If only one applies, say so explicitly so nobody assumes the other was included.

The Canadian complication

A micro influencer with a Quebec audience and a bilingual UGC creator are two different searches. A creator can film your French version without having any French audience at all, and that is fine, because you are buying the file. Confusing the two sends brands looking for a unicorn they do not need.

Which to buy first

Buy the content. It is what you can test, reuse, adapt and run as advertising. Audience access is worth adding once you know which message works, because otherwise you are renting attention for a message you have not validated.

Keep reading

Find creators for your campaign →

Frequently asked questions

Are they the same person?

Often yes, but two different services.

Where does money leak?

Paying for reach and taking content without a licence.

What goes in the agreement?

What is delivered and what is published, priced separately.

Which should I buy first?

The content, then the audience if needed.