Reach in one case, a file in the other: here is what changes in price, in rights, and in who carries the disclosure duty.
Whoever publishes carries the duty
That is the rule organising everything else.
If the video runs from the creator's account, they must flag it as commercial communication, in their language, visibly and from the start.
If it runs from the brand's account or as paid advertising, the brand carries the obligation.
One contractual consequence: write in black and white who publishes, where, and for how long. That line determines the duty, not the amount paid.
What each one sells
Two different goods, often sold by the same person.
The micro-influencer sells reach: their audience, their credibility with it, and the post that stays on their account.
The creator sells a production: a file, usage rights, and the possibility for the brand to run it where it wants, within the agreed limits.
The same profile can sell both, but never at the same price nor in the same contract.
What that changes for a brand
Three practical consequences.
The prices do not compare: paying for reach and paying for a file do not follow the same logic, and a brand comparing the two rates is asking the wrong question.
The useful life differs: the post produced its effect in two days, the file works for the whole duration of the rights.
And the measurement changes: one is judged on attention obtained, the other on cost per purchase in advertising.
What that changes for a creator
Three decisions to take once and for all.
Set two separate rate cards, one for production and rights, the other for publishing from your account.
Never give the second away as a free extra with the first: it is the most frequent request, and it makes you work twice for one payment.
And check what the brand will be able to do with the post: running it in paid advertising from its account, with your image, is another authorisation, which is asked for and invoiced.
Two trades, two deliverables
| Point | Micro-influence | Content creation |
|---|---|---|
| What is sold | An audience | A video |
| Where the video runs | On the creator's account | On the brand's channels |
| What is measured | Views, clicks, sales | The ad's view-through rate |
| The disclosure | On the post, mandatory | Carried by the advertiser |
What changes in the contract
A post stakes the creator's word before their audience, a delivery stakes a file. They are paid differently and licensed differently.
What lets you do both
A separate rate for each service, and the right to accept one without the other. Selling both as a block amounts to giving the post away.
Can you do both
Yes, and it is often the best formula, provided it is structured.
Three lines suffice in the quote: production of the file, the brand's usage rights with their duration, and the post from your account with how long it stays up.
Two precautions. Plan what happens if the brand wants to extend one without the other. And keep control of what is said in the post: it is your account, your audience, and you will answer for a missing label or an excessive claim.
One last remark, truer here than elsewhere: the precision of these distinctions is not paperwork. It is exactly what gets you called back by the teams buying every month, because they know that with you nobody will have to fix a problem after publication.
