I saw the question in a community of 33K creators. What followed was telling: 76 comments, answers ranging from €3K to €15K. Same metrics, same format, same type of content. Five times the difference between the lowest and highest number.
And here's what's concerning: none of them were "wrong." There simply is no right answer.
The only media market without benchmarks
Influencer marketing is probably the only media market with zero pricing transparency. Digital advertising has reference CPMs. TV has rate cards. Even freelance designers have published ranges by project type on open platforms.
But creator rates? A black box.
What a creator charges depends on who they last spoke to, what the previous brand paid, something they saw in a Twitter thread, or simply what "feels right." It's not a system. It's guesswork with varying degrees of luck.
How opacity hurts both sides
Say a brand wants to work with a 300K-views creator. The brand manager looks for benchmarks. Finds nothing reliable. Decides to offer €3K because it "feels" reasonable.
The creator, who last week spoke with another brand that offered €8K for something similar, sees the €3K and gets offended. Doesn't respond. Or worse: responds with an inflated rate out of frustration.
The brand notes: "difficult creator." The creator notes: "cheap brand." Nobody was wrong. They just didn't have the same information.
Now flip it. A brand with budget offers €12K to that same creator. The creator accepts immediately — not knowing the market rate for their profile is closer to €6K. The brand overpaid by 2x. The campaign might still perform, but the ROI math is broken from day one.
Both scenarios happen every week. Same root cause.
Who benefits from opacity
Here's the uncomfortable part: opacity benefits whoever holds the most information.
If you're a brand closing one or two creator deals a quarter, you have almost no pricing data. You're guessing. And guesses tend to be either insultingly low or unnecessarily high.
If you're closing deals every day — dozens per month, across categories, geographies, and audience sizes — you see the real market. You know when a rate is fair, when it's inflated, and when there's room to negotiate without offending.
Low deal volume (brands)
- 1–2 deals per quarter
- No benchmark pricing data
- Guessing based on "feel"
- Offers either insult or overpay
- No negotiation leverage
High deal volume (agencies)
- Dozens of deals per month
- Real market rate visibility
- Data-backed proposals
- Fair offers that close faster
- Creator trust and relationships
That's not a nice-to-have. That's the difference between paying market rate and paying a premium you didn't even know existed.
The information gap is real
We tracked this internally. On deals where we negotiated on behalf of brands, the average saving versus what the brand had been offered directly was 25–35%. Not because we pushed creators down. Because we knew where the real floor was — and the creators trusted us enough to meet there.
The 5x variance problem
Same creator profile. Same metrics. Same format. Answers ranging from €3K to €15K. When 76 people in the same industry can't agree on a price, the market isn't functioning — it's just negotiating blind.
The experience premium
How many deals have you closed this year? That number — or the lack of it — determines whether you're paying fair market or a premium you can't measure. Every deal you don't close is another data point you don't have.
The takeaway
The influencer market won't get transparent anytime soon. There's no central database coming. No industry standard rate card on the horizon.
So the question becomes: how many deals have you closed this year? Because that experience — or the lack of it — determines whether you're paying fair market or a premium you can't measure.
What's the most wildly off-target offer you've ever received from — or sent to — a creator?