Creator Selection & Vetting — straight answers.

Five-minute manual check beats most paid audit tools:

1. Engagement-to-follower ratio sanity check. TikTok healthy: 4-9%. Instagram: 1-4%. YouTube comments/views: 0.3-1.5%. Anything dramatically above or below the range is suspicious in either direction (too high = pod activity, too low = bought followers).

1. Comment quality scan. Read 30 recent comments. Real audiences write specific things ("the part at 4:20 killed me"). Bot/pod comments are generic ("great content!" + emoji).

1. Follower growth chart. Tools like Social Blade reveal step-function jumps. Organic growth is sloped; purchased growth is staircase.

1. Audience geo vs content language. A creator posting in English with 60% audience in India/Indonesia/Brazil is often follower-farmed.

1. View-to-subscriber ratio (YouTube specifically). Healthy: 10-40% of subs view each upload. Below 3% suggests inflated subscriber count or dead audience.

Paid tools (HypeAuditor, Modash, Phlanx) help at scale but cost $99-500/month. For deals above $5K, run both a manual check and a tool report. For deals above $20K, request the creator's own backend analytics screenshots.

Healthy ranges by platform, calculated against the right denominator:

YouTube (engagement / views, not subscribers):

• Likes: 3-7%
• Comments: 0.3-1.5%
• View-through to mid-roll: 55-75% on integrations

TikTok (engagement / views):

• Likes: 6-12%
• Comments: 0.3-1%
• Shares: 0.5-2.5%
• Completion rate: 40-65%

Instagram Reels (engagement / views):

• Likes: 2-5%
• Comments: 0.1-0.5%
• Saves: 0.5-2%
• Shares: 0.5-1.5%

Instagram in-feed posts (engagement / followers):

• Total engagement: 1-4%
• Anything above 8% is suspicious unless creator is sub-50K

Key rule: always calculate engagement against views, not followers, except for static Instagram feed posts. Agencies that quote "12% engagement!" on YouTube using subscriber denominator are either uninformed or deceiving you. Healthy benchmarks vary by niche — finance/B2B runs lower, beauty/lifestyle runs higher.

Depends on conversion mechanism more than vertical:

Macro (1M+) wins when:

• Product needs broad cultural validation (consumer tech, automotive, luxury beauty)
• Single-shot brand awareness goal
• Budget can support $30K+ per placement
• Creative production quality matters for the spot

Mid (200K-1M) wins when:

• Performance KPI is primary (install CPA, purchase CPA)
• Vertical has clear niche channels (gaming, finance, beauty subcategories)
• You want repeat placements within a quarter
• $5-25K per deal range

Micro (10-200K) wins when:

• Hyper-niche product (regional fintech, B2B SaaS, specialist gear)
• Volume strategy (20-50 creators per campaign)
• UGC-style content needed for paid amplification
• $300-3K per deal range

Across our placements, mid-tier delivered the best blended CPA in 7 of 10 verticals we track. Macro wins on raw scale but rarely on efficiency. Pure-micro strategies need 30+ creators to clear statistical noise — most brands aren't operationally set up to run that many deals at once.

Five-step process, applied to every creator before we recommend them:

1. Content history scan — manual review of last 50 uploads for political content, controversial takes, prior brand conflicts, or content that contradicts your category (alcohol creator for kids' brand, etc.).

1. Off-platform check — Twitter/X, Reddit, prior podcast appearances. About 30% of creators have a different voice off their main platform.

1. Comment moderation policy — do they moderate hate, spam, harassment? Unmoderated comment sections become brand-safety risks when your ad sits next to them.

1. Prior controversy search — Google "[creator name] controversy" and "[creator name] cancelled." Faster than any paid tool.

1. Disclosure history — do they consistently use #ad, #sponsored, or platform tags? Creators who hide sponsorships create FTC exposure for you.

We also run an internal red-flag list updated weekly across creators flagged by other clients or our team during sourcing. For regulated verticals (fintech, health, alcohol, gambling), we add legal review on past health/finance claims. Vetting takes 45-90 minutes per creator; skipping it is how brands end up in PR cycles.

Depends on goal. Our default templates from 1,400+ campaigns:

Performance-led ($50K budget):

• 0% macro / 70% mid / 30% micro
• Mid-tier carries CPA, micro provides UGC for paid amplification
• 8-14 creators total

Launch-led ($150K budget):

• 25% macro / 55% mid / 20% micro
• One macro for cultural moment, mid-tier for conversion, micro for sustained chatter
• 18-30 creators

Brand-led ($300K+ budget):

• 40% macro / 40% mid / 20% micro
• Macro for reach validation, mid for sustained presence, micro for community depth
• 30-60 creators across 8-12 weeks

What we avoid: pure-macro campaigns (low CPA efficiency, single point of failure if creator underdelivers), and pure-micro at scale (operational nightmare with 50+ contracts and inconsistent quality).

Adjust mix down by tier in CEE, LATAM, SEA where mid-tier carries even more weight than US norms suggest. In Japan, skew macro — the audience trusts established creators more than emerging ones.

The creator is constant, but everything else around the conversion changes:

1. Audience-to-offer fit — a gaming creator's audience converts on games at 3-8x the rate they convert on beauty
2. Purchase friction — installing a free game requires 30 seconds; buying a $40 beauty product requires payment friction, account creation, shipping
3. Average order value — drives allowable CPA. $0 install game tolerates $4 CPA; $35 beauty AOV tolerates $12 CPA
4. Creative authenticity — a gaming creator awkwardly pitching mascara reads as inauthentic and tanks CTR by 40-60%
5. Conversion window expectations — gaming installs land in 24-48h; beauty purchase often 7-14 days post-view

Same creator, same audience, same view volume — and CPA can vary 4-12x between two unrelated verticals. This is why creator-vetting based on "they have 500K subs in our target demo" misses the point. The right question is: has this creator (or creators with this audience profile) ever delivered conversions in your specific category? If not, you're paying to find out.

Maybe — but with a wider confidence interval and lower expected efficiency. From our data, first-time app-promoting creators in a vertical hit forecast CPA within ±50% about 55% of the time, vs 78% for proven app-promoters.

When it works:

• Creator's audience genuinely overlaps with the game's player profile (gaming creators promoting games for the first time, not lifestyle creators)
• Game category matches creator's content genre (RPG creator pitching new RPG, not casual puzzle)
• Creative brief allows authentic gameplay, not scripted ad reads
• You budget for the learning curve — pay 20-30% below standard rate or use it as a pilot

When it doesn't work:

• Mismatched content (history channel promoting hypercasual)
• Creator uncomfortable with app install CTAs (visible awkwardness kills CTR)
• First-time creators in regulated game categories (casino, real-money)

Practical approach: test 2-3 unproven-for-apps creators alongside 2-3 proven ones in the same campaign. You'll either find a new high-performer or confirm the safer bet. Don't bet a full campaign on unproven app advertisers.

Free methods in order of effectiveness:

1. YouTube channel search — channel video search bar for competitor brand name. Catches 70-80% of past sponsorships.

1. Sponsored content tracking — sift through last 50 uploads visually scanning titles and thumbnails for sponsor mentions.

1. TikTok branded content library — TikTok's transparency tools show paid partnerships when properly disclosed.

1. Instagram paid partnership tag — visible on posts where creator used the partnership tool.

1. Direct ask — request a 12-month sponsorship history from the creator or their agent. Reputable creators provide it.

Paid tools (Modash, Influencer Hero, Tagger) automate this for $200-800/month and catch undisclosed sponsorships better. For competitive verticals (mobile games, fintech, DTC beauty), a single creator running for both you and a direct competitor within 90 days will cannibalize results.

Standard exclusivity clauses: 30-90 days post-flight for direct competitors, with category definitions written tight (no "all of beauty" — specify "premium skincare $40+ AOV"). Broad exclusivity drives creator pricing up 30-60%; surgical exclusivity costs little.