Fuller recalls a retailer campaign she was on set for. “The entire time I had ideas running through my head. Not because they weren’t doing a great job, but because I kept thinking, ‘Oh, this would be so relatable’, or ‘I know exactly how this would land with my audience.’ It made me wonder whether brands ever bring creators in before the campaign is already built.”
Some creators are more inclined than others, Wilson says. “Some are building their own product lines and businesses, and they genuinely want that strategic involvement. Others excel at just wanting to make great content in their voice. It’s important to have the ability to tell the difference and leverage creators within their strengths.”
Proximity to an audience is not the same as knowing how to build a durable business or brand, Walia flags. “There is a real craft to connecting artistry and cultural relevance to commercial and creative outcomes over time,” she says. Harms agrees, flagging that good instinct isn’t a strategy. “Knowing what your 40,000 people want isn’t the same as knowing what a category needs, and brands confuse those constantly — then they blame the creator,” he says.
Walia worries that, as budgets get smaller and CMOs face more pressure to deliver immediate results, creator involvement risks becoming another bid for a quick hit rather than part of a considered long-term strategy. “Creators can offer invaluable cultural and audience intelligence, but they should not be expected to replace every other form of strategic, marketing or operational expertise.”
Creators have more leverage these days than they once did, which means they are in a better position to decide how much involvement they have on the strategy side, even as this becomes something brands are more keen to integrate, experts agree. Smart creators who aren’t inclined to get into the business of consumer brands are building out their own subscription revenue so they don’t have to say yes to such opportunities, Harms says. It’s a safe bet: 52% of Gen Zs like financially supporting creators directly, per Archrival, which gives influencers leverage, he argues.
Plus, at this stage, it’s not a guaranteed income bump, experts warn. At the beginning of the year, influencer agents flagged that many influencers would be willing to take on the consultancy role at no extra cost. “Our influencers want to feel part of the creative process, often willing to serve as a creative consultant at no cost alongside content execution,” Davis said at the time.
But this sets a risky precedent, experts agree, noting that creators need to be paid and prepared accordingly for any extra legwork. “The important thing is that brands do not quietly expand the creator’s remit without changing the compensation, access or authority that comes with it,” Walia says. “Asking someone to advise on the business, share audience intelligence or shape the strategy is different from asking them to make a piece of content.”
A new model
The paid-for precedent opens doors for a new creator industry model where talent is much more closely integrated with brands, experts agree. This might look like creators being brought on earlier in the process, but could also go deeper still, Davis flags, noting the rise of equity deals. “Flat fees still work when the relationship is campaign-specific rather than built around long-term shared growth,” she says. “But as more creators start thinking like business owners, I expect these longer-term, equity-based partnerships to become a much bigger part of how brands and creators work together.” Skincare brand ESW Beauty, for instance, announced that influencers Katie Fang and Aliya Rachinski had become the brand’s first creator equity partners, taking an ownership stake in the brand.