When did being in favour of make-goods become a controversial Influencer Marketing take?

When did being in favour of make-goods become a controversial Influencer Marketing take?

Look, it’s not about assigning blame for how a collaboration performed.

It’s about understanding the stakes.

Agreed, it’s slightly different depending on the post type, we know sponsored content on Instagram and TikTok usually tends to underperform compared to regular content.

But for an integration on YouTube? I think it’s fair game.

To put things into perspective:
I’ve paid for a 30-60 second spot in your video.
If your video itself draws in 50% lower views compared to your regular content, there needs to be some accountability.

Agreed, the brand has its own part to play in making sure the integration itself performs well
– Clear but flexible briefs
– Feedback communicated on drafts itself
And if the wider video performs well, but a sponsored integration itself underperforms, there’s some introspection to be done.

But it’s not unreasonable to expect compensation if an influencer’s entire video underperforms.

It’s not about assigning blame, it’s just about honouring both sides of the partnership.

When brands pay a flat fee for a sponsored integration rather than a CPM-based deal, they’re always taking a risk.

So when a video based on a flat-fee agreement underperforms (and the brand’s done their part to allow the influencer creative freedom), it’s fair game to expect make-goods.

All it takes is an additional story, a community post, a second post, whatever it is, and quite frankly, the offer should come from the talent manager or influencer themselves before the brand even has to ask.

That’s how you build long-term relationships with brands! By showing you care about their objectives AND good service.

It’s not about either side feeling entitled, it’s just about honouring both sides of a partnership.

What’s your take on make-goods?