Forgot Password?
Once registered, you can:
By registering you agree to our privacy policy, terms & conditions and to receive occasional emails from Ad Age. You may unsubscribe at any time.
Are you a print subscriber? Activate your account.
By E.J. Schultz – 19 min ago
By Erika Wheless – 34 min 32 sec ago
By Gillian Follett – 1 hour 24 min ago
By Tim Nudd – 1 hour 55 min ago
By Ad Age and Creativity Staff – 3 hours 33 min ago
By Gillian Follett – 1 day 7 hours ago
By Parker Herren – 1 day 8 hours ago
By Gillian Follett – 1 day 8 hours ago
By Jon Springer – 19 hours 9 min ago
By Parker Herren – 1 day 8 hours ago
By Tim Nudd – 1 day 7 hours ago
By Jack Neff – 1 day 4 hours ago
By Tim Nudd – 1 day 7 hours ago
The study revealed YouTube creators are more likely to earn at least $500 per month from brand deals than influencers who primarily use Instagram or TikTok.
Although many marketers and influencers have prioritized Instagram and TikTok for their influencer marketing strategies, YouTube has emerged as the most profitable platform for creators, according to a new report from influencer marketing platform Aspire. The Google-owned platform is also the most cost-effective channel for brands’ influencer marketing spend, the report found.
Of the more than 1,000 creators Aspire surveyed, roughly half of those who create YouTube videos reported earning over $500 per month from brand partnerships on the platform, whereas only 40% of Instagram creators and 36% of TikTok creators reached that level of income. And YouTube creators are the most likely out of their influencer peers to bring in $10,000 or more monthly from brand deals, with 6% of YouTubers attaining that level of income, compared to 3% of Instagram creators and 2% of TikTokers.
Also read: Creators and marketers react to Montana TikTok ban
A key factor behind YouTubers’ greater earning potential from brand deals is their substantially higher engagement rates, which Aspire found in a separate report average at about 50% across all influencer tiers, from nano-influencers, or those with under 10,000 followers, to macro-influencers with followings of 200,000-plus. In comparison, engagement rates on TikTok hover around 17%, on average, and Instagram influencers’ average engagement rate is just 3%, per the report.
“You almost think of a YouTuber as a separate entity from a quote-unquote ‘influencer.’ They have been around for quite a bit longer, and there’s just so much more historical data around the platform, so it makes it easier for creators to set rates,” said Magda Houalla, director of marketing strategy at Aspire. “People are generally only interacting with the channels that they subscribe to, so if you have X amount of followers, it’s pretty confirmed that you will make X amount of dollars.”
Despite this high earning potential on YouTube, only 3% of creators surveyed cited YouTube as their “main platform of choice.” The majority—60%—pointed to Instagram, and another 32% gave that title to TikTok. And Instagram remains the “priority channel” for most marketers and brands, as well—87% of brands reported planning to invest more into Instagram this year, while only 45% of brands said they would increase their spend on YouTube, per Aspire data.
But on newer platforms such as TikTok, however, there are no hard-and-fast rules for what a creators’ content is worth, Houalla said. Unlike on YouTube, where most consumers will intentionally seek out a given video from a creator, viewership on TikTok is less guaranteed, and creators are largely reliant on the platform’s algorithm to place their videos on consumers’ feeds.
Because of that inherent unpredictability in how many people may come across a creator’s TikTok content, “there’s more room for people with the same amount of followers to have drastically different engagement rates,” Houalla said. For example, creators with over 200,000 followers on TikTok reported earning anywhere from $250 to over $10,000 per month through the platform, despite having roughly the same size audiences.
“Historically, there’s been a lack of transparency in what creators should even charge on TikTok,” she added. “Some creators just don’t really know what to charge, and then they’ll see someone who has the same following and similar engagement rate making 10 times more than them, and they’re like, ‘Wait a second, I want to charge that.’”
Instagram creators with similarly-sized audiences also reported a disparity in monthly income. While 25% of macro-influencers surveyed said they earned more than $10,000 per month from brand partnerships on the platform, 45% of creators in the same category reported receiving $5,000 or less. However, YouTubers with roughly the same follower sizes reported greater consistency in the amounts they earned from brand deals. For example, half of the macro-influencers on the platform earned at least $7,5000 per month, while the vast majority of nano-influencers received less than $250.
Across the board, nearly half of all creators surveyed reported receiving less than $250 from brand partnerships per month, and 85% of participants earned a monthly income of below $2,500. And, despite nano- and micro-influencers “consistently achieving the highest engagement rates across all platforms,” according to the report, macro-influencers’ larger reach still nets them higher payouts from brands, on average.
“This is because creators with larger audiences have the ability to reach target audiences and spread brand awareness at a greater scale — similar to running a commercial during a TV program with high viewership,” the report states.
However, 48% of creators across all audience sizes said their earnings from brand deals had increased in the past year, with those in less-saturated content niches, such as food, travel, tech and interior design, bringing in the highest incomes, according to the report. This demonstrates marketers’ continued investment in influencer marketing, even in the face of economic uncertainty, Houalla said.
For instance, Scarlett Knuth, one of the creators surveyed in the report, turned her Instagram account revolving around her family and the renovation of her farmhouse into a major income source. In just the past eight months, she’s transitioned from only being compensated through gifted products to charging brands, including linen brand Beddy’s and rug brand Tumble, a minimum of $1,000 per post.
A post shared by Scarlett Knuth (@whitefloridafarmhouse)
“When I was starting out I was excited when I was only making a few hundred a month to go towards our medical debt. Now, I’m making thousands a month, and it feels so surreal,” said Knuth, who has 15,000 followers on Instagram, in an email. “It’s a mindset shift to realize that my Instagram blocks are like real estate [and] have value. If someone wants to lease space on my squares to share about their product, they need to pay because gifted items like a free candle aren’t going to pay my bills.”
Notably, 83% of creators surveyed for the report said they would partner with a brand even if the only payment they receive is a gifted product, whether because they “love the brand” or “the product value is high.” However, as the creator economy continues to grow by billions of dollars year over year, brands are increasingly paying influencers for their content, even in the face of economic uncertainty, Houalla said.
“Brands are turning to influencers more and more because they’re able to get so much value out of each partnership,” she said. “You’re able to get the advertising on the influencer’s social media channel; you’re reaching their highly engaged audience, an audience that is looking to this individual for recommendations and who trust the recommendations that this individual will make; and you’re also getting the assets that you need to fuel all of your other channels. And that ultimately makes your influencer partnerships incredibly cost-effective.”
In this article:
Gillian Follett is a general assignment reporter for Ad Age. She writes about a variety of topics including social media, influencer marketing and the creator economy. Gillian graduated from Syracuse University’s S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications.