Imagine ordering a pizza on the weekend, eagerly waiting for the food, and when you open the box, finding only a third of the slices? This is an analogy for the situation the advertising market faces when it comes to investment in campaigns with creators, according to a study conducted by BrandLovers.
According to the research, based on the platform’s database, out of the total of R$ 2.18 billion per year moved by the sector — according to data released by Kantar Ibope Media and Statista — up to R$ 1.57 billion may be being wasted. “In today’s reality, where influencer marketing has established itself as one of the main digital advertising strategies in Brazil, identifying this loss should serve as a wake-up call for brands,” reinforces Rapha Avellar, CEO of BrandLovers.
Using the platform’s vast database, which currently includes over 220,000 creators and processes an average of four payments per minute, the research analyzed data from campaigns with nano, micro, and macro content producers to diagnose the issue. With this, in addition to identifying the amount lost by advertisers and marketing professionals, it was possible to identify the root of the problem. “There’s a lack of a data-driven, technology-backed, and scalable approach.”
Avellar highlights that many brands still make decisions based on subjective perceptions or mere creator popularity, without an in-depth analysis of impact and performance. He points to the urgent need for a more structured model, grounded in data and technology. “Influencer media is so central to demand generation in 2025 that it needs to be treated as real media — a game of exact science, not guesswork.” He reinforces that this shift in mindset could maximize return on investment, ensuring that a significant portion of budgets is applied more strategically and efficiently.
The 3 major causes of waste
The research went beyond identifying the budget problem and sought to understand the causes behind it. There are three main inefficiency factors in working with creators, which directly contribute to the waste scenario:
- Inadequate choice of creator profiles
The choice between nano, micro, or macro creators, based on profile size (in follower count), has a direct impact on campaign efficiency regarding reach potential and cost-effectiveness. The research shows that for the same campaign, with a budget of R$1 million, micro creators present an average cost per view (CPView) of R$ 0.11 and generate, on average, 9.1 million views. In contrast, macro creators have a CPView of R$ 0.31 and reach about 3.2 million views.
This means that campaigns using micro creators achieve a 65% more efficient reach per real invested, maximizing campaign impact without increasing the budget.
- Lack of Individual and Multifactorial Pricing
The absence of a multifactorial method for creator pricing is one of the main causes of inefficiency in influencer marketing investments. Although follower count is a relevant metric, it needs to be analyzed alongside other factors to ensure fair and efficient pricing. Currently, much of the market still defines values based solely on this isolated metric, disregarding essential indicators like impact, effective reach, audience segmentation, and cost per view optimization.
This pricing model creates three major problems:
- Paying per creator unit, not per impact and reach
Many brands price creators based on follower ranges and average engagement. However, this simplified approach often means a creator with 40,000 followers receives the same payment as one with 35,000. The same happens with creators of 60,000 followers, where one may have 6% engagement and another just 4%, but both receive the same payment. This practice destroys media optimization and reduces investment efficiency. - Excessive intermediaries between brand and creator
Agencies are strategic partners in brand communication, but there are poorly designed payment chains that can have 4 or even 5 intermediaries and may drastically increase costs. In some structures, the same creator can cost up to 6 times more due to tax inefficiency and margins added by unnecessary intermediaries. This cost-transfer model reduces the budget allocated to what truly matters: buying the media, delivering impact, and generating genuine conversations about the brand. - Paying the wrong price due to lack of options
Finding the right creator can become a bottleneck, and under pressure to decide quickly, many brands end up choosing suboptimal creators. Without access to a large volume of qualified options, campaigns may end up paying the same amount for creators who deliver fewer results, harming return on investment.
A comparative analysis demonstrated the impact of shifting to a pricing model with a more efficient algorithm:
- Before: A traditional campaign based solely on follower count resulted in a cost per view of R$ 0.16, generating 3.1 million views.
- After: Applying an intelligent pricing model that considers multiple factors (real impact, segmentation, and media optimization), the cost per view dropped to R$ 0.064, allowing for 7.75 million views with the same budget.
- Result: A +150% increase in campaign reach, optimizing investment by over 60%.
The data makes it clear that pricing errors not only unnecessarily increase costs but also limit the potential of influencer media as a strategic channel for awareness and consideration. Adjusting how brands buy this media can bring exponential gains, ensuring every real invested generates real and maximized impact.
- Wrong segmentation
Another critical error identified is choosing creators whose audience is not aligned with campaign objectives. The research revealed that campaigns with low fit between creator and brand result in a CPView of R$ 0.30, while those with high fit achieve a CPView of just R$ 0.09. In other words, poorly targeted campaigns are 3.33 times less efficient.
Moreover, cost increases can become even more critical when the creator’s audience is not aligned with the campaign’s target audience. This problem occurs because many brands still choose creators with an image association mindset, not a strategic media planning approach. The creator who seems like the “face of your brand” may, in practice, have an audience that doesn’t reflect your ideal consumer profile, drastically reducing campaign effectiveness.
The lack of alignment can therefore mean a waste of up to 72% of some campaign budgets, if segmentation isn’t based on concrete data about audience profile, real engagement, and brand affinity.
How to avoid budget loss?
“Brands need to adopt a more analytical mindset in influencer marketing, just as they do in other media fronts,” says Avellar. “What we see today is that many decisions are made based on subjective factors, without a deeper evaluation of each creator’s impact potential.”
To avoid single-criterion analysis and the damage caused by this practice, the study recommends adopting planning based on well-structured data and criteria. This includes:
- Data-driven decisions beyond followers and engagement — Using technology for predictive analyses that identify the most effective creators to optimize key KPIs like impacts, reach, and frequency.
- Thinking like media — Defining the campaign target before selecting creators, prioritizing results delivery over choices based solely on image association.
- Strategic and efficient pricing — Avoiding cost distortions that increase investment without proportional returns, ensuring payments are optimized to maximize campaign scale and impact.
“The key to the future of influencer marketing lies in precision,” concludes Avellar. “Brands that know how to use technology and data at the core of their strategies will be able to avoid waste. More than that, they will maximize the real impact of their creator activations. In the end, the success of influencer marketing doesn’t just depend on investing more money, but on investing more intelligently.”
