For a long time, one logic dominated the influencer market: sending a product to a creator and waiting—almost always covertly—for them to post something in return. No contract. No guarantee. No compensation.
They called this a strategy. But in practice, what we saw was a model disguised as collaboration that ended up normalizing the exploitation of creative work.
This is mass seeding—sending out thousands of kits in hopes of gaining visibility without paying. It’s a practice that became routine for many brands, but in 2025, with the Creator Economy matured and data available, it’s worth questioning whether this logic still makes any sense.
Spoiler: it doesn’t.
At BrandLovers, we ran a simulation comparing the classic seeding model with structured, paid campaigns carried out with validated creators. The scenario was as follows:
- Seeding: 100,000 kits sent, with an average logistical and product cost of R$ 80 per unit. Result? Just over 5% of influencers posted something. The average reach was 400 people per piece of content, totaling around 2 million people impacted. The estimated CPV was R$ 2.66.
- Structured campaign with paid creators: same budget (R$ 7 million), but distributed among thousands of creators with segmented audiences and real delivery rates—an actual media campaign. Paying an average of R$ 400 per post, we’d get around 4,000 guaranteed views per delivery, totaling over 40 million views. In this scenario, the PPV drops below R$ 0.18—that is, R$ 2.48 lower than the seeding campaign.
What do these numbers tell us? That insisting on the free model is costly. It costs efficiency, reputation, and real impact.
Content is work. And work deserves compensation.
It’s not just about media efficiency. It’s about respect. It’s also about consistency with the rhetoric of brands that claim to be ‘pro-creator’ but, in practice, still treat influencers as volunteers working to generate spontaneous media.
Every piece of content involves planning, execution, editing, and exposure. The idea that ‘the product is payment enough’ ignores the complexity and value of what’s being delivered. It’s no surprise that the market is reacting to this.
Creators are speaking out and denouncing this outdated model. And the audience, increasingly aware, is starting to notice who values the people behind the camera—and who just wants cheap engagement.
The risk isn’t just low delivery. It’s alienation from those who matter.
Mass seeding is uncontrollable simply because there’s no guaranteed narrative. In practice, there’s no brand safety, much less real measurement.
In our simulation, the content generated via seeding was mostly a static photo, with no storytelling, minimal engagement, and no message control. Meanwhile, structured campaigns delivered videos with narrative, social proof, and brand context, validated by AI and audited securely.
And more: the sentiment among creators who participated in seeding can often be negative. Public complaints about exploitation and lack of payment have become frequent. This erodes the brand’s symbolic capital and jeopardizes future collaborations with qualified talent.
It’s not about abandoning seeding. It’s about abandoning the expectation of return without reciprocity.
Sending products can (and should) be part of the strategy, but it needs to be in the right place: as awareness, a courtesy gesture, or an entry point—never as the main activation channel.
So, what should guide actions moving forward is simple:
- If the brand expects delivery, it needs to offer something in return.
- If the campaign depends on creators, they need to be at the center of the strategy and budget.
Exploitation isn’t scale. It’s regression.
Treating creators as serious media isn’t just about fairness—it’s a smart decision. Campaigns with contracts, briefings, guaranteed results, and clear compensation deliver more, with less noise and far greater impact.
Content made by creators should be paid. And if your brand still hasn’t understood this, maybe it’s time to rethink not just the strategy, but the respect for those who make influence happen.
