For a long time, a logic prevailed in the influence market: sending a product to a creator and expecting — almost always implicitly — that they will publish something in return. No contract. No warranty. No remuneration.
They called this a strategy. But, in practice, what was seen was a disguised collaboration model that ended up normalizing the exploitation of creative work.
It's massive seeding, a shipment of thousands of kits in the hope of gaining visibility without paying. This is a practice that has become routine in 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: não faz.
At BrandLovers, we conducted a simulation comparing the classic seeding model with structured, paid campaigns carried out with validated creators. The scenario was as follows:
- Seeding: 100 mil kits enviados, com custo logístico e de produto médio de R$ 80 por unidade. Result? Just over 5% of influencers posted something. The average reach was 400 people per 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 actual delivery rates – a true media campaign. Paying an average of R$ 400 per post, we will have about 4,000 guaranteed views per delivery, with the total views exceeding 40 million. In this scenario, the PPV is below R$ 0.18. That is, R$ 2.48 lower than the one from the seeding campaign.
What do these numbers say? Insisting on the free model is costly. It costs in efficiency, reputation, and real impact.
Content is work. And work needs to be compensated.
It's not just a matter of media efficiency. It's about respect. It is also about consistency with the discourse of brands that claim to be "pro-creators," but in practice still treat influencers as volunteers working to generate organic media.
Each content involves planning, execution, editing, and exposure. The idea that "the product is already enough payment" ignores the complexity and value of what is being delivered. It is not surprising that, in light of this, the market is reacting.
Creators are taking a stand and denouncing the model as outdated. And the audience, increasingly attentive, begins to realize who values those behind the camera—and who only seeks cheap views.
The risk is not only of low delivery. It's worn out with those who matter.
Scaling seeding is uncontrollable simply because there is no guaranteed narrative. In practice, there is no brand safety, let alone real measurement.
In the simulation we conducted, the content generated through seeding was mostly a static photo, without storytelling, with very low engagement and no message control. The structured campaigns already delivered videos with narrative, social proof, and brand context, validated by AI and securely audited.
And moreover: the atmosphere among the creators who participated in the seeding can often be negative. Public complaints about exploitation and non-payment have become frequent. This undermines the brand's symbolic capital and jeopardizes future collaborations with qualified talents.
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 pathway.
Therefore, what should guide actions from now on is simple:
- If the brand expects delivery, it needs to offer compensation.
- If the campaign depends on creators, they need to be at the center of the strategy and budget.
Exploration is not scale. It's a delay.
Treating creators as serious media is not just a matter of justice, but a smart decision. Campaigns with contracts, briefs, guaranteed results, and clear compensation deliver more, with less noise and much greater impact.
Content created by the creator must be paid for. And if your brand still hasn't understood this, maybe it's time to review not only the strategy but also the respect for those who make influence happen.
