Imagine ordering a pizza on the weekend, eagerly waiting for the food, and when you open the box, you find only one-third of the slices? This is an analogy for the situation the advertising market faces when we talk about investment in campaigns with creators, according to astudy conducted by BrandLovers.
According to the survey, based on the platform's database, out of the total R$ 2.18 billion per year handled 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 warning to brands," reinforces Rapha Avellar, CEO of BrandLovers.
Based on the extensive platform database, which currently has over 220,000 creators and makes an average of four payments per minute, the survey analyzed data from campaigns with nano, micro, and macro content producers to make the diagnosis. 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 is a lack of a data-driven, technology-enabled, and scalable approach.
Avellar highlights that many brands still make decisions based on subjective perceptions or the mere popularity of creators, without a thorough analysis of impact and performance. He points out the urgent need for a more structured model, based on data and technology. Influence 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 emphasizes that this change in mindset could maximize return on investment, ensuring that a significant portion of budgets is allocated in a more strategic and efficient manner.
The 3 main causes of waste
The research went beyond identifying the problem in the budget and sought to understand the causes behind it. There are three main factors of inefficiency in working with creators, which directly contribute to the waste scenario:
- Inappropriate choice of creators' profile
The choice between nano, micro, or macro creators, based on the profile size (in number of followers), has a direct impact on the efficiency of campaigns in relation to reach potential and cost-effectiveness. The survey shows that, for the same campaign with a budget of R$1 million, micro creators have an average cost per view (CPView) of R$ 0.11 and generate an average of 9.1 million views. The macro creators have a CPView of R$ 0.31 and reach approximately 3.2 million views.
This means that campaigns using micro creators achieve 65% more efficient reach per dollar spent, maximizing the campaign's impact without increasing the budget.
- Lack of Individual and Multifactor Pricing
The lack of a multifactorial method for pricing creators is one of the main causes of inefficiency in influencer marketing investments. Although the number of followers is a relevant metric, it needs to be analyzed together with other factors to ensure fair and efficient pricing. Currently, a large part of the market still sets values based solely on this isolated metric, disregarding essential indicators such as impact, effective reach, audience segmentation, and cost optimization per view.
This pricing model creates three major problems
- Pay per creator unit, not per impact and reach
Many brands price creators based on follower ranges and average engagement. However, this simplified approach often causes a creator with 40,000 followers to receive the same amount as one with 35,000. The same happens with creators with 60,000 followers, where one may have 6% engagement and the other only 4%, but both receive the same payment. This practice destroys media optimization and reduces investment efficiency.
- Excess of intermediaries between brand and creator
Agencies are strategic partners in brand communication, but poorly designed payment chains can have up to 4 or even 5 intermediaries and can 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-sharing model reduces the funds allocated to what truly matters: buying media, delivering impact, and generating genuine conversations about the brand.
- Paying the wrong amount due to lack of choice
Finding the right creator can become a bottleneck, and under the 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 to creators who deliver less results, harming the return on investment.
A comparative analysis demonstrated the impact of switching to a pricing model with a more efficient algorithm
- Antes: Uma campanha tradicional baseada apenas no número de seguidores resultou em um custo por visualização de R$ 0,16, gerando 3,1 milhões de visualizações.
- Depois: Aplicando um modelo de precificação inteligente, que considera múltiplos fatores (impacto real, segmentação e otimização de mídia), o custo por visualização caiu para R$ 0,064, permitindo alcançar 7,75 milhões de visualizações com o mesmo orçamento.
- Resultado: Um aumento de +150% no alcance da campanha, otimizando o investimento em mais de 60%.
The data clearly shows that pricing errors not only increase unnecessary costs but also limit the potential of media influence as a strategic channel for awareness and consideration. Adjusting the way brands purchase this media can bring exponential gains, ensuring that every real invested generates real and maximized impact.
- Wrong segmentation
Another critical error identified is the selection of creators whose audience is not aligned with the objectives of the campaign. The research revealed that campaigns with low fit between the creator and the brand result in a CPView of R$ 0.30, while those with high fit achieve a CPView of only R$ 0.09. In other words, poorly targeted campaigns are 3.33 times less effective.
Furthermore, the increase in costs 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, rather than a strategic media planning approach.The creator who appears to be the "face of your brand" may, in practice, have an audience that does not reflect the profile of your ideal consumer, drastically reducing the campaign's effectiveness.
Lack of alignment, therefore, can mean a waste of up to 72% of some campaign budgets.This is the case if the segmentation is not based on concrete data about the audience's profile, real engagement, and affinity with the brand.
How to avoid budget loss?
"Brands need to adopt a more analytical mindset in influencer marketing, just as they do in other media channels," says Avellar. What we see today is that many decisions are made based on subjective factors, without a deeper assessment of each creator's potential impact.
To avoid an analysis based on a single criterion and the harm caused by this practice, the study recommends adopting a planning based on well-structured data and criteria. This includes
- Data-driven decisions beyond followers and engagement – Use technology for predictive analytics to identify the most effective creators to optimize key KPIs such as impact, reach, and frequency.
- Think like media – Define 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 that payments are optimized to maximize the scale and impact of campaigns.
"The key to the future of influencer marketing lies in precision," concludes Avellar. The brands that know how to use technology and data at the center of their strategies will be able to avoid waste. More than that, they will be able to maximize the real impact of their activations with creators. In the end, the success of influencer marketing depends not just on investing more money, but on investing more intelligently.
