Sourcing, vetting, briefing, contracts, payments, chasing and usage rights. The whole roster handled for a flat monthly fee that does not move when you scale.
Finding creators takes an afternoon. Everything after you have a name is what takes the month.
Matched to your category and your customer, not a marketplace shortlist.
Past work, reliability, lighting. Most get rejected, which is the point.
Written by the same strategist who wrote the angle, so nothing gets lost.
Deliverables, revisions, usage rights and term, agreed before anything is shot.
Late footage, bad lighting, reshoots. You see finished work, not problems.
When an ad keeps working, the licence conversation is ours to have.
The single biggest thing most brands leave on the table. Not one big creator on a one off fee, but fifteen to twenty small ones running continuously, producing ad content every week that costs a fraction of studio video and tends to outperform it.
These are published Meta results with stated test designs, not agency claims. In every case the creator layer was added to what the brand already ran, which is exactly how this would work for you.
Nano rates are the lowest in the market, so a roster of twenty producing thirty videos a month usually costs less in creator fees than two studio videos would.
These are published market figures, not ours, so you can price your own situation against them before you look at what we charge.
The hire does not produce anything, so most brands pay for a producer as well. Software is the licence plus a fee on every creator payment, before the time it takes someone on your team to run it.
| How brands run creators | Monthly cost | Takes a cut of creator pay | Bill rises as you scale |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hire a creator manager | $9,200 US / £4,900 UK | No | Only when you hire again |
| Agency on a percentage | About 30% of creator spend | Yes | Yes |
| Software, and you run it | $300 to $2,500 plus your time | Yes, 7 to 15% platform fee | Yes |
| Shaanks | $1,500 flat | No | No |
Not by one viral post. By running creators at volume, for years, as a deliberate acquisition channel. Every figure below is stated by the company or reported by named press, with the mechanism the founders described themselves.
In 2020 alone Ridge sponsored 750 YouTube creators, spending $3.9m across 3,000 unique videos. That is roughly ten new sponsored videos going live every day, all year.
Sold to Procter and Gamble in the same month it hit $5m, on a team of around ten people. The month before the sale it made $1m in net profit.
The video the founder says "put us on the map" cost about $18,000. Two years later the brand was over $100m. Unilever acquired it in 2025.
Ten times growth in a single year, and the founders are explicit that they did it without buying ads at all.
Passed $150m in run rate revenue before taking any outside money, then raised $115m at a $1.2bn valuation.
The rare case where the platform holding the attribution data published it. Over one campaign week, affiliate creators drove nearly two thirds of everything sold.
The entire roster run for you, however many creators that turns out to be. Sourcing through to rights renewals. No setup fee, no per creator charge, no minimum roster.
Creators are paid directly by you, at their own rate, with nothing added on top. You see exactly what every creator earns because you are the one paying it. We never touch that money and we take no percentage of it.
One of those bars punishes you for scaling. The other does not. That is the whole difference between a percentage and a flat fee.
Creator footage is only worth having if something good gets built from it. The same team that runs your roster writes the angles, cuts the video and ships the ads, which is why the briefs make sense and the footage comes back usable. You can take this on its own, or as the creator layer inside the wider production.
Tell us how many creators you are running and what is going wrong with it. We will tell you what we would do differently before you commit to anything.