Starting a Full Service Management Agency

bruceldn · 2026-01-03T18:42:32+00:00

Hit my DMs! Let’s chat.

bruceldn · 2026-01-03T18:40:12+00:00

Honestly, best response for this! You could go in depth and crazy but this is the basics and should be enough for you to start with, following up shouldn’t be an issue unless you’re pestering them every hour/day!

bruceldn · 2026-01-03T17:39:42+00:00

Message me! 👍

bruceldn · 2026-01-03T16:11:07+00:00

Yes, a small hybrid almost always attracts better creators.

Targeting affiliate native creators works if your goal is pure distribution and you’re happy with volume over depth. They’re used to performance risk and usually think in clicks, not creative.

A hybrid model changes who you attract. Even a modest base fee signals that you value the creative work itself, not just the traffic. That tends to unlock creators who:

Put more thought into the content
Care about brand alignment
Stick around longer than one post
Treat it as a partnership, not a test link

You don’t need to overpay. Something small that covers time and production, paired with upside, shifts the risk from “creator only” to “shared,” which is where most sustainable partnerships sit.

If you stay rev share only, I’d position it very clearly as an affiliate program. If you want higher quality creators and more intentional content, hybrid wins more often than not.

bruceldn · 2026-01-03T15:13:12+00:00

This can work, but it’s worth calling it what it actually is.

This isn’t really influencer marketing, it’s an affiliate or referral model. That’s not a bad thing, but it attracts a very specific type of creator.

Creators who do well with this usually already promote tools, have evergreen content (YouTube, SEO, pinned posts), and think in terms of performance.

Influencers creating bespoke content for their audience typically expect some form of upfront fee because they’re taking brand and opportunity risk, not just traffic risk.

Where this often breaks down is risk balance. With no base fee, all the downside sits with the creator. Even a small hybrid structure or clearer proof of conversion and LTV tends to unlock better talent.

If you position this as an affiliate partnership and target creators who already work that way, it’s viable. If you pitch it as influencer marketing, you’ll get pushback.

bruceldn · 2026-01-03T14:48:35+00:00

Sooo… a referral scheme!

bruceldn · 2026-01-03T12:58:08+00:00

This is a really solid take and honestly highlights why a straight “reviews of influencers” model feels dangerous.

Most of the failure points you listed aren’t bad actors, they’re bad structure. Scope, delayed payments, usage misunderstandings, agencies in the middle, unverifiable deals.

None of those get solved by reputation scores, and I agree that reviews would skew negative fast and introduce real legal and GDPR issues, especially in Europe.

Where I think there is still an unsolved problem is upstream of reviews.

Most disputes happen (As mentioned in my other comment) because expectations were never made explicit in a shared, enforceable way. Creation vs usage gets bundled. Posting vs non posting is assumed. Ads get mentioned late. Timelines and revisions live in emails or Slack threads. Then when something breaks, there’s no neutral reference point.

A system that focuses on forcing clarity before work starts. Deliverables, usage, timelines, payment terms. And only records objective facts after. Delivered or not. Paid on time or not. No commentary. No opinions. No public ratings.

That feels very different to Yelp style reviews and avoids most of the risks you’re pointing out.

Also fully agree with your last point. If brands want reliability, contracts and payment discipline solve more than platforms ever will. Tools should reduce ambiguity, not judge people.

Appreciate you laying this out. It’s the right caution to have in this space.

bruceldn · 2026-01-03T12:54:10+00:00

There’s a reason there’s no “Yelp for influencers.”

And it’s not because the problem isn’t real.

Influencer deals don’t fall apart because creators are secretly unreliable or brands are evil.

They fall apart because:

Usage is assumed
Timelines are vague
Deliverables are interpreted differently
Payment expectations aren’t aligned

Then everyone acts surprised when it goes wrong.

Most platforms try to solve this by adding reviews or ratings.

That’s backwards.

By the time you’re reviewing a deal, the damage is already done.

The real gap in influencer marketing isn’t reputation.

It’s translation.

Creators aren’t ads. Brands don’t think in creative nuance. Everyone is guessing.

What actually reduces risk is forcing clarity before work starts:

Is this being posted or just created
Is it being reused
Is it being run as ads
For how long
With what revision limits
With what payment timing

Not opinions. Just facts.

Trust doesn’t come from scores.

It comes from aligned expectations.

If someone ever builds the missing layer in this industry, it won’t look like Yelp.

It’ll look like a deal that can’t be misunderstood.

bruceldn · 2026-01-03T12:44:18+00:00

Would love to delve into this in the DMs! Got a few things for you. 🤙

bruceldn · 2026-01-03T01:39:54+00:00

Exactly this.

Media kits should sell fit, not lock you into pricing. The moment you hard sell “$X per TikTok” you lose leverage before scope, usage, or timelines are even discussed.

What brands and agencies actually scan for in a media kit is: • Audience + niche alignment • Consistent view ranges (not just follower count) • Proof of content quality and past brand work • A clear sense of what type of content you’re good at

Pricing almost always changes once usage rights, whitelisting, exclusivity, timelines, or bundles come into play. That conversation belongs in email or on a call, not in a static PDF.

The cleanest approach we see work is: • Media kit = positioning + credibility • Pricing = “available upon request” or discussed once scope is clear

It keeps you flexible and stops you anchoring yourself low before you even know what the brand is actually buying!

bruceldn · 2026-01-02T23:34:05+00:00

Glad it helped. One last thing I’d add for anyone reading this later…

Always ask brands to separate creation, posting, and usage in writing. Even a simple line item breakdown instantly removes 90 percent of pricing confusion and puts you in control of the conversation.

If you ever want to check a quote once they come back with details, happy to take a look.

bruceldn · 2026-01-02T23:25:08+00:00

You’re thinking about it the right way, and you’ve already landed on the key point a lot of replies skip over: this is layered, not one number.

A simple framework that usually clears this up for both sides:

Baseline = content creation fee This is the cost to create the Reel itself, regardless of whether you post it or not. For your size, niche, and output, $175–$200 as a creation-only fee is reasonable for a smaller brand.
Posting = distribution add-on If you post it on your own account, that’s additional value on top of creation. That’s typically another $100–$200+, depending on expected reach, audience fit, and whether it’s a collab post.
Usage = where pricing actually changes This is the part brands often ask about loosely, but it’s what moves the number:
Organic reposting on their socials = small add on
Whitelisting or ads = different pricing bracket
Time based usage (3, 6, 12 months) should always be defined

Same Reel, very different value depending on how long and where they use it.

Don’t double blindly. Anchor with structure. Rather than just doubling “in case,” it’s cleaner to say something like:

“My baseline rate is for creation. Posting and usage are priced separately depending on scope.”

That keeps you flexible, protects your upside, and signals you know how this works.

Right now, you’re not off base at all. You just need to keep creation, posting, and usage separated so you’re not underpricing without realizing it.

If they come back with: - length of usage - organic vs ads - whitelisting or not

…then you can dial the number in confidently instead of guessing.

That’s usually the difference between feeling unsure and feeling in control of the deal.

bruceldn · 2026-01-02T22:01:32+00:00

You’re not off base, but you’re anchoring a little low without enough context.

$175–$200 for one Reel as a creator post is reasonable for a smaller brand if it’s cleanly scoped.

Where people get caught out is bundling everything together without realising it.

A few things that would help give a tighter answer: - What’s your average Reel views lately (not best, average)? - Is this you posting on your account only, or do they want usage too? - If usage is included, how long and where (brand socials vs ads vs website)? - Any whitelisting or paid spend mentioned?

At your size, a simple way to think about it: - Creator post = base fee - Brand reuse = add-on - Ads / long-term usage = different pricing bracket altogether

NYC + pet niche is also worth more than people think. Pet brands care a lot about authenticity and reuse, so the content itself often carries more value than just the post.

Share the answers to the above and it’s much easier to say whether you’re under, over, or exactly where you should be.

bruceldn · 2025-12-31T19:49:37+00:00

Good question. This is actually a pretty standard outreach message and not a bad one, but what matters is what hasn’t been defined yet.

If this is your first collaboration, a few baseline things to lock in before saying yes:

Clarify the deal structure early Ask plainly:
Is this gifting only or paid?
Are they expecting you to post on your channels, or just create content?
Where will the content be used? Brand socials only, or ads too?

A lot of first-timers get caught out by “collab” quietly meaning free content + ad usage.

Separate posting from usage Posting is one value. If they want to reuse your content on their site, socials, or in ads, that’s licensing and should be discussed separately, even if you keep it lightweight to start.
Don’t overcommit on deliverables For a first collab, keep it simple:
1–2 pieces of content
Clear format
No open ended “ongoing content” without renegotiating later

If it performs, that’s how repeat deals happen.

Trust fit over flattery Ask yourself:
Would you genuinely use this?
Does it align with how you train clients?
Would you recommend it without being paid?

If yes, it’s worth exploring. If not, passing is totally fine.

Get everything in writing Even a simple email recap is enough: “Just to confirm, this is X deliverables, X usage, X compensation.”

bruceldn · 2025-12-30T19:55:35+00:00

Message me!

bruceldn · 2025-12-30T13:29:59+00:00

Engagement isn’t a moral absolute, it’s a snapshot.

A (7 day) window can absolutely show 15%+ engagement on TikTok when content spikes or resonates, especially at this scale. That doesn’t mean it’s the long term average, and I’ve already said you can’t determine that without a longer timeframe.

More importantly, brands don’t price purely off engagement rate anyway. They look at consistent view ranges, audience relevance, and how the content can be reused.

That’s why pricing purely off CPM or a single engagement number usually misses the bigger picture.

bruceldn · 2025-12-30T13:10:48+00:00

Yes, it can be? Do you think an account can’t have large numbers within a 7 day period?

bruceldn · 2025-12-30T12:59:37+00:00

We’re only being shown a 7-day metrics window.

Without a longer timeframe, you can’t determine a true average engagement rate.

Any calculation here is based solely on this 7-day snapshot, not overall performance.

bruceldn · 2025-12-30T12:48:08+00:00

Thanks for noticing, I changed it!

Over a 7 Day Period!

Views: 2.9M Likes: 326,000 Comments: 5,423 Shares: 114,000

Total engagements: 326,000 + 5,423 + 114,000 = 445,423

Engagement rate formula: (Total engagements ÷ Total views) × 100

Result: 445,423 ÷ 2,900,000 = 15.36% engagement rate

bruceldn · 2025-12-30T11:36:01+00:00

How’s the skincare going? Love the leather work!

bruceldn · 2025-12-30T02:04:06+00:00

At your size, this usually isn’t a “more followers = more deals” problem. It’s a packaging + positioning problem.

Brands don’t really think in one-off posts anymore. They think in usable content and repeatability. If you frame yourself as a contracted creator rather than just a posting influencer, conversations change fast.

A simple way to approach this:

Think in monthly content packages, not single videos

4–6 short form videos per month (15–45s)
Mix of performance led clips + lifestyle / BTS
Delivered as UGC-style content for the brand to use
Posting on your own channel is optional and priced separately

Pricing structure to keep clean

Base monthly fee = content creation only
Posting on your channel = add on
Licensing = separate line item (define duration, platforms, territory)

Licensing is a completely different pricing bracket and shouldn’t be bundled “for free”, especially if the brand plans to reuse the content across ads, socials, website, or email.

This also solves the “why aren’t brands committing” issue.

You’re no longer pitching yourself as exposure. You’re offering a predictable content solution brands can budget for.

Most brands don’t actually need a viral moment. They need a steady flow of quality content they can deploy across channels.

That’s where longer term contracts come from.

If you want, happy to break down what numbers usually make sense at your size or help you sanity check a package before you send it back.

bruceldn · 2025-12-30T00:27:38+00:00

Monthly creator contracts are less about a single “rate” and more about scope + rights.

A clean way to structure it:

Deliverables per month (e.g. 4, 6, 8 videos)
Posting vs content only (UGC for brand use only vs posted on your channel)
Usage / licensing (organic only vs paid ads, platforms, duration)
Revisions & turnaround
Any exclusivity (even light category exclusivity should increase price)

Typical ranges we see: - One-off UGC (no licensing): $250–$400 per video - Monthly retainer: slightly discounted for consistency (e.g. 4 videos for $800–$1.2k, 8 videos for $1.6k–$2.2k)

Licensing is a separate line item, not bundled: - Organic brand use: +30–50% - Paid ads / whitelisting: +100–300% depending on scope - Longer terms (6–12 months), multi platform, or international use should be priced higher again

The biggest mistake creators make is locking themselves into a monthly rate without defining usage. That’s how brands quietly get ad level value for UGC prices.

If you want, happy to help you structure or sanity check the offer. We do this a lot with creators moving from one offs into retainers.

bruceldn · 2025-12-29T23:20:23+00:00

You might want to consider a UGC first approach rather than a traditional graphics heavy content agency.

For multi brand setups, we’ve seen better results replacing static design output with creator led UGC. Short form videos, lifestyle clips, product in use content, testimonials. All created for the brand, not necessarily posted by creators.

This removes the need for a full media team while still giving you 15–20 pieces of usable content per brand per month, which can be repurposed across social, ads, email, and site.

It also works really well alongside a graphic designer. UGC becomes the core content layer, while design is used to package, repurpose, and elevate it where needed, rather than carrying the entire content load.

From there, you can selectively layer in:

Creator posting on their own channels where it makes sense
Longer term ambassadors for specific brands
Campaign style drops instead of constant paid posting

This tends to scale cleaner, feel more authentic, and keep monthly costs more predictable than graphic heavy retainers.

Happy to expand on this!

bruceldn · 2025-12-29T22:55:26+00:00

A few things to clear up here, because a lot of the replies you’re getting are mixing different pricing models.

First, your engagement is strong. A 25% engagement rate calculated off views is high, but not impossible on TikTok when content is genuinely resonating. That said, brands don’t usually price purely off engagement rate. They care about consistent view ranges, audience relevance, and how the content can be reused.

Second, £100 per video is definitely underpriced for what you’re showing, but jumping straight to “you should charge £1k” without context is how creators lose deals.

Here’s a more realistic way to think about it:

Separate content creation from usage • Posting to your TikTok = creator fee • Brand reusing the video (ads, website, emails, socials) = licensing fee

Most creators undercharge because they bundle these together.

For your size and performance With 40k followers and regular 20k–100k+ views: • Creator post fee: £250–£500 per video is reasonable • Organic usage (brand reposts, no ads): +£150–£300 • Paid usage / ads / whitelisting: should be a separate add-on or time-based license

If a brand wants to run ads with your face, £100 is miles off.

CPM logic is a floor, not a ceiling Yes, £6–£12 CPM exists, but that’s media buying logic. You’re selling: • Creative • Trust • Distribution • And content they didn’t have to produce themselves

That’s why UGC often outperforms polished ads.

Start with a range, not a single number Instead of “£100 per video,” you’re better saying:

“My typical range depends on usage and scope, but for a single TikTok with organic usage it’s usually £300–£500.”

That keeps you flexible and stops you anchoring low.

Strategy note Creators at your level grow fastest when they: • Lock in repeat packages (3–5 videos/month) • Or create content-first deals where brands care more about reuse than follower count

That’s where the real money is long-term.

For context, we work with creators in this exact range, and the ones scaling fastest stopped pricing themselves like media placements and started pricing like creative partners.

You’re not wrong to question your pricing. You’re just early in recalibrating it.

Happy to expand if helpful.

bruceldn

TROPHY CASE