Guide
Campaigns
Brands
Brand-to-brand co-marketing through a shared influencer is when two non-competing brands run one collaboration through the same creator — a bundle giveaway, a joint takeover, or a cross-promoted post that names both. It differs from a standard single-brand deal on three points: who owns the brief and has final approval, how the cost splits between the two brands, and how ad disclosure works when two commercial relationships appear in one piece of content.
Brand-to-brand co-marketing through a shared influencer is a deal structure where two non-competing companies split one creator's attention on one piece of content or one campaign, instead of each booking their own separate deal with the influencer. A typical example: a skincare brand and a makeup brand team up on a bundle giveaway with the same beauty creator, or a travel brand and a clothing brand share a "pack with me" video that features both products. The structure differs from an ordinary influencer deal on three concrete points this article covers in turn: who owns the brief and has final approval, how the cost splits between the two brands, and how ad disclosure works when two commercial relationships appear in the same post.
It isn't the same thing as a co-branded product collaboration, where one creator's name goes on a single brand's own product in exchange for a royalty. That structure still has only one brand owning the product. The point of this article is the opposite case: two independent brands sharing the same creator for the same piece of content, while each keeps its own product.
| Structure | What it involves | Typical use |
|---|---|---|
| Bundle giveaway | The creator gives away one prize bundle containing products from both brands, in one post | Two brands sharing an audience without overlapping product categories (e.g. beauty + travel accessories) |
| Joint takeover | The creator "takes over" both brands' own channels in turn, or produces one piece of content published across both brands' accounts plus their own | Two brands wanting shared visibility on each other's followers, not just the creator's own |
| Cross-promoted post | One piece of content naturally names and tags both brands (e.g. a "my travel uniform" video showing one brand's clothing and another's luggage) | Two brands whose products naturally appear together in the same context or use case |
Common to all three: the creator has only one relationship with each brand, but delivers one combined piece of content that has to satisfy both brands' briefs at once — that's where most of the practical friction comes from.
| Lead-brand model | Equal co-brief | |
|---|---|---|
| Who writes the brief | One brand ("the lead") writes it; the other approves only its own portion | Both brands co-author the brief together before the creator is involved |
| Approval rights | The lead brand has final say; the other can only request changes to its own part | Both brands must approve the whole piece, not just their own section |
| Speed | Faster — only one decision-maker | Slower — requires agreement between two brands, not just brand and creator |
| Risk if the brands disagree | Low — the second brand has no veto | Higher — content can stall if the brands disagree and no one has agreed in advance who breaks the tie |
| Best suited to | A brand "borrowing" exposure to another brand's followers without owning the campaign itself | Two brands with equal investment and equal stake in the outcome |
Our recommendation at Make Influence: agree the model in writing before the brief gets written — and if you choose the equal co-brief, agree in advance who has the deciding vote if the two brands can't agree on a revision. Without that agreement, the disagreement usually lands on the creator, who shouldn't have to and doesn't want to pick a side between two paying clients.
The underlying requirement doesn't change because there are two brands instead of one: influencer marketing disclosure rules in Denmark and the EU apply to any commercial benefit the creator receives — and here there are two benefits from two different senders in the same post, not one.
Forbrugerombudsmanden's own guidance doesn't explicitly address how a post naming two brands should be labelled — it's written around one commercial relationship at a time. Until specific guidance exists for that situation, Make Influence's recommendation is to apply the same logic that already governs a single relationship to both at once: name both brands explicitly as the first thing the creator shows or says (e.g. "ad for [Brand A] and [Brand B]"), rather than naming only one brand or relying on the platform's built-in label to cover both relationships. That's our operational recommendation for minimising risk — not a restatement of a specific ruling on this exact situation.
One practical complication follows from this: most platforms' own "paid partnership" labels (Instagram's, for instance) are built to tag one brand at a time. If the platform doesn't allow tagging two brands in the same label, the written disclosure in the post's own text or spoken audio — not the platform label alone — is what actually carries the disclosure duty for the brand that can't be tagged.
| Structure | How it works | Advantage | Drawback |
|---|---|---|---|
| One three-party contract | The creator, Brand A and Brand B all sign the same document | All terms in one place, no doubt about who agreed to what | Requires agreement on every term between three parties before anything can be signed — slower |
| Two separate bilateral contracts | The creator has one contract with each brand, each covering its own share of the deliverable | Faster to negotiate — each brand only has to agree with the creator, not with the other brand | |
| Lead brand contracts, partner brand settles with the lead | Only the lead brand has a contract with the creator; the partner brand pays and agrees terms directly with the lead brand, not with the creator | Simplest for the creator — only one counterparty | The partner brand has no direct contractual right against the creator if something goes wrong |
Whichever structure is chosen, the same 12 baseline terms in what to put in an influencer contract still apply — deliverables, payment, usage rights, exclusivity and disclosure. What co-marketing adds is one further layer: who gets what rights if only one of the two brands wants to keep using the content in paid ads afterward, while the other doesn't. Write that explicitly into the contract — don't assume both brands automatically hold the same usage rights to the finished content.
An exclusivity clause also needs particular attention here: if the creator has an exclusivity clause with Brand A that blocks working with Brand A's competitors, it needs to be worded so it doesn't unintentionally also block Brand B, or a future co-marketing partner in an entirely different category.
| Model | How it works | Best when |
|---|---|---|
| 50/50 split | Both brands pay exactly the same amount, regardless of how much of the content is really about each of them | Both brands contribute roughly equal product/exposure, and neither wants to spend time negotiating a different split |
| Proportional split | Cost is divided by an agreed key — e.g. share of screen time, number of mentions, or share of total product value in a giveaway | One brand's contribution clearly outweighs the other's in the finished content |
| Lead brand fronts it | One brand pays the creator's full fee and invoices the other brand afterward for its share | The creator wants a single paying counterparty, and the two brands already have a business relationship that makes settling up afterward straightforward |
The figures below are a made-up worked example to illustrate the principle — not a real deal or customer case.
The creator asks for EUR 2,000 for a bundle-giveaway video, where Brand A's product fills about 60% of the screen time and Brand B's about 40%. On a proportional split:
Had the two brands instead chosen a 50/50 split, both would pay EUR 1,000 — EUR 200 more for Brand B and EUR 200 less for Brand A than the proportional model gives. Neither model is "correct"; the point is that the choice needs to be agreed explicitly before the brief is written, not negotiated afterward based on whose product each brand thinks the content ended up favouring.
IF your two brands share an audience but don't compete for the same purchase decision → co-marketing can give both brands access to a following neither of you owns alone.
IF your organisations struggle to agree even on small creative decisions internally → choose the lead-brand model over the equal co-brief, so disagreement between two brands doesn't stall the content.
IF one brand stands to gain noticeably more from the collaboration than the other → use a proportional cost split rather than a fixed 50/50.
IF you can't agree in advance who's allowed to reuse the content in paid ads afterward → resolve that in the contract before booking the creator, not after the content is delivered.
IF one brand already has an existing, longer relationship with the creator and the other doesn't → use the lead-brand model, so the existing relationship doesn't have to be renegotiated from scratch for both parties. See also one-off campaigns vs long-term influencer partnerships for how an existing, long-term relationship with the creator already changes the negotiating position.
In our experience, co-marketing through a shared influencer is rarely a fixed, repeated campaign type for most brands — it typically arises when two brands already have a natural reason to appear together (two products used in the same routine or the same trip, for instance), and the creator themselves suggests it, or has already produced similar content organically. Our recommendation is to treat the model as an occasional addition to an otherwise ordinary campaign plan, not a standard part of every brief — it requires more coordination than an ordinary deal, and that extra coordination needs to be worth the extra exposure it buys.
This is our own operational experience coordinating this kind of collaboration, not a general industry standard.
Not necessarily. See the three contract structures above — some models have only one brand paying the creator directly, while the other settles with the first brand.
Technically, yes, but it rarely makes sense: the creator risks having to pick a side in future collaborations, and both brands' exclusivity clauses (if either has one) can end up in conflict. Co-marketing works best between brands that share an audience without competing for the same purchase decision.
That needs to be explicit in the contract — which brand holds which usage rights. Never assume usage rights are automatically shared just because the content is shared.
No. See the three structures above — a single joint three-party contract is only one of three valid ways to organise this legally.
No. A co-branded product collaboration is one creator whose name goes on one brand's product in exchange for royalty. Co-marketing is two brands sharing the same creator for the same piece of content — each brand's own product stays its own.
No. Here, both brands are equal partners funding the same creator from their own budgets. A structurally different model exists when a vendor funds a retail partner's local marketing instead — see market development funds (MDF) and co-op advertising for how that hierarchy works.
No. Co-marketing is two brands sharing one piece of content in one campaign. A structurally different situation is one creator holding several separate, ongoing agreements with brands that happen to share a parent company — see one creator, multiple sister brands for the exclusivity, disclosure and fee conflicts that raises instead.
No. Co-marketing means both brands pay the creator in cash. A distinct arrangement is two brands trading product or services directly with each other instead — see brand-to-brand barter deals via a shared influencer for the valuation and Danish VAT rules that apply to that structure.
Make Influence
Find creators with real audience data, run collaborations in one place, and see clicks and sales per creator while the campaign is live.
Book a demoCreate accountMake Influence
Apply to campaigns from brands that are actively looking, follow your own clicks and sales, and get paid without chasing invoices.
Create creator profileMore creator guidesMake Influence
Briefs, agreed terms, tracking links and results sit together — so brands and creators see the same numbers.
See how it worksBrowse the Academy
