Guide
Pricing & Negotiation
Brands
An exclusivity clause stops an influencer from working with competing brands for a period — usually limited to one product category (category exclusivity), more rarely to all sponsorships (full exclusivity). The period typically runs from a couple of days around a single post to 30-90 days after a campaign, or the whole contract term in an ambassador programme. Because the clause limits what the influencer can earn elsewhere, it should always be paid for as an add-on — never included for free.
An exclusivity clause stops an influencer from working with competing brands for an agreed period. It comes in two main forms: category exclusivity, which only blocks competing products within the same category, and full exclusivity, which blocks all sponsorships regardless of industry. The contract checklist lists exclusivity as one of 12 terms a contract needs to take a position on — this article goes deeper on how the clause should actually be worded, how long the period should run, and what it costs.
This is practical guidance from Make Influence, not legal advice. Have the actual contract wording, and any competition-law question, reviewed by a lawyer.
Most brands, if they raise the question at all, only ask for category exclusivity — a ban on working with directly competing brands, not a ban on every other collaboration. Full exclusivity, where the influencer can't take any other paid brand deal during the period, typically only shows up in high-profile ambassador deals where the influencer effectively becomes the face of the brand.
| Type | What it blocks | When it's used |
|---|---|---|
| Category exclusivity | Only brands in the same product category (e.g. other haircare brands) | Standard in most one-off and short collaborations |
| Full exclusivity | All paid sponsorships, regardless of industry | Rare — mainly long-term, high-compensation ambassador roles |
The period should be proportionate to how long the campaign is actually visible to the influencer's audience — a clause that runs longer than that costs more than it protects. Modash, which has compiled real examples from practicing creators and managers about their own agreed terms, shows a clear spread by the scale of the collaboration:
| Collaboration type | Typical period | Example |
|---|---|---|
| A single post | 1-2 days before and after | Fashion consultant Ben Williams recommends two days on either side of the post |
| Category exclusivity after a campaign | 30-90 days | Children's app Aumio requires one month of category exclusivity once the sponsored content goes live |
| Ambassador programme | The full contract term, often 12+ months | Tech brand Deeper Sonar requires partners to avoid mentioning competitors for the entire 1+ year relationship |
These are named examples of what specific brands and creators have actually agreed, per Modash's own reporting — not an official industry standard. Use them as reference points for what's normal to ask for, not as a rulebook.
Exclusivity costs money because it limits what the influencer can earn from other brands during the period — the broader the category and the longer the period, the larger the compensation should be. According to Modash's compiled examples from practicing creator managers, the add-on varies significantly depending on how hard the category is for the creator to avoid: manager Kristen Bousquet charges 10-15% of the base rate per 30-day period for categories that are easy to avoid, but around 50% of the base rate per month for categories that are hard to avoid. Creator Elena charges the full base rate for each additional month of exclusivity, while Jalyn Baiden requires a USD 200 minimum for any exclusivity arrangement, regardless of category.
The point isn't that you should use these exact rates — they're named individuals' own quoted prices, not a fixed industry norm. The point is that exclusivity should always be priced separately, never folded into the standard fee for free. If the influencer has a manager or agency, exclusivity is often one of the terms the agency is least willing to move on — see negotiating with an influencer's manager or agency for what's typically fixed and what's negotiable once a third party is at the table.
The most common mistake is a clause worded too broadly to be usable: "no other beauty brands" hits almost any influencer working in beauty, and makes the clause so expensive to honour fairly that the influencer turns it down. Scope it to directly competing products instead — "other curly-hair care lines", not "all haircare brands". The narrower and more precise the definition, the easier it is to price fairly for both sides, and the smaller the risk of disagreement over whether a specific collaboration actually breaches the clause.
The contract should take an explicit position on what happens if the influencer posts for a competitor during the period anyway — not leave it to be argued out afterward. The typical remedies are: requiring the competing post to be taken down, full or partial repayment of the fee already paid, and the right to terminate the rest of the collaboration without further payment. This connects to the contract's general termination and breach term — exclusivity shouldn't stand as an isolated clause with no consequence if it's broken. The reverse scenario — the brand cancelling instead — is covered in kill fees and early termination clauses in influencer contracts.
An often-overlooked detail: does exclusivity start when the contract is signed, or only once the sponsored content actually goes live? If the campaign is delayed or cancelled and the clause runs from the signing date, the influencer can end up locked in for a period during which the brand never delivered its side of the deal. Run the period from the publish date, not the signing date, unless there's a good reason to do otherwise.
The figures below are a made-up worked example to illustrate the point — not a real customer case.
A brand agrees a fee of DKK 20,000 for one Reel, with no exclusivity. The brand decides to ask for 60 days of category exclusivity — the influencer can't post for other brands in the same category for the next two months. Using Kristen Bousquet's model (10-15% of the base rate per 30-day period for a category that's relatively easy to avoid), the add-on lands at 15% × 2 periods = 30% of DKK 20,000, or DKK 6,000. The total fee becomes DKK 26,000. Had the brand instead asked for full exclusivity over the same period — no other sponsorships at all — the price under Elena's model (full base rate per additional month) would instead land at DKK 20,000 + 2 × DKK 20,000 = DKK 60,000, more than double. The difference shows why category exclusivity is by far the more common solution: it gives the brand the protection it actually needs, without requiring the influencer to price it as if every income source had been shut off.
IF the campaign is a single post → ask for at most 1-2 days of exclusivity around the publish date, if at all.
IF it's a defined campaign with a clear competitor → ask for 30-90 days of category exclusivity, and price it as an add-on, not a given.
IF it's an ambassador programme → category exclusivity for the full contract term is normal and expected on both sides — see how to run an influencer ambassador program.
IF you can't define "competitor" precisely enough to write it down → drop the clause, or hold off until you can.
IF the collaboration is a gifted product with no fee → exclusivity rarely makes sense to ask for free — see gifting vs paid collaborations for when free product works as a model at all.
In our experience, the most common reason an otherwise good influencer turns down a repeat collaboration is an exclusivity clause added with no extra payment — not the principle of exclusivity itself. Most influencers accept a well-scoped category exclusivity if the price matches the real income restriction. A long-term partnership doesn't automatically require exclusivity either — the two are separate terms; see one-off campaigns vs long-term influencer partnerships for how to keep them apart. This is our operational experience running influencer and UGC programmes, not a general rule.
No. Without an explicit clause, the influencer is free to work with anyone, including competitors, immediately.
Yes — the clause limits what the influencer can earn during the period, so it should always be compensated separately, whether as a fixed percentage or a flat add-on.
Yes, that's normal and widely accepted for that type of collaboration — but it should still be category exclusivity, not full exclusivity, unless the compensation matches it.
Rarely in practice — most gifted-product collaborations are too short and low-intensity for exclusivity to make sense to ask for, let alone without payment. See gifting vs paid collaborations.
Technically yes, but it's the most common source of disagreement. Where possible, name the specific competitors or the precise product category in the contract itself, rather than leaving the interpretation for later.
No. Exclusivity governs what the influencer can do while the current deal is running. A right of first refusal or renewal option governs what happens once the deal expires — whether the brand gets priority to renew before the influencer can sign elsewhere. See right of first refusal and renewal options in influencer contracts for how the two fit together in the same contract.
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
