Worked Example: 10 Influencers, UGC + Commission

WORKED EXAMPLE. All numbers below are hypothetical and for illustration only. This is not a real Make Influence customer case, and none of the figures are benchmarks or averages. The point is the model you can reuse — replace every assumption with your own.

The short answer

In this example a brand runs 10 influencers on a mixed deal: three content-led creators at DKK 3,500 upfront, seven performance-led creators at DKK 1,000 upfront, a flat 10% commission on tracked sales, and DKK 6,000 for UGC and usage rights. Those creators drive 300 tracked orders at a DKK 700 average order value — DKK 210,000 in tracked revenue. Total creator cost is DKK 44,500. At a 55% gross margin the campaign produces DKK 115,500 of gross profit and DKK 71,000 of contribution after creator costs, a blended ROAS of about 4.7. Whether that is good depends on your margin, your other costs and what else you bought. Every calculation is shown below so you can rebuild it with your own figures.

The assumptions

Two of these deserve a flag. Tracked orders is only as real as your attribution window and tooling — see how to track influencer marketing performance. And gross margin is the number most brands leave out of the math, which is exactly why campaigns can look profitable and quietly aren't.

The calculation

Each line is a plain formula. Work top to bottom:

• Tracked revenue = tracked orders × AOV = 300 × 700 = DKK 210,000
• Total upfront = (3 × 3,500) + (7 × 1,000) = 10,500 + 7,000 = DKK 17,500
• Commission = 10% × revenue = 0.10 × 210,000 = DKK 21,000
• Rights + content cost = DKK 6,000 (fixed, agreed up front)
• Total creator cost = upfront + commission + rights = 17,500 + 21,000 + 6,000 = DKK 44,500
• Gross profit before creator cost = revenue × margin = 210,000 × 0.55 = DKK 115,500
• Contribution after creator cost = gross profit − total creator cost = 115,500 − 44,500 = DKK 71,000
• Blended ROAS = revenue ÷ total creator cost = 210,000 ÷ 44,500 = 4.7

How to read it

Contribution, not ROAS, is the number that pays your bills. A 4.7 ROAS sounds strong, but the DKK 71,000 contribution is what actually remains to cover overhead, fulfilment beyond COGS, returns and profit.

Watch the fixed-versus-variable split. DKK 23,500 of the creator cost — the upfront fees plus rights — is fixed: you owe it whether you get 300 orders or 30. Only the DKK 21,000 commission scales with sales. That single split drives every scenario below.

You bought three things, not one: direct sales (what commission rewards), reusable content, and the right to run that content as ads. Judging the whole spend on tracked sales alone undercounts two of the three — see hybrid influencer deals.

Sensitivity: change one assumption at a time

A. Half as many orders

Revenue halves to DKK 105,000 and commission halves to DKK 10,500 — but upfront and rights don't move. Creator cost is DKK 34,000, gross profit DKK 57,750, contribution DKK 23,750. Halving orders cut contribution by two-thirds, not half, because the fixed DKK 23,500 now has to be absorbed by far less gross profit. The more you load into guaranteed upfront, the more order volume you need to stay safe.

B. Gross margin falls to 30%

Orders and revenue are unchanged, so ROAS stays at 4.7 — identical to the base case. Yet gross profit drops to DKK 63,000 and contribution collapses to DKK 18,500. ROAS is blind to margin. Two campaigns with the same ROAS can earn very different profit. Always run the margin line; never judge on ROAS alone.

C. Brand adds a 15% customer discount

A discount code cuts the price customers pay to DKK 595, so revenue on 300 orders falls to DKK 178,500. Your COGS per unit doesn't change (still DKK 315), so gross profit per order drops from DKK 385 to DKK 280 and effective margin falls to about 47%. Commission (10% of the discounted revenue) is DKK 17,850. Contribution lands at DKK 42,650. A discount comes almost entirely out of gross profit, because your costs are fixed — a "small" 15% code erased DKK 28,350 of contribution here. If the discount also lifts order count, model that separately; don't assume it.

D. Identical terms for all 10 creators

Say the brand standardises everyone onto the DKK 3,500 content rate for simplicity. Upfront jumps to DKK 35,000, creator cost to DKK 62,000, and contribution falls to DKK 53,500 — DKK 17,500 lost for no extra output, because the seven performance creators were never going to produce premium content. Flip it the other way, everyone on DKK 1,000, and you save DKK 7,500 upfront but the three content creators who supplied your reusable assets and ad rights either walk or stop producing that work — so you lose value that never shows on this spreadsheet. Uniform terms are operationally easy and economically wrong: pay for the role, not the person — see how much should brands pay influencers.

Decision rules

• IF most of your creator cost is fixed upfront → you need reliable order volume; shift weight toward commission when volume is uncertain. See upfront vs commission.
• IF ROAS looks fine but contribution is thin → check margin (scenario B) before scaling.
• IF you run discount codes → re-run the model on the discounted price, not the list price (scenario C).
• IF you're tempted to give everyone the same deal → price the role, not the person (scenario D).
• IF contribution only holds up because of content and rights value → state that explicitly and value those assets separately, or you'll cut the wrong creators.

What this model does NOT capture

• The value of UGC and rights beyond direct sales. Reusable ad creative can outperform the original posts for months — see how much does UGC cost and UGC usage rights explained.
• Returns, refunds and chargebacks, which reduce real revenue and margin.
• Attribution reality. "300 tracked orders" is only as true as your window and tooling — some sales are missed, some over-credited. See tracking performance.
• Halo effects: branded search, awareness and sales through channels the code never touched — which is also why engagement doesn't always show up as tracked sales.
• Operational time: briefing, approving and paying 10 creators is real load. See why manual influencer marketing becomes messy.
• Cashflow timing: upfront and rights are paid before revenue arrives; commission after.

How to use this with your own numbers

Replace AOV, order count, margin, the upfront tiers, the commission rate and the rights cost with yours. Keep the fixed-versus-variable split visible — it's the part that decides how much risk sits with the brand. Run at least the four scenarios above. Then judge the result on contribution, and value the content and rights separately from the sales line.

Most of the friction in reusing this model month after month isn't the arithmetic — it's getting clean numbers. Per-creator tracking links and codes, and commission that reconciles against real orders, are what make the "tracked orders" and "commission" lines trustworthy instead of estimated; Make Influence issues those links and codes and settles commission automatically, so the inputs to this model come out of the system rather than a spreadsheet. See how to track influencer marketing performance.

FAQ

Is ROAS a good way to judge an influencer campaign?

Not on its own. ROAS ignores gross margin (scenario B) and the value of content and rights. Use contribution as the primary number and keep ROAS as a secondary check.

Should I count UGC as a cost or an asset?

Both. It's a cost in the month you pay for it and an asset you keep using afterwards. If you judge it only against same-month tracked sales, you'll undervalue it — see hybrid influencer deals.

Why split upfront by role instead of paying everyone the same?

Because you're buying different things from different creators. Scenario D shows uniform terms either overpay performance creators or lose content creators — both worse than paying for the role.