Influee review

Terms grant a 'non-exclusive, worldwide, perpetual, sublicensable, and assignable license', with print and out-of-home explicitly excluded pending a separate agreement or add-on. Written into the contract rather than a FAQ. Held below Excellent because the licence is non-exclusive and says nothing about whitelisting, Spark Ads or Partnership Ads.

What this dimension measures: The decisive term and the one most often left unwritten. Score four things together: (a) duration — perpetual or lifetime scores high, a fixed window (30/90/180 days) is a real constraint and should be scored on its length, silence scores 2; (b) territory and media — worldwide and all-media scores 5, digital-only or an explicit print/OOH carve-out scores 4 because the exclusion is at least disclosed, an undisclosed scope scores 2; (c) paid media — does the licence expressly cover running the asset as an ad, or only organic and owned use; (d) whitelisting — can the brand run the ad from the creator's own handle (Meta Partnership Ads, TikTok Spark Ads), is that included or charged for, and for how long. A vendor that publishes an irrevocable, worldwide, all-media assignment covering paid, and states the whitelisting term, scores 5. A vendor whose terms define content rights as 'whatever the brand and creator agree per order' — no platform-level grant at all — scores 2 regardless of how transparent it is about saying so, because the highest-stakes term has been pushed onto the buyer to negotiate one creator at a time. Marketing copy that promises more than the contract grants is a contradiction, not evidence: score the contract and record the gap. Silence anywhere in (a)-(d) scores 2, never unknown. Counts for 25% of the weighted score.

Evidence: verified — checked against a named source you can open; the links under Sources below are where to check it yourself.

140,000+ creators claimed across 23 countries, with the vetting described only as 'we review every creator on our platform, making sure they have good authentic content making skills'. A roster figure and a subjective standard, not a method.

What this dimension measures: How are creators found, and what is actually checked before one is put in front of a brand? Depth, not headcount: a described method — portfolio review, audience-quality analysis, past-brand performance, prior ad results, a certification step — scores 4-5. A large roster with the single word 'vetted' and no stated criteria scores 2-3; a pool in the millions with no described standard scores lower than a curated pool of thousands with one, because at that scale 'vetted' means 'signed up'. Score 5 only where the vetting is checkable or the criteria are published. Treat internally inconsistent roster figures on the vendor's own pages as a verified finding and score down: a number the vendor contradicts on its own site is not a number. Managed selection (the vendor shortlists) scores above pure self-serve search only where the shortlisting criteria are described. Counts for 15% of the weighted score.

Evidence: vendor stated — the agency’s own claim, recorded as theirs rather than ours.

The terms impose a hard deadline on the creator: upload within seven days of confirmed product delivery, or within seven days of collaboration start where no product ships, and a revised version within seven days of rejection. The site states 7-10 days brief to delivery. A contractual commitment, not an average — the strongest cycle-time evidence in the category.

What this dimension measures: Days from an approved brief to usable files in hand — the operating constraint on how fast a creative test loop can turn. A published, specific figure (e.g. 'content in 7-10 business days', 'first applications in 1-3 business days') scores 4-5; a contractual delivery deadline binding the creator scores 5, since that is a commitment rather than an average. Two-to-three weeks scores 3: real, published, and slow. Relative claims ('75% faster', 'fresh creative every week') are marketing, not a cycle time — score 2. No figure anywhere scores 2. Where the model requires physical product to be shipped to each creator before filming, say so: shipping is inside the cycle and it is rarely counted in the vendor's number. Counts for 15% of the weighted score.

Evidence: verified — checked against a named source you can open; the links under Sources below are where to check it yourself.

Monthly collaboration volumes published per plan — 10 (Starter), 25 (Basic), 50 (Pro), custom (Enterprise) — with unlimited content per collaboration. The clearest published monthly volume of any vendor here.

What this dimension measures: How many finished assets can a buyer actually get in a month, and is the ceiling knowable in advance? Published per-plan volumes (collaborations per month, videos per credit pack, creators per campaign) score 4-5 even when modest, because the buyer can forecast. Genuinely budget-bound throughput on a marketplace — pay per creator, no queue — scores 4, but only where nothing else caps it. 'Unlimited' with no stated concurrency, campaign cap or asset count scores 2: unlimited submissions is not throughput. Aggregate lifetime or platform-wide figures ('230K pieces of content created', 'thousands of assets each month across all brands') are not per-client volume and score 2. Where a vendor names a client, live ads in the Meta Ad Library can contradict a volume claim; that contradiction is a verified Poor. Counts for 15% of the weighted score.

Evidence: verified — checked against a named source you can open; the links under Sources below are where to check it yourself.

None described. Influee supplies content, AI video and editing; nothing indicates anyone reads the resulting ad performance or briefs the next round off it.

What this dimension measures: Does anything the vendor measures come back and change the next brief? A named loop — results read, winners identified, next round briefed off them — scores 4-5, and 5 requires the measured outcome to be ad-account performance (CPA, ROAS, spend reallocation), not engagement. Where the loop exists but the measured outcome is organic social metrics or a content score rather than ad results, cap at 4. Iteration only on client-relayed feedback scores 3. A pure order-and-receive marketplace, where the vendor never learns what happened to the asset, scores 2 — that is the honest score for most of this category and it is the line between a content supplier and a performance creative partner. 'Boost ad performance' as a benefit claim on a landing page is not a loop. Counts for 12% of the weighted score.

Evidence: inferred — our reading of indirect evidence, not a documented fact.

Stronger here: Carusele scores Excellent on the same dimension.

No FTC or endorsement-disclosure process located in the terms or on the site. Scored low with low confidence rather than penalised heavily.

What this dimension measures: Creator content carries endorsement-disclosure liability that lands on the advertiser, not the creator. Score: creators contractually required to disclose, plus a training/certification step and monitoring, scores 5; a contractual disclosure obligation with no monitoring scores 3-4; nothing published anywhere scores 2 with LOW confidence rather than a heavy penalty, since most of this category never addresses it in public. Do not credit adjacent compliance for this: GDPR, SOC 2 and data-processing language are not endorsement disclosure. Where the vendor also clears music and third-party rights, or checks submissions against the brief before they reach the brand, note it here — it is the same risk-transfer question. Counts for 8% of the weighted score.

Evidence: inferred — our reading of indirect evidence, not a documented fact.

Stronger here: Cohley scores Excellent on the same dimension.

Published tiers at $229, $529 and $999/month with stated collaboration volumes, a stated 10% marketplace fee, creator payments explicitly excluded, an average $57 per 30-second US UGC video quoted from platform data, and a money-back guarantee if no suitable creators are found on a first campaign.

What this dimension measures: Published per-asset, per-creator or per-month pricing scores 4-5; scores 5 where the creator payment itself is included or its floor is published, since a subscription price that excludes the actual cost of content is half a number. Published tiers with the platform fee and any marketplace percentage stated score 5. A published floor with no rate card scores 4. A pricing page carrying no prices scores 2. No public anchor at all, quote-only, scores 1 — and a pricing URL that now redirects to a login wall or has been removed from the sitemap is a withdrawal of disclosure and scores 1 on verified evidence. Score commercial terms alongside the number: month-to-month and no-contract score up; annual lock-in, non-refundable fees and expiring credit balances score down and should be named. Counts for 10% of the weighted score.

Evidence: verified — checked against a named source you can open; the links under Sources below are where to check it yourself.