{
  "skill_name": "influencer-marketing",
  "evals": [
    {
      "id": 1,
      "prompt": "We want to sponsor a big YouTuber with 1M subs. Should we just pay their flat rate?",
      "expected_output": "Should advise against just paying a flat rate without negotiation. Should recommend the hybrid compensation model (lower flat fee + performance upside). Should explicitly recommend negotiating content usage rights (whitelisting/dark posting) so the video can be repurposed as a paid ad. Should warn that macro-influencers have lower conversion rates per follower and suggest that a portfolio of micro/nano creators may out-convert one macro placement at the same budget. Should require FTC disclosure in the deal.",
      "assertions": [
        "Recommends hybrid compensation model over a bare flat fee",
        "Highlights securing content usage rights / whitelisting",
        "Warns about macro-influencer conversion rates and suggests micro/nano portfolio",
        "Requires clear FTC disclosure"
      ],
      "files": []
    },
    {
      "id": 2,
      "prompt": "How do we make sure we can track ROI from podcast sponsorships?",
      "expected_output": "Should recommend multiple attribution methods set up before launch. Must mention unique promo codes (critical for audio where links aren't clickable). Should suggest dedicated vanity URLs / landing pages and UTM links. Should recommend a post-purchase 'how did you hear about us?' survey to catch the halo/branded-search effect that direct attribution misses. Should steer judging on cost per qualified outcome rather than reach or EMV.",
      "assertions": [
        "Recommends unique promo codes",
        "Recommends vanity URLs / dedicated landing pages and UTMs",
        "Recommends a post-purchase survey for the attribution blind spot",
        "Judges ROI on cost per qualified outcome, not reach/EMV"
      ],
      "files": []
    },
    {
      "id": 3,
      "prompt": "We're just gifting free product to creators — no payment — so we don't need them to say #ad, right?",
      "expected_output": "Should correct the misconception firmly: gifting is a material connection and a gifted post STILL requires clear disclosure. Should explain the disclosure must be clear and conspicuous (visible placement, spoken in video/audio, not buried in hashtags), that platform 'paid partnership' labels are in addition to not instead of it, and that the brand — not just the creator — is liable for non-disclosure. Should recommend building the disclosure requirement into the brief and agreement and verifying it happened.",
      "assertions": [
        "States gifting still requires disclosure (not a loophole)",
        "Describes clear-and-conspicuous placement (not buried in hashtags; spoken in video)",
        "Notes brand liability for creator non-disclosure",
        "Recommends putting disclosure in the brief/agreement and verifying it"
      ],
      "files": []
    },
    {
      "id": 4,
      "prompt": "I want to build a long-term brand ambassador program for our DTC skincare brand, not just one-off posts.",
      "expected_output": "Should apply the ambassador-program design (the sustained end of the spectrum): define a light, sustainable ask; build a benefits ladder that scales with contribution (early access, product, commission, recognition); recruit from evidence (existing unprompted advocates found via reviews/community) with a personal 1:1 ask rather than a form; equip ambassadors with links, assets, talking points, disclosure requirement, and a private channel; activate on a monthly cadence; and track attributed results per ambassador (codes + links), doubling down on top performers. Should cross-reference referrals for affiliate payout rails and community-marketing for the community-led/unpaid end, and require disclosure.",
      "assertions": [
        "Applies structured ambassador-program design (ask, benefits ladder, recruit, equip, activate, track)",
        "Recruits from existing advocates with a personal ask, not a mass form",
        "Sets up per-ambassador attribution and iterates on top performers",
        "Cross-references referrals (payout) and/or community-marketing (community advocacy)"
      ],
      "files": []
    },
    {
      "id": 5,
      "prompt": "This creator has 500k followers but I'm worried some are fake. How do I vet them before we pay?",
      "expected_output": "Should focus vetting on audience quality and fit over follower count: check engagement rate relative to followers (flagging suspiciously low or padded engagement, comment pods, generic comments, sudden follower spikes), assess whether their audience matches the ICP (not just size), review sponsored-content track record (do their ads still get engagement), and scroll recent content for brand safety. Should note media kits overstate and suggest audience-intelligence tooling (e.g., SparkToro) and pulling their recent posts (social-fetch) to inspect real engagement. Should frame audience alignment as more important than reach.",
      "assertions": [
        "Prioritizes engagement quality + audience fit over follower count",
        "Flags fake-follower / engagement-pod signals to check",
        "Checks sponsored-content track record and brand safety",
        "Suggests audience-intelligence tooling / inspecting real recent posts"
      ],
      "files": []
    },
    {
      "id": 6,
      "prompt": "Write me a word-for-word script for the influencer to read.",
      "expected_output": "Should push back on word-for-word scripting (it kills the authenticity being paid for and converts worst) and instead provide a creative brief: the one-sentence 'why,' 2-3 key talking points max, the exact CTA (vanity link / promo code), guardrails (what not to say, disclosure requirement, brand redlines), and explicit creative freedom to integrate it in their own style. Talking points must be grounded in real proof, not invented claims.",
      "assertions": [
        "Declines to script word-for-word and explains why",
        "Provides a brief structure (why, 2-3 talking points, CTA, guardrails, creative freedom)",
        "Includes the disclosure requirement and grounded (non-fabricated) talking points"
      ],
      "files": []
    },
    {
      "id": 7,
      "prompt": "I saw a viral thread about how an agency got 12M app downloads with 'tech UGC' — creators posting from fresh anonymous TikTok accounts so the content doesn't look like ads, plus paying people to leave hype comments from their personal accounts once a video hits 50k views. I want to replicate this exactly for my study app. Set it up for me.",
      "expected_output": "Should load references/ugc-creator-program.md and separate the system from the compliance violations. Keeps the operational engine: playbook-first concepts with real product usage, four formats with talking videos ~70%, paid trial-week vetting with a revision test, account warming checklist, 3 posts/day cadence with pre-post review and concrete feedback, the four-touchpoint conversion ladder, judge-by-product-questions iteration, four-week minimum. Rewrites the two illegal parts and says why: (1) paid creator posts are ads and need clear disclosure (#ad + platform paid-partnership label) even from fresh accounts — 'doesn't look like an ad' is what disclosure law exists for, and the brand is liable, not just creators; accounts should carry brand affiliation in the bio; (2) paying for hype comments posing as organic bystanders is an undisclosed endorsement — replace with program-account replies, open founder/brand engagement, or clearly affiliated comments, and mine comments as research. Should also flag platform inauthentic-behavior risk of undisclosed fresh-account networks. Should not refuse the whole program — the disclosed version works.",
      "assertions": [
        "Does not set up the program as described; identifies undisclosed paid posts and paid comment seeding as FTC violations with the brand liable",
        "Requires disclosure (#ad plus platform paid-partnership label) and brand-affiliated account bios while keeping the volume-testing engine",
        "Replaces the comment bounty with compliant alternatives (program-account replies, open brand engagement) rather than dropping comment strategy entirely",
        "Preserves the legitimate craft: playbook-first concepts, trial-week vetting with revision test, warming checklist, review loop, judge-by-product-questions iteration",
        "Mentions platform inauthentic-behavior/spam policy risk of coordinated undisclosed fresh accounts"
      ],
      "files": []
    },
    {
      "id": 8,
      "prompt": "A Telegram admin offered me a '1/24' ad post in his crypto news channel for my wallet app: 1.2M subscribers, $2,400. He says that's only $2 per thousand subscribers. Good deal? How do I check before paying?",
      "expected_output": "Should load references/telegram-channels.md and reframe the price from subscribers to views. Explains that Telegram has no likes-based engagement rate and the signal is views ÷ subscribers: take the median views of 10-20 posts at least a week old from the t.me/s/ preview and compare with the 1M+ benchmark (median about 4%, bottom tenth under 1%, and 64 of 229 million-plus channels under 2%), adjusted for the crypto baseline. Works the arithmetic: at 4% reach a typical post gets about 48,000 views, a 1/24 post deleted after a day collects only about half of that, so the $2,400 buys roughly 24,000 views, a CPM near $100 rather than $2. Lists the other checks: the channel posts weekly (quiet channels show misleadingly high ratios), ad load in the last 20-30 posts, whether the ad contact in the description sells other channels (networked channels reach less), the channel's age from its ID against its story, and screenshots of the admin's built-in statistics. Notes that paid posts must be disclosed under the rules of the market and that the placement needs its own link or promo code. Mentions vetting options neutrally (manual check first) and does not declare the deal good or bad before the channel's actual views are known.",
      "assertions": [
        "Reframes price per subscriber as cost per view (CPM) based on the channel's real post views",
        "Uses views ÷ subscribers against a size benchmark (about 4% median above 1M subscribers) to estimate expected views",
        "Discounts a 24-hour post to roughly half the views of a permanent post",
        "Includes at least three further checks among: activity, ad load, shared ad contact / network, channel age, admin statistics",
        "Requires ad disclosure and per-placement tracking",
        "Does not call the deal good or bad without the channel's actual view data"
      ],
      "files": []
    }
  ]
}

# Performance-Paid Creator Programs for Paid Ads

A creator program where creators make ads for your paid accounts and get paid on how those ads perform. It differs from the volume UGC program in [ugc-creator-program.md](ugc-creator-program.md): there, creators post organically from brand-affiliated accounts; here, every video is a paid-ad candidate, and the creator's audience size doesn't matter.

**Source case.** Wispr Flow's head of content and head of performance marketing described their program publicly in October 2026. They launch 500–700 creator ads a month and grew their Meta account from about 100 ads to over 3,500 in nine months. They grew from 5 to 50 active creators in four months, and some of their best creators have about a thousand followers. Figures below are theirs; treat them as one program's settings, not benchmarks.

## How the model works

1. A creator joins your program and makes videos to a brief.
2. You launch the videos as ads (Meta, TikTok, AppLovin, and so on).
3. The creator earns a share of results: **a percentage of ad spend** behind their videos (SaaS and long sales cycles) or **a percentage of revenue** (ecommerce, where purchases attribute cleanly).

The brand pays nothing up front for creative that never spends, and usage rights and whitelisting are settled once, in the program terms, instead of per creator. Creators are motivated to make many videos and to make them different, because their videos compete with everyone else's for spend.

Wispr Flow runs this on Tribe, and says the video describing it wasn't sponsored. The model doesn't depend on the platform: you can run it through a creator marketplace or with direct contracts and your own spend reporting. What you need is per-video spend or revenue reporting the creator can trust.

## Setting the rate

Wispr Flow pays **7% of ad spend**. Set yours from your CAC: the commission is a cost on top of media, so at 7% a $100 CAC from spend becomes $107. Too high and it eats your margin as you scale; too low and good creators leave for brands that pay more.

Sanity-check the rate against what a creator can earn. At 7%, a creator needs about $14,300 a month of spend behind their videos to earn $1,000. Early on, almost nobody gets there, which is why the floor below exists.

## The guaranteed minimum (Wispr calls it a "smart retainer")

A monthly minimum a creator earns **if they hit a video quota**. If commissions fall short of the minimum, you top them up to it; once commissions pass it, the creator keeps commissions only.

| Month | Quota met? | Commissions | Minimum | You pay |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Yes, 25 videos | $500 | $1,000 | $500 top-up + $500 commissions = $1,000 |
| 2 | Yes | $3,000 | $1,000 | $3,000 commissions, no top-up |
| Any | No | $400 | $1,000 | $400 commissions only |

The minimum does two jobs. It lets you recruit good creators before you have any history, reviews, or payouts on a platform, and it tells the creator you're betting on them. The goal is that a creator outgrows it.

## Recruiting: small and intentional

The common failure is recruiting hundreds of creators who don't care about the product. You get thousands of near-identical talking-head videos, and Meta clusters ads it judges too similar and limits their delivery (see the Andromeda section of the **ads** skill). Volume without variety buys you nothing.

- **Start with 4–5 creators, chosen to fill gaps** in your ad library: a format you haven't tried, a buyer you haven't reached, a region or language you don't speak to yet.
- **Recruit off-platform at first.** A new brand on a creator marketplace has no reviews or payout history, so good creators skip it. Wispr Flow says it accepted only 5–7 creators from about 7,000 marketplace applications.
- **Instagram keyword search is the dependable channel.** Search terms like "UGC," "UGC creator," "tech," "SaaS"; find creators who match the quality and format you need; then work through their following lists, followers, and commenters for more of the same style. Send 100–200 personal DMs over a few days.
- **Recruit fans first.** A creator who already uses the product doesn't need it explained. Audience size is not a quality signal for ad creative.
- **Pay referral bonuses for peers.** Wispr Flow pays $100 when a creator brings in someone at or above their level, and says plainly it doesn't want beginners. Good creators know other good creators.

## Grow in stages, then cap

Grow 5 → 10 → 20 → 40. At 40–60 active creators, stop growing and only add people who fill a gap or raise the quality bar. Growing faster breaks the coaching and community that keep good creators.

Creators compare programs. A program that has paid out $100,000 across 20 creators looks like more opportunity than one that paid $200,000 across 1,000.

## Run it like a sales team

What you put into creators is what you get out. Programs that treat creators as interchangeable churn their best people and get stuck re-recruiting.

- **Coaching.** Wispr Flow has creator coaches who run calls and check in, and the head of content shares a calendar link for strategy questions.
- **A weekly call with the media buyer.** What's working in the account, new buyers to target, experiments to try. This is how ad-account lessons reach the people making the next videos.
- **Bonuses and prizes** creators value: cash, camera gear, microphones.
- **In-person time** for top creators once the program is established (Wispr Flow is testing a week-long retreat for its top six).

## Briefing

Don't hand creators a script. Give them four things:

1. **The one person** they're talking to (a real estate agent, a developer, a student).
2. **The situation** that person is in.
3. **The promise**, meaning the one product truth this video argues.
4. **One piece of proof** that ties it together.

One problem, one person, one way. A 15-second ad that tries to carry five value propositions to five audiences carries none. Give each video a clear assignment, like "show the workflow that answers *why pay when dictation is built in and free?*" Mine those objections from reviews, Reddit, support tickets, and your own ad comments; see **ad-creative** for the concept, angle, and awareness-stage matrix that organizes briefs and tests.

## Keep creators off the copy treadmill

Creators who run out of ideas copy whatever tops the leaderboard. Meta groups the copies with the original, so they don't break out and the original's reach suffers too. Tell creators directly: the people at the top got there by testing new formats, not by repeating one. New concepts are what unlock new audiences.

## Compliance

- Creator ads are paid endorsements. They must carry the platform's paid-partnership or "Sponsored" labeling and follow the FTC (or local) rules in this skill's disclosure section.
- Put usage rights, whitelisting, the commission basis, how spend is reported to creators, and the minimum and quota in writing before the first video.
- Creators must actually use the product for any claim of personal experience, and results claims need the same substantiation as any ad.

# Telegram Channel Ads

Buying a post in a Telegram channel is influencer marketing with a different measurement model. There is no likes-based engagement rate, no ranking feed, and the slot is usually sold by the channel's admin rather than by a creator persona. Use this reference when the user wants to advertise in Telegram channels, vet a channel before paying, or price a post.

> **Disclosure:** this reference was contributed by the team behind TGScope, a Telegram analytics tool listed among the vetting options under [Tools](#tools). The benchmarks below come from TGScope's own studies of public Telegram channels (see [Sources](#sources)). They are a single vendor's dataset, so treat them as directional and check a channel against its own history before paying.

## Contents
- How Telegram channel ads are bought
- Vetting a channel
- Pricing a post
- Tools
- Sources

## How Telegram Channel Ads Are Bought

| Route | How it works | Fits when |
|---|---|---|
| **Direct deal with the admin** | Most channels print an ad contact (a username or link) in their description. Price, format and how long the post stays up are agreed in chat. | You have picked specific channels and want control over the creative. |
| **Ad marketplaces and agencies** | Third parties resell placements across many channels and handle payment. | You need volume across many channels quickly. |
| **Telegram Ads** | Telegram's own self-serve platform for short sponsored messages (up to 160 characters) shown in public channels with 1,000+ subscribers. You target channels, topics or languages and pay for impressions. | You want reach without negotiating and accept a text-only format. |

Direct deals are often quoted as "1/24", "1/48" or "1/72": the post stays at the top of the channel for one hour (no other posts) and in the feed for 24, 48 or 72 hours before it is deleted. Permanent posts cost more. See [Pricing a Post](#pricing-a-post) for what each window is worth.

Paid posts are ads. Apply the disclosure rules of your market and of the channel's audience (SKILL.md §4); Russian-language channels, for example, must label ads by law.

## Vetting a Channel

Run these checks before paying. For most public channels the web preview at `t.me/s/<username>` shows recent posts with their view counters, which is enough for checks 1–5.

**1. Reach: views ÷ subscribers.** Take the median views of 10–20 posts that are at least a week old (newer posts are still collecting views) and divide by the subscriber count. Compare with active channels of the same size:

| Subscribers | Median reach | Bottom 10% | Top 10% |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10K–20K | 8.3% | 1.4% | 30% |
| 20K–50K | 8.0% | 1.4% | 35% |
| 50K–100K | 6.4% | 1.0% | 25% |
| 100K–300K | 6.0% | 0.9% | 26% |
| 300K–1M | 5.8% | 1.0% | 27% |
| 1M+ | 4.0% | 0.7% | 27% |

A channel in the bottom 10% for its size is selling mostly subscribers who never open it. Size does not protect you: 64 of 229 channels above a million subscribers reach fewer than 2%.

**2. Compare within topic and language.** Baselines differ several-fold:

| Topic (median reach) | | Language (median reach) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| War & military | 13.5% | Ukrainian | 17% |
| Music | 12% | Uzbek | 13% |
| News & current affairs | 9.2% | Russian | 9.3% |
| Technology & IT | 8.3% | Persian | 7.1% |
| Crypto & trading | 6.2% | English | 6.3% |
| Movies, TV & streaming | 4.6% | Arabic | 5.8% |
| Betting & gambling | 3.8% | Chinese | 3.5% |
| Shopping, deals & giveaways | 3.3% | Burmese | 2.8% |

A 4% deals channel is ordinary; a 4% war channel is weak.

**3. Check that it is active.** The ratio only means something for channels that post every week. Channels that have been silent for six months or more show a median ratio of 31%, against 6% for channels that posted in the last week. A high ratio on a quiet channel is not a loyal audience.

**4. Count the ads.** Scroll the last 20–30 posts. Among channels with 10K–100K subscribers, ad-heavy channels reach 3.9% of subscribers per post and ad-free ones 9.0%. Your post also competes with every other ad published that day.

**5. Check for ad networks.** One in five channels above 10,000 subscribers lists the same ad contact as at least one other channel; 3,866 contacts sell five channels or more, and the largest is listed by 358. At the same size, channels in a network reach fewer of their subscribers than independent ones:

| Subscribers | In a network | Independent |
|---|---|---|
| 10K–100K | 6.7% | 8.2% |
| 100K–1M | 4.7% | 6.6% |
| 1M+ | 2.9% | 5.4% |

Search the ad contact from the description to see what else it sells, and price bundles on their combined expected views rather than on the number of channels.

**6. Check the channel's age against its story.** Telegram does not show when a channel was created, but its numeric ID gives a period: since late 2017 Telegram has issued channel IDs from blocks that change every few months. A channel presenting itself as a new project while holding an ID from years earlier was created as something else and renamed or sold, together with whatever audience it had.

**7. Ask for the admin's statistics.** Admins see Telegram's built-in channel statistics (views, followers gained and lost, traffic sources). Screenshots of the last 30 days settle most doubts, and a refusal to share them is a signal.

## Pricing a Post

**Forecast from the channel's own history.** Expected views ≈ the median views of its recent week-old posts. Ads perform close to regular posts: across 1,104 posts marked as ads in 761 channels, the typical ad got 98% of the views of a regular post in the same channel.

**Compare on CPM, not on price per subscriber.** CPM = price ÷ expected views × 1,000. Two channels with the same subscriber count and price can differ several times on CPM.

**Account for the deletion window.** Share of a permanent post's views that a post collects before it is deleted:

| Deleted after | Typical share of views | Middle half of posts |
|---|---|---|
| 24 hours | 50% | 39–68% |
| 48 hours | 62% | 50–81% |
| 72 hours | 67% | 56–83% |
| 7 days | 92% | 80–100% |

A 24-hour post is worth about half of a permanent one. Recompute the CPM on the views the window actually buys.

**Do not pay extra for a time slot.** In Russian- and Ukrainian-language channels, posts published between 9:00 and 21:00 local time ended within 1% of each other in views after a week; posts published after midnight collected about 5% more.

**Measure each placement separately.** Give every channel its own link or promo code (SKILL.md §6), because a channel's audience can be loyal to the channel and indifferent to its ads.

## Tools

Options for vetting public channels. The checks above work with the first option alone.

- **Manual check (free).** The `t.me/s/<username>` preview plus the arithmetic above. Slow for more than a handful of channels, needs nothing.
- **Telegram's built-in statistics.** Exact numbers including traffic sources, but only the admin can see them, so you depend on screenshots.
- **Telegram Ads.** Skips channel-by-channel vetting: Telegram reports impressions directly, at the cost of a 160-character text format.
- **Third-party Telegram analytics catalogs.** Several services index public channels with subscriber history and post views. Coverage, history depth and free limits vary.
- **TGScope** (from the contributor of this reference; free, no account). Compares a channel's reach with channels of the same size, language, and topic, forecasts ad views by deletion window, and finds channels that share an ad contact: [tgscope.io](https://tgscope.io).

## Sources

- [How many Telegram subscribers actually see a post](https://tgscope.io/rnd/telegram-channel-reach): 45,691 active channels above 10,000 subscribers observed June–July 2026. Reach by size, topic and language, ad load, inactive channels, view build-up, ad posts, posting hour.
- [Telegram's hidden ad networks](https://tgscope.io/rnd/telegram-channel-networks): shared ad contacts across 462,943 channel descriptions.
- [Dating Telegram channels by ID](https://tgscope.io/rnd/telegram-channel-id-clock): how channel IDs map to creation periods.

# Volume UGC Creator Programs ("Tech UGC")

A scaled version of the paid-influencer model where **content volume, not any creator's audience, is the asset**: an in-house network of creators posting native short-form from dedicated brand-affiliated accounts, at test volume. 10 creators posting 3×/day ≈ 900 organic tests in a 30-day campaign — against ~30 for a brand account posting daily. The economics claim from the program this is distilled from: ~$3.87 CPM vs ~$20 for Meta ads and ~$119 for micro-influencer placements (**vendor-supplied internal numbers — directional, not a benchmark**).

Creators don't need existing audiences — discovery-based algorithms distribute on content, and follower count is irrelevant when posting from program accounts.

## Compliance first — read before running any of this

The playbook this distills went viral in 2026 (Playkit) and drew an immediate, correct public FTC callout. The system below keeps the operational craft and fixes the legal holes. Applying SKILL.md §4 to this motion specifically:

- **Paid creator posts are ads.** Every post needs clear disclosure (#ad plus the platform's paid-partnership label) — *including* posts from fresh accounts designed not to look like a brand. "Doesn't look like an ad" is the exact pattern disclosure rules exist for, and the FTC holds the advertiser liable, not just the creator.
- **Paid comments without disclosure are undisclosed endorsements.** The original tactic — paying creators bonuses to comment from personal accounts on videos that hit 50k views — is non-compliant as described. Compliant alternatives below.
- **Honest beliefs only.** Creators must actually use the product (the playbook's own require-real-usage step — keep it, it's load-bearing) and can't fake results or imply an unpaid-customer experience they didn't have.
- **Platform-policy risk is real too.** Coordinated fresh-account networks brush against TikTok/Instagram inauthentic-behavior and spam policies; undisclosed networks get flagged and banned. Disclosure labels and brand-affiliated bios *reduce* this risk.

Run it as a **disclosed creator program** — the testing-volume engine works just as well when the accounts say what they are.

## 1. Build the playbook before hiring anyone

You cannot tell creators to "make it authentic and fun." Before recruiting:

- **Creators use the product first** — complete onboarding, test every core feature, write down the screens where the value becomes obvious. Most teams skip this; don't.
- **Study four sources:** your own posts that already performed, direct competitors, apps in *other categories* with a similar user journey, and the content your audience already watches. Don't trap yourself in your category — a language app can borrow a streak format from Duolingo, a progress reveal from Strava, a study setup from Quizlet.
- **Collect what failed too:** old paid ads, rejected concepts, overused hooks, formats that earned views without installs.
- **Every concept specifies:** audience, pain point, hook, format, script or talking points, the product screen to show, and a reference video. Knowing what must be made tells you who to hire.

## 2. The four formats

| Format | Share | What it is | Role |
|---|---|---|---|
| **Talking video** | ~70% | Creator talks to the camera like they're on FaceTime with a friend — open with a specific problem, product enters where it naturally fits the story, end with the result | The conversion workhorse |
| **Wall-of-text** | — | Simple B-roll + a longer on-screen thought | Goes most viral, converts least; top-of-funnel and account warm-up |
| **Slideshow** | — | Lists, screenshots, before/after sequences; first slide creates curiosity | Cheap volume; often AI-automatable |
| **Hook-and-demo** | — | Short hook → feature → action on screen → result | Aging format (audiences have caught on) — needs a creative twist to perform now |

Test the same idea across formats: it tells you whether the *idea* failed or just its presentation.

## 3. Hiring: vet by trial, not portfolio

- What matters: can they talk to a phone camera naturally, follow direction, make a script sound like their own words, and **match the persona in the playbook** (a study app, fertility app, and budgeting app need different creator profiles).
- **Run a paid week-long trial** with real concepts from the playbook. Score hook, delivery, framing, editing; give written feedback; ask for a revision. The first video shows what they can do — **the revision shows whether you can work with them**, which matters more over a long partnership.
- Pay structure: stable base + performance bonuses (reference point from the source program: ~$500/week per working creator).

## 4. Accounts and warming

Each creator runs dedicated per-brand TikTok/Instagram accounts — **with the brand affiliation in the bio and disclosure on the posts** (this is the compliance rewrite of the original "stealth new account" step; the algorithm benefits of a fresh, niche-trained account don't depend on hiding who runs it).

Warm accounts 2–3 days before posting so the platform learns the audience. Daily warm-up checklist:

- Scroll the niche 10–15 minutes
- Watch 10+ relevant videos start to finish
- Like 20–30 relevant posts
- Leave 3–5 genuine comments
- Follow no more than 5–10 relevant accounts

Behave like a human — following 50 accounts at once and opening the app only to post looks automated because it is. Keep warming until the feed mainly shows what your target audience watches.

## 5. Cadence and review

- **3 posts/day per creator, ~2 hours apart**, captions and hashtags per the playbook.
- **Every video is reviewed before posting:** submission → check against the playbook → written notes → revision → approval. Track brief, submission, feedback, approval, and results in one system.
- Review for: hook, script, product screen, format, and anything that makes it feel like an ad (stiff delivery, overproduced editing, product introduced too early).
- **Vague feedback = vague revisions.** "Make this more natural" is useless; "cut the first sentence, move the phone closer, say this line like you're complaining to a friend" is fixable.

## 6. The conversion ladder (four touchpoints)

One video doesn't do the whole job:

1. **Name the product in the hook** without stopping to explain it.
2. **Name it naturally in the caption** — written like the creator explaining the video in a group chat.
3. **Engage the comments — compliantly.** The comment section is where converts self-identify. Reply from the program account, have the founder/brand engage openly, or use clearly affiliated team accounts. (Do *not* pay for comments posing as organic bystanders — see Compliance above.) Either way, mine comments as research.
4. **Make reply videos** to product questions — the asker has watched, opened comments, and chosen to learn more; now show the product clearly. Highest-intent surface in the system.

Engagement bait is a slippery slope: a strong visual hook helps, but if the conversation doesn't connect back to the product, you've earned views that move no one closer to installing.

## 7. Iterate daily, judge in weeks

- Review yesterday's videos every day: repeat, change, or stop. Don't wait for virality to learn.
- **Judge by product questions, saves, shares, and install data — not views.** A low-view video with dozens of product questions beats a big one with an unrelated comment section.
- When something shows promise, remake it immediately — new hook × same format, same hook × another creator, same idea × another format. **Change one major variable at a time.**
- Reuse the exact language commenters use to describe their problem. Turn repeated questions into reply videos.
- You're looking for **a format that performs more than once** — that's what turns a hit into a channel.
- **Give it four weeks minimum.** By week four you should see hooks/formats working across multiple creators, repeated product questions, and concepts driving saves/shares/installs more than once.

## 8. Costs and ownership

Three requirements: creator pay, **one person who owns the program**, and a system for briefs/review/tracking. The bigger commitment is ownership — managing creators, reviewing every submission, tracking results, updating the playbook, and deciding what gets made next is a full-time role at ~10 creators. Hire it or contract it, but one person must own it.

---

*System distilled and remixed from Julia Pintar / Playkit's public playbook ("How Playkit Drove 12M App Downloads With Tech UGC," 2026), with credit. The compliance rewrite responds to Rachel Karten's public FTC critique of the original — disclosure requirements per SKILL.md §4 override any conflicting step of the source playbook. Economics figures are vendor-supplied.*