Creator Performance Audit

Audit creator/influencer performance for commerce teams — score creators on reach quality, engagement authenticity, conversion contribution, and cost efficiency, then output a keep/scale/renegotiate/drop decision with evidence.

Turn scattered creator campaign data into a clear keep / scale / renegotiate / drop decision.

Quick Reference

Decision	Strong	Acceptable	Weak (avoid)
Success metric	Revenue or profit per creator dollar (tracked links/codes)	Engaged-view CPM + assisted conversions	Follower count, raw likes
Attribution	Dedicated codes/links + post-purchase survey	Platform attribution with stated window	"Sales went up that week"
Engagement check	Engagement rate vs account's own 90-day baseline	Vs category benchmark	Vs global average across niches
Authenticity	Comment quality sampling + follower growth curve	Spot-check comments	Trust the media kit
Cost basis	Full cost: fee + product + shipping + usage rights + agency	Fee + product cost	Fee only
Verdict	One of keep/scale/renegotiate/drop per creator, with thresholds	Ranked tiers	"Mixed results, continue monitoring"
Sample window	Last 3-6 campaigns or 90 days	Last 2 campaigns	Single post

Solves

1. Vanity-metric decisions — creators get renewed for likes and views that never convert.
2. No cost truth — fees look fine until product, shipping, usage rights, and agency cuts are added.
3. Fake or drifted audiences — inflated engagement, bought followers, or an audience that no longer matches the buyer profile.
4. One-post judgments — a viral fluke or a flop drives the renewal decision instead of a stable sample.
5. Un-comparable creators — TikTok CPMs vs Instagram saves vs YouTube AVD, with no common scorecard.
6. No action at the end — audits that end in "interesting" instead of keep/scale/renegotiate/drop.

Use when

• Deciding whether to renew, scale, renegotiate, or drop specific creators
• Building a quarterly creator portfolio review
• Comparing creators across platforms on one scorecard
• Vetting a creator's real performance before a bigger commitment

Do not use when

• Prospecting brand-new creators with no campaign history (that's vetting, not auditing — this skill only covers pre-commitment vetting checks partially)
• You need raw data extraction without synthesis
• The question is creative strategy, not performance

Inputs

• Creator list with platform(s) and campaign history (posts, dates, deliverables)
• Cost data: fees, product cost, shipping, usage rights, agency commissions
• Performance data: impressions/views, engagement, clicks, conversions, revenue (tracked links/codes if available)
• Business context: target audience, margin structure, campaign goals
• Optional: category benchmarks, past audit results

Workflow

Step 1 — Fix the question and the window

Define what "performing" means for this business (profit per dollar, CAC vs blended CAC, content library value) and set the sample: minimum 2-3 campaigns or 90 days per creator. Note any creator being judged on a single post — flag as low-confidence.

Step 2 — Assemble full cost per creator

Fee + product cost + shipping + usage/whitelisting rights + agency commission + internal handling. This is the denominator for everything. See references/metrics-benchmarks.md for the cost checklist.

Step 3 — Normalize performance across platforms

Compute the common scorecard (references/metrics-benchmarks.md): engaged-view CPM, engagement rate vs the creator's own baseline, CTR, conversion rate, revenue per creator dollar. Platform-specific metrics stay as secondary evidence.

Step 4 — Run authenticity checks

Follower growth curve (spikes = suspicion), engagement-to-follower ratio vs category norms, comment quality sampling (generic emoji walls vs real questions), audience geo/demo match to buyer profile. See references/audit-framework.md.

Step 5 — Score and classify

Score each creator on the four axes (reach quality, engagement authenticity, conversion contribution, cost efficiency) and map to a verdict: keep / scale / renegotiate / drop, using the thresholds in references/audit-framework.md.

Step 6 — Write the action plan

Per creator: verdict, evidence (2-3 numbers), and the concrete next step (new rate, different deliverable, usage-rights renegotiation, replacement candidate). Portfolio-level: concentration risk, budget reallocation.

Step 7 — Self-check

Run assets/audit-checklist.md before delivering. Output follows references/output-template.md.

Worked Example 1 — Three creators, one budget

Input (summary): DTC skincare brand, 3 creators over 90 days.

Creator	Platform	Full cost	Views	Eng. rate	Tracked revenue
A	TikTok	$6,800 (3 posts)	2.1M	6.2%	$4,100
B	Instagram	$4,500 (4 posts)	380K	4.8%	$9,700
C	TikTok	$9,000 (3 posts)	4.6M	1.1%	$2,300

Output (verdict section):

B — SCALE. Revenue per dollar 2.16, best in portfolio; engagement steady vs her 90-day baseline (4.8% vs 4.5%); comments show purchase-intent questions. Action: propose 6-post quarterly package before her rates adjust; add usage rights for ads — her post #2 outperformed our best paid creative. A — KEEP (watch). RPD 0.60 looks weak, but 71% of tracked conversions came from the one post with a direct product demo; the two "lifestyle" posts converted ~0. Action: renew at same rate but change the brief to demo-format only; re-audit after 2 posts. C — DROP. RPD 0.26 with the portfolio's highest cost. Engagement 1.1% vs TikTok category norm ~4%; follower curve shows two +80K single-day spikes (likely purchased); comments are generic emoji strings. The 4.6M views are not reaching buyers. Action: do not renew; reallocate $9K → B's package ($6K) + test one new demo-style creator ($3K).

Worked Example 2 — Single creator renewal call

Input (summary): Gadget brand, creator on YouTube, $12K for 2 dedicated videos + 1 short. Views 640K total, AVD 4:10 on 9-minute videos, 3,900 clicks, 210 orders tracked ($18,900 revenue), gross margin 38%.

Output (verdict section):

RENEGOTIATE. Revenue per dollar 1.58 but margin-adjusted return is 0.60 — below the 0.8 renewal bar. The content itself performs (AVD 46%, CTR 0.61%, CVR 5.4% — all healthy), so the problem is price, not the creator. Action: counter at $8.5K for the same package (breakeven at current conversion is $7.2K) or same fee with usage rights + a dedicated coupon push in the first 48h, where 63% of his conversions happened. Low-confidence note: 2 videos is a thin sample; lock a 2-video test at the new rate before any annual deal.

Common Mistakes

1. Judging on follower count or raw views — reach that doesn't hit buyers is a cost, not an asset.
2. Fee-only cost math — product, shipping, usage rights, and agency cuts routinely add 30-60% to true cost.
3. Comparing engagement across niches — a 2% rate can be great in one category and terrible in another; compare to the creator's own baseline first.
4. Ignoring the content variable — a "bad creator" may be a bad brief; check whether specific formats converted before dropping.
5. Single-post verdicts — always state sample size and mark thin samples low-confidence.
6. Skipping authenticity checks — follower spikes and emoji-wall comments invalidate every downstream metric.
7. No margin adjustment — revenue per dollar above 1.0 still loses money on thin margins.
8. Ending without a verdict — every audited creator gets keep/scale/renegotiate/drop plus a next step.
9. Ignoring content library value — usage rights for a top-performing creative can justify an otherwise marginal deal; price it explicitly.

Resources

• references/output-template.md — standard audit report structure
• references/metrics-benchmarks.md — scorecard metrics, formulas, and cost checklist
• references/audit-framework.md — four-axis scoring, authenticity checks, verdict thresholds
• assets/audit-checklist.md — pre-delivery quality checklist