Test influencer partnerships with a clear question: Set the question and primary measure before posts go live.; Give each placement an ID and retain the final asset, offer, fee and paid distribution.; The ACCC flagged vague “sp” and hard-to-notice disclosures as compliance risks.
Image: Influencer Marketlab

Campaign Strategy

Testing and improving influencer partnerships

Plan useful influencer partnership comparisons, read their limits and choose a clear next action.

Strategy Desk · · 4 min read

Test a partnership by deciding what the next booking must teach you. Set the question and primary measure before posts go live, and record what each creator actually delivers. Use the result to repeat, revise, investigate or stop.

A difference between creator posts is useful evidence, but rarely proof that one changed factor caused the difference.

The partnership test loop: question to next decision

  1. Set the question and primary measure before posts go livedecide what the next booking must teach you
  2. Record what each creator actually deliversasset, account, publication time, offer, destination, fee and any paid distribution
  3. Review the content and the disclosure against the agreed brief
  4. Decide the next moverepeat, revise, investigate or stop

Choose a question that leads to a decision

“Which creator performed best?” hides the decision. Ask instead whether the same offer appears promising with a different audience, whether a demonstration answers a buyer's question, or whether another post from the same creator would add useful information. Agree what you will inspect for that question before seeing the results.

Keep the offer and observation period reasonably consistent where the comparison calls for it. Record differences in audience, format, timing and paid amplification.

Creators cannot usually be assigned identical audiences, so describe cross-creator results as directional. If the creator, format and discount all change together, the result cannot isolate the effect of any one of them.

Keep a record you can interpret

Give each placement an ID. Retain the final asset, account, publication time, offer, destination, fee and any paid distribution. Request results with their platform metric names and reporting dates. Views differ from estimated unique viewers; audiences for separate posts may overlap.

If location matters, note whether a geography report describes followers, viewers, views or watch time. A creator based in Australia does not establish where the post's viewers are.

Use consistently tagged links where the placement supports a clickable destination, and check the route before release. Treat tagged-link results as one signal in the comparison, and record how they were reported.

Keep tagged visits, code use and eligible orders separate; the same order may carry more than one signal. If you use Analytics attribution reports, record the selected reporting settings when interpreting them.

Check the content: did it answer the agreed question, represent the creator's experience honestly and describe the current offer accurately? Australian Consumer Law applies to paid and incentivised social posts. The commercial relationship in a sponsored promotion should be clear to viewers.

Review disclosure as part of the test

When reviewing a live placement, record whether viewers could readily recognise the commercial relationship, not just whether some disclosure appeared. The ACCC identified vague terms such as “sp” and “spon”, and disclosures formatted so they were difficult to notice, as common concerns in its influencer sweep.

If a disclosure is ambiguous or hard to see, treat it as a compliance issue before repeating the work. Record the wording and how it appeared in the post, then make the required change explicit in the next brief and check the published asset against it.

Disclosure review criteria for a live placement

  • Could viewers readily recognise the commercial relationshipnot merely that some disclosure appeared?
  • Is the wording specific rather than vague? The ACCC flagged terms such as “sp” and “spon” as a common concern in its influencer sweep.
  • Is the disclosure formatted so it is easy to notice, rather than hard to see? Disclosures that were difficult to notice were also a common concern in the sweep.
  • Recorded the wording and how it appeared in the post
  • Made the required change explicit in the next brief
  • Checked the published asset against that brief before repeating the work

Make one useful next move

If relevant viewers saw the piece but its explanation was incomplete, change the content task. If the destination failed, repair it before another visit-focused post.

If the booking depends on Australian viewers and only follower geography is available, seek better evidence or narrow the proposal. A weak result does not always call for a new creator.

Write a short decision record: the original question, what ran, what was observed, what else changed or could not be measured, and the next action.

Use the ACCC's findings to make this review criterion concrete, not as a benchmark for an individual creator.

In an update dated 7 December 2023, the ACCC reported that 81 per cent of 118 influencers reviewed raised concerns about potentially misleading advertising under the Australian Consumer Law. The sweep covered seven sectors; figures ranged from 96 per cent of fashion influencers reviewed making concerning posts to 73 per cent of gaming and technology influencer posts raising concern.

ACCC influencer sweep findings (update dated 7 December 2023)

  • 118Influencers reviewed
  • 81%Raised concerns about potentially misleading advertising under the Australian Consumer Law
  • 96%Fashion influencer posts raising concern
  • 73%Gaming and technology influencer posts raising concern

Diagnosing the result before you rebook

  • Relevant viewers saw the piece, but its explanation was incompleteChange the content task
  • The destination failedRepair it before another visit-focused post
  • The booking depends on Australian viewers, and only follower geography is availableSeek better evidence, or narrow the proposal

In this guide

  1. Testing the same offer with different creator audiencesCompare creator audiences around one offer while keeping delivery differences, audience evidence and tracking limits visible.
  2. Comparing demonstration content with personal recommendationsDecide when a creator demonstration or genuine personal recommendation better answers a buyer’s question.
  3. Detecting audience fatigue across repeat collaborationsInvestigate possible audience fatigue in repeat creator work without mistaking one weak post for proof.
  4. Deciding which creators deserve a second campaignUse the first campaign’s content, audience evidence and delivery record to decide whether to book a creator again.

More from Campaign Strategy