Creator size mix

Mega vs Micro vs Nano — which creator size is delivering for which product? Validated, ongoing analysis.

From the transcript: "Turns out Mega works better than Micro works better than Nano, which is validated. Now we are doing that on multiple products and more look-back period."

The team has been manually tagging creators by size for the last 6 months. Initial finding (validated): Mega creators outperform Micro, which outperforms Nano for the products studied. The platform extends this from a one-off intern analysis into an always-on view that grows with the data.

Who asks

Category / creative head, briefing creators
Perf-marketing leader, when planning the next quarter's creator budget
Influencer ops, deciding which tier to recruit into

Frequency

Monthly for portfolio review; ad-hoc when a new product's creator strategy is being designed.

Data you need

ad_creatives linked to creators
Creator metadata — follower count band, engagement rate, average views, growth rate
Size tag — Mega / Macro / Micro / Nano (manual or auto-tagged)
Product-level NRoAS attribution back to the creator

Known gap: creator size hasn't been tracked for the last two years. From June onwards, discipline is in place (auto-tagged via SegWise + manual review by an intern). Coverage gets cleaner each month — older creatives may show as "untagged."

Size band definitions

The team's working bands (configurable):

Band	Followers
Mega	> 1M
Macro	100K – 1M
Micro	10K – 100K
Nano	< 10K

You can override these per product if the relationship differs (e.g. for a niche product where 50K-follower vertical creators behave like "Mega").

How to ask it

"For each product, compare NRoAS by creator size band over the last 90 days. Has the ranking changed?"
"Are Mega creators still outperforming Micro for Shilajit? Show me the cohort lift, not just NRoAS."
"Which products show inverted patterns — where Micro or Nano outperforms Mega?"
"For new product launches in the last 6 months, which creator size delivered fastest payback?"

What you'll get back

A per-product creator-size scorecard:

Product	Mega NRoAS	Macro NRoAS	Micro NRoAS	Nano NRoAS	Recommended mix
Shilajit	3.2	2.4	1.6	1.1	60% Mega, 30% Macro, 10% Micro
Karela Jamun	2.8	2.5	2.3	1.4	More balanced; Micro is competitive
Diabexyl	2.1	2.6	2.0	1.0	Macro leads — check; product or persona effect?

Each row includes the sample size and confidence — when a band has only 3-5 creatives, the platform flags the result as low-confidence.

Beyond NRoAS — what else to look at

The transcript notes that follower count isn't the whole story. The platform tracks four parallel signals:

NRoAS — the headline.
Hook rate — how many viewers don't scroll past the first 3 seconds.
Hold rate — how many finish or near-finish the creative.
Cohort lift at M3 / M6 — are the customers acquired through this creator size sticking?

A creator with high hook + hold but rural-audience skew might have engaged-but-non-buying viewers (engagement that doesn't convert). The platform separates engagement quality from purchase quality.

How to make it recurring

Save as a monthly tracker:

Cadence: monthly
Output: per-product size-band scorecard, posted to category Slack
Threshold: alert if any product's leading band changes month-over-month

Pitfalls

Treating size as the whole story. A "Mega" creator with the wrong audience underperforms a well-matched Micro. Combine with creator niche / persona.
Stale band assignments. Creators grow. A Macro from 6 months ago might be a Mega now. The platform refreshes via the auto-tagger, but verify periodically.
Confounded with creative pattern. If Mega creators happened to use the new winning pattern this month, you might attribute pattern lift to size lift. The platform separates these — but check the joint view if a finding surprises you.
Insufficient coverage on Nano. Nano creator counts are small per-period; bands with n < 5 are flagged low-confidence.

On this page