Recently The New York Times wrote an article about the rising popularity of nano-influencers, as opposed to brands using micro-influencers or macro-influencers, and a lot of people in the industry got very excited that maybe the cost would just plummet for using these nano-influencers. Well, while it is cheaper to use an influencer with a smaller following, the cost is unlikely to vary too much, and here's why.
First, let's look at the difference in size of these influencers. For nano, think 500 to maybe 5,000 followers. Micro are often 20,000 to a million followers. And finally, Macro-influencers are those with multimillion followers.
But if the follow size is so drastic, why isn't the cost? Well, think about what you're asking each influencer to do - it's essentially the same amount of work. There's costs to create really good content, to get props, time to stage content, to come up with ideas, sometimes using a photographer, editing, and MORE - it's basically a fixed fee regardless of follower size because of ALL that work that goes into the creation.
So you still need to pay these influencers for their time, for their creative ideas, for the ability of what they can put in front of somebody that gets them excited to buy, and then thinking about a syndication strategy that takes the people with a small following and gets that proven content in front of those with a propensity to buy.
So yes it is cheaper, but you can't come in assuming somebody can crank out content for $25 just because they have 1,000 followers.