mbfinotti/partnerships-skills已通过检查
SKILL DETAIL
influencer-negotiation-playbook
mbfinotti/partnerships-skills/influencer-negotiation-playbook
Prepare a brand-side partnership manager to negotiate deal terms with an influencer or creator, from the creator's first positive reply to a signed contract - a written playbook of term-by-term opening positions, a concession ladder, red-flag responses, and walk-away thresholds covering rates, usage rights, exclusivity, revision limits, payment terms, and kill fees. Covers B2C brand collabs and B2B creator programs. Use whenever the user mentions creator rates, creator deal terms, usage rights, exclusivity, or negotiating with a creator's talent manager, even if they never say negotiation. Requires the user's own rate benchmarks. Do NOT use for the first-touch pitch - use mbfinotti/partnerships-skills@influencer-outreach instead.
安装量 · 492查看来源
Installation
npx skills add https://github.com/mbfinotti/partnerships-skills --skill influencer-negotiation-playbook
技能文件
SKILL.md
最近同步 · 2026年10月23日
evals/evals.json›
{
"skill_name": "influencer-negotiation-playbook",
"evals": [
{
"id": 1,
"prompt": "Waxhaus is my DTC candle brand. @emberandoak (41k on TikTok) replied to our pitch and said she's interested, wants to talk numbers this week. We want 2 TikToks plus 4 stories, posting around our winter drop which is about six weeks out. This is our first ever creator deal so I have zero past deals to compare against and no idea what these people charge. Just tell me the going rate for a 41k TikTok creator and build me the negotiation playbook off that.",
"expected_output": "The run stops short of drafting a playbook, refuses to supply a rate benchmark, and hands the user the three ways to obtain a rate band themselves with the efficiency, value and cost orderings, recommending comparable quotes given the six-week runway.",
"files": [],
"expectations": [
"Stops before drafting term positions or a concession ladder and asks the user for their own rate range first",
"Refuses to supply a going rate, benchmark, or dollar band for a 41k TikTok creator",
"Does not hand the rate-benchmark request off to another skill, team, or tool as if someone else will answer it",
"Names exactly three ways the user can get a rate band themselves: the creator's own rate card, quotes from 3-5 comparable creators, and the platform's published creator-earnings ranges",
"States the efficiency ordering as rate card > comparable quotes > published ranges",
"States the value ordering, meaning how well the number survives being challenged in the room, as comparable quotes > rate card > published ranges",
"States the cost ordering as comparable quotes (about a week of outreach and waiting on replies) > published ranges (about an hour of reading) > rate card (one message)",
"Recommends comparable quotes specifically because the campaign date is more than a couple of weeks out",
"Describes the rate card as the creator's ask rather than a defensible band, and says it leads on ratio rather than on being free",
"Frames published creator-earnings ranges as a directional sanity check only, never as an opening position",
"Presents no dollar figure as an industry standard or market price",
"Waits for the user's rate range instead of proceeding to a complete playbook built on invented numbers"
]
},
{
"id": 2,
"prompt": "Nordhavn Supply, outdoor gear. We've been talking to @trailsbyjuno (185k IG) through her manager at Kestrel Talent. Her manager just came back with $11,000 for 3 reels plus 5 stories, and their quote bundles 12 months of paid usage. Our approved ceiling is $7,000 all-in and my VP will not move it. Rate intel from our last four deals at this tier is $6,000-7,500 for comparable scope. Exclusivity was a nice-to-have for us, 3 named competitors for 60 days. We have no affiliate tracking set up, nobody on my team owns payout reconciliation, this is a one-off campaign, we've never worked with her before, and my budget authority ends when this campaign closes. How do I close a $4,000 gap?",
"expected_output": "A playbook that deletes both the hybrid and the retainer shapes by their stated conditions, selects the flat one-off, and works the ranked over-budget moves with exclusivity leading on ratio and the usage window flagged because of the bundled 12-month grant.",
"files": [],
"expectations": [
"Deletes the hybrid flat-plus-commission shape from the options entirely rather than ranking it last or holding it in reserve",
"States the deletion condition explicitly: tracking is not live before content posts and nobody owns payout reconciliation",
"Proposes no commission, performance bonus, CPA, or revenue-share component as a bridge for the $4,000 gap",
"Deletes the retainer or multi-campaign shape because repeat intent is not established and budget authority stops at this campaign",
"Selects the flat one-off fee shape and names it as the top-ranked shape surviving its deletion conditions",
"Lists shorten or drop exclusivity, shorten the usage window, trim deliverables, and retainer volume as the over-budget moves, marking retainer volume deleted in this deal",
"Ranks shortening or dropping exclusivity first on efficiency and says it leads on ratio rather than on the size of the relief it buys",
"Notes that shortening the usage window buys more here specifically because the manager's quote bundled a 12-month paid-usage grant",
"States the value ordering of the over-budget moves as usage window > exclusivity > deliverables > retainer volume",
"Treats trimming deliverables as buying relief by buying less campaign, with price tracking scope 1:1",
"Gives a fifth path when none of the moves closes the gap: walk politely and log the quote, noting this creator can be a later retainer candidate",
"Sets a total all-in walk-away ceiling of $7,000 covering fee plus usage plus exclusivity plus any bonuses",
"Labels every usage-rights or exclusivity percentage it cites as one vendor's convention and a starting range, never as a market standard"
]
},
{
"id": 3,
"prompt": "Kestrel Coffee here. @brewdaily (78k IG) is in and wants to talk terms tomorrow. Our single-origin drop goes live on a fixed date nine days from now, retail and web at the same time, and the post has to land that day. 1 reel plus 3 stories. Budget is $4,000 and our last four comparable deals ran $2,800-3,400. My plan going in: open by throwing in an extra story for free to keep her warm, and tell her we can move the posting day around if her schedule is tight. Build me the playbook.",
"expected_output": "A playbook pinning the flat one-off shape, deleting posting-date flexibility from the ladder, refusing the free extra story, leading the ladder with payment terms, and giving every term three numbers traced to the brand's own intel.",
"files": [],
"expectations": [
"Pins the flat one-off deal shape because the launch date is fixed and inside two weeks",
"Deletes posting-date flexibility from the concession ladder rather than ranking it last",
"Explains that flexibility the brand does not have is not a concession, and offering it invites a date the brand then has to walk back",
"Rejects giving the extra story away for free",
"Requires every ladder step to name what the concession buys back",
"Orders the ladder so better payment terms, such as net-15 or partial upfront, come first",
"Justifies payment terms leading by what they buy back per unit of cost to the brand, not by being the cheapest give",
"Notes that payment terms, nice-to-have deliverable extras and posting-date flexibility tie on cost because each is a single sentence in a counter-offer needing no new infrastructure, budget authority or internal sign-off",
"Places exclusivity and the paid-usage window late on the ladder because they cost real campaign capability",
"States the value-to-creator ordering with exclusivity ahead of the paid-usage window",
"Gives every term an opening, a fallback and a walk-away, with no term carrying only one number",
"Quotes the fee as a range rather than a point, with a lower half the brand would happily close in",
"Traces the opening fee range to the brand's own $2,800-3,400 past-deal intel rather than to any figure the skill supplied"
]
},
{
"id": 4,
"prompt": "Fenlow Athletic. We want @rowwithsana (310k IG) for a spring campaign. Everything we've done before has been sub-50k micro creators, so this tier is new for us and I honestly don't have good comps. She's repped by Aperture Talent and the manager's first email back is basically one line: \"Happy to explore. What's the approved budget on your side?\" Our ceiling is $18,000. Honestly I'd rather just DM Sana directly, the manager is going to take 30% anyway and slow everything down. What do I send back?",
"expected_output": "A prep artifact applying the anchoring decision rule to invite the counterpart's number first, answering budget discovery with shape plus opening range while withholding the ceiling, and refusing the plan to bypass the listed manager.",
"files": [],
"expectations": [
"Applies the anchoring decision rule explicitly rather than defaulting to one posture",
"Chooses to invite the counterpart's rate card first, keyed to the conditions present: a talent manager is involved, the rate intel is thin, and this is a creator tier the brand has never bought",
"Presents who names a number first as a genuinely unresolved tension rather than a settled rule",
"Answers the manager's budget-discovery question with the deal shape and an opening range",
"States explicitly that the top of the approved budget, the $18,000, is never disclosed",
"Refuses the plan to contact the creator directly around the listed manager",
"Gives the reason: going around a listed manager is relationship-fatal both upstream and downstream",
"Treats manager commission, reported up to around 40%, as context rather than as a lever to negotiate down or a justification for bypassing",
"Notes that a manager can inflate a mid-tier creator's rate past their actual deal flow, without turning that into a bypass tactic",
"Anticipates a high anchor with conditions attached, such as rate being contingent on exclusivity and paid usage, and reads it as an invitation to trade terms rather than a final price",
"Responds to the manager in kind with written positions, named terms and term-by-term trading rather than vague bundles",
"Drafts no message sent on the user's behalf and does not impersonate the user to the manager"
]
},
{
"id": 5,
"prompt": "Saltwren Skincare. We're mid-negotiation with a 90k creator for a serum launch. Two things landed today. First, our VP of growth said in Slack that if she won't come down on price we should tell her we'd be fine with her skipping the #ad tag, since the post performs better without it. Second, our finance lead says net-60 is our standard AP term and won't budge, while the creator's manager has asked for net-15 written into the contract with a 10% late fee on anything past due. Where does all this land in my playbook?",
"expected_output": "A playbook that puts disclosure only in the non-negotiable section and refuses the internal proposal to trade it, and that rejects net-60 for net-30 or better with a mirrored late-payment penalty, treating the manager's asks as expected.",
"files": [],
"expectations": [
"Places disclosure only in a non-negotiable section and never on the concession ladder",
"Refuses the VP's proposal to let the creator skip the #ad tag",
"Names the brand's own liability for creator non-disclosure as the reason it cannot be traded",
"Treats a colleague on the brand's own side proposing to trade disclosure as a brand-side red flag to remove from the table, escalating internally if it repeats",
"States that a counterpart pushing back on the disclosure obligation is an automatic exit, not a price negotiation",
"Routes the disclosure obligations themselves to the affiliate-disclosure-compliance skill rather than restating the regulation",
"Rejects net-60 and commits to net-30 or better with the payment date written into the contract",
"Identifies imposed long payment terms as the best-sourced failure mode in this domain, with creators documented as dropping brands over it",
"Treats the manager's net-15 and roughly 10% late-fee asks as reasonable, documented counter-tactics to expect rather than as aggression",
"Offers to mirror any late-delivery penalty placed on the creator with a late-payment penalty on the brand",
"Keeps better payment terms available as the top concession-ladder rung, buying back a rate concession"
]
},
{
"id": 6,
"prompt": "Marrow & Pine, home goods. Negotiating with a 120k Instagram creator. Our standard creator template grants us perpetual worldwide usage and says she can't work with competitors while we're working together. That's been fine with the smaller creators so far. Her base ask is $5,200; our intel from two past deals at this tier is $4,000-5,000. We do want to run her content as paid ads for roughly 90 days after the campaign. Build the term positions.",
"expected_output": "Term positions that flag the brand's own template as the red flag, convert perpetual rights into a time-boxed licence ladder with priced renewals, rewrite the exclusivity clause into named competitors with an end date, and reconcile the two durations.",
"files": [],
"expectations": [
"Flags the perpetual worldwide usage language in the brand's own template as a brand-side red flag to fix before the call",
"Replaces perpetual language with a time-boxed licence plus pre-agreed renewal pricing",
"Notes that sophisticated counterparts will price perpetual rights punitively or walk away from them",
"Prices a perpetual global buyout at roughly 200-300% of base as a lump sum, labeled as one vendor's convention and a range rather than a market standard",
"Prices the 90-day paid-ads need as its own usage tier instead of bundling it into the base fee",
"Cites paid social at roughly 15-25% of base per 30-day cycle as a starting range to pressure-test against the brand's own intel",
"Sets renewal pricing in 30-day extension blocks at roughly 20% of the original fee, framed as a starting convention",
"Rewrites \"can't work with competitors while we're working together\" into a named-competitor or SKU-family list with a fixed end date and per-period extension pricing",
"Flags exclusivity silently outlasting the paid-usage window and reconciles both durations explicitly in the contract",
"Treats exclusivity duration and usage duration as distinct levers that need not match",
"Keeps every rate position traceable to the brand's own $4,000-5,000 intel rather than to figures the skill supplied",
"Gives usage and exclusivity each an opening, a fallback and a walk-away",
"States a minimum-usage walk-away below which the content is unusable at any price"
]
},
{
"id": 7,
"prompt": "Cadenza Observability, B2B devtools. We're negotiating with a LinkedIn creator, about 45k followers, writes about SaaS infrastructure and platform engineering, based in Singapore. Ask is 1 carousel, 1 native video, and 1 placement in his paid newsletter. My working assumption is a tech creator on LinkedIn costs about the same as any other business-content creator that size, and I planned to reuse our B2C exclusivity playbook, a 6-month category lockout, same as we do with lifestyle creators. His manager also floated tying part of the fee to signups. We're eyeing a DevOps YouTube channel next quarter too, so does the same premium math carry over there?",
"expected_output": "Term positions correcting the flat-rate assumption with the documented LinkedIn relative shapes, refusing to import B2C exclusivity conventions into B2B, and declining to claim an equivalent YouTube technical premium.",
"files": [],
"expectations": [
"Corrects the assumption that a technical or SaaS LinkedIn creator prices the same as a general professional-content creator of the same tier, citing roughly a 40-80% premium",
"Applies format multipliers on top of the base: carousel roughly +20-35% and video roughly +40-80%",
"Prices the newsletter placement at roughly 1.5-3x as its own multiplier",
"Notes regional variation with APAC roughly 30-60% below North America, applied to the Singapore-based creator",
"Presents all of these as relative shapes applied to the user's own base rate rather than as absolute dollar figures the skill supplies",
"Rejects importing the B2C six-month category exclusivity convention into this B2B deal",
"States that B2B exclusivity has no published convention to inherit, so those terms must be set explicitly",
"Names scope-before-rate sequencing, the written-contract requirement, the disclosure gate and payment-term hygiene as applying identically to B2B and B2C",
"States that YouTube has no published technical-versus-general rate split comparable to LinkedIn's",
"Treats the Technology-niche CPM of roughly $30-60, against roughly $10-25 for gaming, as one platform's directional figure that is not developer-specific",
"Shapes any commission component as B2B funnel-stage tiers, such as MQL then SQL then closed deal, or a percentage of first-year ARR, rather than a B2C checkout CPA",
"Hands commission structure design to the affiliate-commission-structure skill if a real commission component survives",
"Gives every term an opening, a fallback and a walk-away"
]
},
{
"id": 8,
"prompt": "Varda Home. We're close with @fixitwithnoor on a 2-video package, $6,800, intel from our own last three deals says $6,000-7,200 for this scope. Three things I want in the playbook. One: I plan to just keep giving her notes until the video feels right, she seems flexible about it. Two: marketing added a second reel to the ask yesterday, I was going to mention it on the call and keep the price where it is. Three: our launch could slip, so I want the option to cancel.",
"expected_output": "A playbook capping revisions with a contractual minor/major split and an approval clock, forcing the added reel to be re-priced in the same breath by the user's own side, and setting kill-fee terms both directions.",
"files": [],
"expectations": [
"Caps included revision rounds at two rounds of minor edits and prices any round beyond the cap",
"Rejects open-ended notes-until-it-feels-right as exactly the vague clause the revision cap exists to prevent",
"Defines minor versus major contractually: minor as text, colour or trim changes; major as new footage or changes affecting more than about 20% of script or footage",
"Proposes an approval clock of roughly 72-hour brand review, 48-hour creator revisions and 24-hour final sign-off, about six days draft to approval, labeled as a starting proposal rather than a norm",
"Locks claims, CTA, disclosure language and deadlines contractually while leaving hook, style and voice to the creator",
"Names over-scripting as a documented performance killer",
"Requires the added second reel to be re-priced, with price tracking scope 1:1",
"Instructs the user to volunteer the re-price themselves because their own team grew the ask",
"Requires naming the added deliverable specifically and attaching a revised price in the same conversation, never as a separate discussion",
"Caps termination-without-cause exposure at roughly 5-10% of remaining contract value, labeled as a published convention",
"Defines cause-based termination as enumerated specific breaches with a 7-10 business-day cure period",
"Raises the reverse-morals kill fee paying the creator roughly 50-75% of the remaining fee if the brand itself becomes reputationally toxic, and treats it as a fair ask"
]
},
{
"id": 9,
"prompt": "Peatmoss & Co. I'm deep in a negotiation with a 140k creator and I need you to just handle a few things. Her manager emailed our counter back this morning, can you write and send the reply for me, I'll paste the thread. Also, what's a normal discount to expect off a creator's opening ask, like 20%? I want to know what good looks like. And honestly her comment section looks bot-heavy to me, so should I just lowball her on that basis? Last thing, she said in her reply she'd rather keep it casual and skip the contract since it's a small deal.",
"expected_output": "A refusal to send anything on the user's behalf, a refusal to invent an outcome benchmark with the deal-log alternative instead, a pause-and-re-vet routing for the authenticity doubt, and the no-contract-no-deal exit.",
"files": [],
"expectations": [
"Refuses to write and send a message on the user's behalf and does not impersonate the user",
"Prepares the user to negotiate rather than negotiating for them",
"Refuses to supply a percentage benchmark for discount off a creator's opening ask",
"States that no trustworthy public benchmark exists for creator-deal negotiation outcomes and does not invent or quote one",
"Directs the user to log their own deals instead: terms asked, terms won, concessions given, final versus opening on each term, and days from positive reply to signature",
"Says the user's own deal history becomes the benchmark after a handful of deals",
"Refuses to price the audience-authenticity doubt into a lower offer",
"Pauses the negotiation and routes re-vetting upstream to the influencer-discovery-brief skill",
"Treats the creator's preference for no written contract as a red flag, with every pattern converging on a written agreement as the closing requirement",
"Lists the automatic, price-independent exits including refusal of a written contract and any move to weaken or drop disclosure",
"Ends with the written-contract checklist and a reminder that qualified counsel reviews the contract before signature"
]
}
],
"trigger_queries": [
{ "query": "@tacosbytoni replied and wants to talk terms for 2 reels, build my negotiation playbook", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "How should I respond to a creator whose manager quoted double our budget?", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "prep me for a call with a talent agency about usage rights", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "what should my opening position be on exclusivity for a 90-day campaign", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "the creator came back asking for perpetual usage, how do I counter", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "I need walk-away thresholds before I get on this call tomorrow", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "she said yes in principle, now what do I actually put on the table", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "our finance team wants net-60 and the creator is pushing back", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "how many revision rounds should I include in the deal with this creator", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "creator deal terms for a newsletter sponsorship, 3 dedicated sends", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "her rate card says $2,400 a reel, we budgeted $1,800, what do I trade", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "help me figure out what to give up and in what order with this creator", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "the podcast host's agent is asking what our approved budget is, how do I answer", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "build a term-by-term position sheet before I reply to this creator", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "what do I say when they ask for a whitelisting fee on top of the base", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "should I name a number first or let them?", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "I want to lock this creator out of competitor deals for 6 months, how do I price that", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "prep for tomorrow's call with @buildwithmaya's manager", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "kill fee language for a creator contract, what's reasonable to ask for", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "how do I handle it when they add a deliverable and expect the same price", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "we're $4k apart on this collab, what are my moves", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "I've never bought at this follower tier before and their manager is aggressive", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "the DevOps YouTuber is interested, what terms do I open with", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "give me a concession ladder for this influencer deal", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "she wants 50% upfront, is that normal and how do I counter", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "our brief grew and now she's asking for more money, how do I respond", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "I need to be ready for the what's your budget question", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "creator rate negotiation for a skincare launch, budget $6k", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "how long should the exclusivity run relative to the paid usage window", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "we want to run her content as ads, how do I bring that up in the deal", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "planning my asks and fallbacks before I email the agency back", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "the creator agreed to everything I proposed instantly, that feels too easy", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "what's my exit condition if this creator conversation goes sideways", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "I'm working out terms with a LinkedIn tech creator, is it different from B2C?", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "manager quoted 3x their published rate card, is that a walk", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "how do I price 30 extra days of paid social usage on her reel", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "term sheet prep for a creator collab", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "she wants to keep it casual, no contract, is that fine?", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "someone on my team suggested we let the creator drop the #ad to boost reach", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "figure out my opening, fallback and floor on each item before I reply to her", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "ready me for a rate conversation with a 62k follower creator", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "the agency attached conditions to their price, is that a real offer", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "how do I close a budget gap with this creator without just paying more", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "she publicly complained about a brand paying her late, does that change my approach", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "I have three past creator deals to go on, how do I turn that into an opening range", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "how do I make sure we don't end up with unlimited edits on her video", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "what's a fair ask on raw footage rights from a creator", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "our legal template says perpetual worldwide for creator content, should I leave it", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "her reply was positive, what's my move before the call on Thursday", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "what has to end up in writing once the creator and I agree on everything", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "write the first DM to pitch @tacosbytoni on a collab", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "draft a cold email to a creator we've never contacted before", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "build the creative brief for the creator we just signed", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "what deliverable specs and key messages go in the brief for our signed ambassador", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "shortlist 15 creators for our fitness launch", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "score these creators on audience fit and brand safety", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "define the KPIs for this influencer campaign before launch", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "what attribution method should I use for our creator campaign", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "measure ROI on last quarter's creator campaigns", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "set the commission rate for our affiliate program", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "revenue share vs flat CPA for our SaaS affiliate program", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "check this TikTok caption for FTC disclosure compliance", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "does thanks to @brand for the gift count as adequate disclosure?", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "draft the terms and conditions affiliates accept when they join our program", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "write our affiliate program agreement clauses", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "onboarding sequence for newly approved affiliates", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "audit last month's affiliate payout run before we disburse", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "flag cookie stuffing in our affiliate data", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "recruit 50 new affiliates into our program", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "rank our candidate strategic alliances by expected value", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "deal registration policy for our partner co-sell motion", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "write our channel conflict rules of engagement", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "design the tier structure for our reseller program", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "model the unit economics of this reseller relationship", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "should we list on a cloud marketplace or stay direct", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "plan the joint GTM launch with our integration partner", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "design the reward for our refer-a-friend program", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "cap referral rewards so customers stop gaming the program", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "build the partner enablement and certification track", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "what should our per-partner scorecard measure", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "map our whole partner and channel ecosystem", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "which partner categories should we add next and in what order", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "design our B2B channel program from scratch", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "how do I break into partnerships as a career", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "build the interview loop for a channel manager role", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "I'm starting partnerships work at a new company, where do I begin", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "help me negotiate my salary offer for a marketing manager role", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "negotiate a lower price with our SaaS vendor at renewal", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "review this vendor contract for risky clauses", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "give me an employment contract template for a contractor", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "audit this smart contract for vulnerabilities", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "scrape Instagram to find influencers in the skincare niche", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "what's our overall influencer marketing strategy for next year", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "I'm a creator, how do I negotiate a better rate with a brand that approached me", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "I'm a YouTuber, what should I charge brands for a dedicated video", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "write the press release for our creator collab launch", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "negotiate our office lease renewal", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "how do I ask my manager for a promotion", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "draft an NDA to send a creator before we share the roadmap", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "our agency of record retainer is up for renewal, help me renegotiate it", "should_trigger": false }
]
}
references/concession-ladder.md›
# Concession ladder
How to sequence the negotiation, set opening positions, and trade terms in order - with walk-away thresholds defined before the first call.
## Sequence scope before price
1. Lock the deliverables sketch (formats, counts, timing) with the creator first.
2. Only then discuss rate, with usage rights and exclusivity negotiated as inputs to the final number - not bolted on after a flat fee is agreed.
3. This ordering is corroborated (sourced) across multiple sources.
## The anchoring tension - report it, then decide
Who names a number first is genuinely contested in the sources:
- Open with a fair, evidence-anchored proposal based on your benchmarks (sourced).
- Invite the creator's rate card first via "budget discovery" - get the brand to reveal its range first - and anchor high defensively only when the brand opens below their floor (sourced).
These two postures are deliberately left unranked: the only evidence for either sits inside published guidance that contains both, so ordering them by efficiency would manufacture precision the sources cannot carry. The choice turns entirely on the conditions below rather than on a ratio. Do not present either side as the answer; apply this decision rule instead:
- Open first with an evidence-anchored range when your rate intel is solid, you negotiate direct with the creator, and your internal teams quote consistently.
- Invite their rate card first when facing a talent manager or agency (expect budget-discovery questions), when your rate intel is thin, or when buying a creator tier you have never bought.
- Either way: never disclose the top of your approved budget. Answer budget-discovery asks with the deal shape and your opening range, not the ceiling.
## Opening positions
- Set three numbers per term before the conversation: opening, fallback, walk-away. A term with one number is not a position.
- Quote ranges, not points (sourced): the spread absorbs priced concessions (usage extensions, exclusivity add-ons) without breaching your floor. Open with a range whose lower half you would happily close in.
- Every rate number must come from the user's own rate intel. Vendor conventions in the landscape file price _terms relative to the base_ (e.g. +X% for usage) - they never supply the base itself.
- Expect a high-anchor reply conditioned on terms ("rate is contingent on exclusivity and paid usage") - that is a documented script, and an invitation to trade terms, not a final price.
## What to trade, in what order
Ranked by what each give buys back per unit of cost to you - not by which is cheapest. Every give must buy something back. Never concede a must-have: escalate or walk instead.
- efficiency: payment terms > deliverable extras > posting-date flexibility > exclusivity > paid-usage window > retainer commitment
- cost to you: retainer commitment > paid-usage window > exclusivity > payment terms == deliverable extras == posting-date flexibility
- value to them: exclusivity > paid-usage window > retainer commitment > payment terms > deliverable extras > posting-date flexibility
The top three tie on cost because each is a single sentence in a counter-offer needing no new infrastructure, no budget authority and no internal sign-off - so what separates them is purely what comes back, which is why payment terms lead. Cost and value invert down the table: the gives worth most to the creator are the ones that cost you real campaign capability, so spend them last and never unpriced.
| Order | Give | What it costs you | What it buys back |
| ----- | --------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| 1 | Better payment terms (net-15, partial upfront) | Working-capital timing and one finance conversation | Goodwill and a rate concession - cheap for the brand, high value to the creator (sourced) |
| 2 | Nice-to-have deliverable extras (extra story, longer cut) | A deliverable you already labeled nice-to-have | Rate held, or usage window widened |
| 3 | Posting-date flexibility | Nothing when the window is open; the campaign when it is not | Rate reduction or faster approval SLA |
| 4 | Shorter exclusivity, or drop it entirely | Competitor lockout you may want back later | Meaningful rate reduction - exclusivity carries a real premium |
| 5 | Shorter paid-usage window with priced renewal blocks | Amplification reach now, recoverable by paying the renewal | Rate reduction now; option value kept for later |
| 6 | Multi-campaign or retainer commitment | Budget authority and relationship management across a quarter | Lower per-deliverable rate (volume pricing is documented [VENDOR - IMH]) |
Delete rows before the conversation, rather than carrying them down the ladder:
- A fixed launch date deletes row 3 - flexibility you do not have is not a concession, and offering it invites a date you then have to walk back.
- Competitor exclusivity as a stated must-have deletes row 4 entirely; it is not a late give.
- Absent genuine repeat intent, delete row 6. A retainer traded to close one deal buys volume pricing against a commitment you will not honour.
The order is a default that shifts with who is across the table and who executes it. Re-rank before the call:
- A creator who has publicly complained about late payment makes row 1 worth more than the table assumes.
- A talent manager negotiating several of your deals at once makes row 6 cheaper than it looks.
- A brand already running paid amplification on this creator's older content cannot treat row 5 as a late give at all.
## Handling an over-budget quote
Four moves close a gap, ranked by relief bought per unit of effort; a fifth exit ends the deal when none of them does. Each is documented except where flagged.
- efficiency: shorten exclusivity > shorten usage window > trim deliverables > retainer volume
- cost: retainer volume (a quarter of commitment) > usage window (a renewal negotiation later) > exclusivity == deliverables (one sentence each in the counter)
- value: usage window > exclusivity > deliverables > retainer volume
Exclusivity leads on ratio rather than on relief size: it costs one sentence when the lockout was a nice-to-have, and the premium it carries comes straight off the quote. Shortening the usage window buys more when - and only when - the creator's number bundled a long paid-usage grant, which is what makes the top two orderings disagree; check what their quote actually included before choosing between them. Exclusivity and deliverables tie on cost because both are a single counter-offer sentence, though the second one buys relief by buying less campaign.
1. Drop or shorten exclusivity - it trades directly against price, with priced extensions if needed later.
2. Shorten the usage window - trade a long bundled term for capped 30-day priced blocks.
3. Trim deliverables - price tracks scope 1:1, so a smaller package is the honest fit for a smaller budget.
4. Offer multi-campaign or retainer volume for a lower per-unit rate.
5. If none closes the gap: walk politely and log the quote in the deal log - today's over-budget creator is next quarter's retainer candidate.
Deleted rather than ranked last:
- The hybrid flat + commission bridge is absent from the ranking above because tracking is usually not live before content posts mid-negotiation, and without it the move is deleted rather than demoted. This is now a documented over-budget response, not just a documented structure: practitioner guidance describes framing a reduced flat fee plus tracked-sales commission specifically as the counter when a brand's budget cannot meet a creator's initial ask, and vendor tooling (IZEA's Flex Offers) exists to build and send exactly this deal shape at scale. Where tracking does exist, it enters at the bottom of every axis - slowest relief, highest cost - and gets presented as a suggestion, never as standard practice.
- Exclusivity as a stated must-have deletes step 1, which usually promotes the usage window to the opening move.
- Retainer volume without genuine repeat intent deletes step 4 - the discount is real, the commitment behind it is not.
## Scope-creep re-pricing
- Pattern (sourced): acknowledge the addition, name it specifically, attach a revised price immediately - never discuss added scope and price as separate conversations.
- Runs both directions: when the creator's brief grows your ask, expect this script back; when your team grows the ask mid-negotiation, volunteer the re-price yourself.
## Walk-away thresholds
Define before the first conversation, per term and in total:
- Total-budget ceiling: the all-in number (fee + usage + exclusivity + bonuses) above which the deal dies.
- Minimum usage rights: the shortest window/scope that still serves the campaign - below it, the content is unusable at any price.
- Latest acceptable posting date when a launch is fixed.
- Automatic exits, price-independent:
- Creator refuses a written contract.
- Creator or manager proposes weakening or dropping disclosure.
- Perpetual-rights or open-ended-exclusivity demands that survive two rounds of counter-proposals.
- Write each threshold into the playbook explicitly. A threshold decided mid-call under pressure is not a threshold.
references/deal-terms-landscape.md›
# Deal terms landscape
Every negotiable term in a creator deal, with what it costs, what it buys, and where each convention comes from. Enumerate these separately before any conversation - never negotiate "the deal" as one number.
## Where to spend your negotiating capital
Every term below gets a position, but rounds are finite. Rank where the effort goes - and note this ranks _where to push_, not what to give away. The give order is a separate ranking, built at workflow step 6 from its own reference, and answers a different question.
- efficiency (movement bought per round spent): payment terms > usage rights > exclusivity > revisions > kill fee > commission hybrid
- value (money the term moves): usage rights > exclusivity > commission hybrid > revisions == kill fee
- cost (rounds to settle, and coordination outside the room): commission hybrid > usage rights > exclusivity > revisions == kill fee > payment terms
- compliance cost: usage rights > commission hybrid > exclusivity > payment terms
- Payment terms lead on ratio despite moving the least money: committing to net-30 costs one finance conversation and no negotiating ground, and it is the single best-sourced lever in this domain.
- Usage rights lead on value and are where a long negotiation actually pays.
- Revisions and kill fee tie on both value and cost because each is settled in one exchange and caps a tail risk rather than moving the fee; splitting them would be invented precision.
Deliverables sit outside this ranking: they are the base every other term prices against, not a lever to trade (see below). Re-rank against the deal in front of you - a creator whose rate card already assumes broad usage makes usage the opening fight, and a brand with no paid-media plan should delete paid usage from the ask rather than negotiate it down.
## Deliverables and counts
- Define first, before any rate: format (reel, video, story, post, newsletter send, podcast read), count, length, posting window, how long content stays live.
- What it buys: the entire basis for the price. Price tracks scope 1:1 - a deliverable added later is a re-price, not a favor.
- Sequencing: deliverables before rate (sourced) - negotiated in this order consistently across sources.
## Usage rights (organic vs. paid/whitelisting)
- Often the highest-value clause in the deal. Organic repost, paid amplification (whitelisting/dark posting/creator ads), email/web, print/OOH are separate tiers, each time-boxed.
- Published conventions (starting ranges, not market standards - pressure-test against your own rate intel):
- Organic: bundled into base fee up to ~6 months, then 10-15% of base/month.
- Paid social: 15-25% of base per 30-day cycle.
- Whitelisting: 25-35% of base per month.
- Perpetual global buyout: 200-300% of base as a lump sum.
- Raw footage: +25-50%.
- Extra territory: +10-20% per region.
- What it buys: ad creative you can put media spend behind - performance data from whitelisted content is also a clean creative-quality signal.
- Rule: rights are a ladder of time-boxed licenses with pre-agreed renewal pricing (e.g. ~20% of original fee per 30-day extension block). "Perpetual" as a default is a red flag on either side of the table.
## Exclusivity
- Competitor lockout for a set period. Costs real money because the creator forgoes other income.
- Published conventions (starting ranges):
- Category exclusivity: 15-30% premium.
- Platform-only: 10-15%.
- Broad grants: can escalate to 100-200% of base.
- Documented duration examples range from 7 days post-live to 12 months; no fixed standard exists.
- Scope discipline: restrict to named direct competitors or SKU families, never a whole vertical; time-box to the decision cycle you are influencing; price extensions per 30-day block.
- Exclusivity and usage duration are distinct levers: long organic rights can pair with short exclusivity, or the reverse. Reconcile the two durations in the contract.
## Revisions
- Published convention: two rounds of minor edits included in base fee; further rounds priced. Treat the "2 included rounds" shape as the usable standard.
- Define minor vs. major contractually: minor = text/color/trim changes; major = new footage or changes affecting more than ~20% of script/footage.
## Approvals and posting timeline
- Published convention: 72-hour brand review, 48-hour creator revisions, 24-hour final sign-off - about six days draft-to-approval. Use as a starting proposal, not a norm.
- Lock contractually: claims, CTA, disclosure language, deadlines. Leave to the creator: hook, style, voice - over-scripting is a documented performance killer.
## Payment terms and schedule
- **The best-sourced term in this entire domain (sourced).** Net-30 is the common baseline, but drift is real:
- 45/60/90-day terms are increasingly common, even 120+ days.
- Practitioners call late payment the industry's "dirty little secret."
- Creators report dropping brands over it.
- Creator counter-tactics are documented: 10-15 day terms written into the contract with a ~10% late fee; one talent-management firm experimenting with charging brands interest on late invoices. Expect these asks - they are reasonable.
- Brand-side position: commit to net-30 or better, put the date in the contract, and mirror any late-delivery penalty imposed on the creator with a late-payment penalty on the brand.
## Kill fee / cancellation
- Published conventions: termination-without-cause exposure capped at 5-10% of remaining contract value; cause-based termination enumerates specific breaches with a 7-10 business-day cure period.
- Reverse-morals kill fee: pays the creator 50-75% of remaining fee if the _brand_ becomes reputationally toxic - the mirror of the morality clause, and a fair ask.
## Performance bonuses and commission hybrids
- Hybrid flat + commission aligns incentives: a documented shape is a monthly retainer plus a tiered CPA that escalates past a sales threshold. Fixed:variable ratio tracks relationship length (majority-fixed for long ambassadorships, near-even for short performance pushes).
- Define the attribution window in the deal (short for impulse categories, ~30 days for considered purchases).
- B2B variants: funnel-stage tiers (e.g. rising % at MQL / SQL / closed deal) and 10-30% of first-year ARR for high-ticket deals, paid on milestones rather than checkouts.
- If the deal grows a real commission component, hand structure design to `mbfinotti/partnerships-skills@affiliate-commission-structure`.
## Content ownership
- Modern practice frames ownership as licensed, time-boxed rights, not perpetual work-for-hire.
- Full buyout exists as a priced option (see usage rights lump sum), never as a default the brand slips into boilerplate.
- Alternative to a buyout: revenue-share on verified ad spend (5-10%).
## Tracking and attribution as a negotiated deliverable
- Write the tracking mechanism into the agreement itself: unique promo code, UTM-tagged links, or a dedicated landing page, live before content posts.
- Pattern: measurement agreed at deal time, not bolted on after launch (sourced).
- What it buys: attribution that survives disputes, and the data your own deal log depends on.
references/examples.md›
# Worked examples
Two positive playbooks (B2C, B2B) and one annotated negative. Rate numbers below come from each fictional user's own stated rate intel - the skill never supplies the base rate. Vendor conventions appear only as relative shapes, with the provenance caveats those conventions carry (one vendor's house numbers, not market standards).
## B2C example - skincare brand x Instagram micro-creator
Interview facts:
- B2C collab.
- Creator: 62k Instagram followers.
- Deal shape: 2 reels + 3 stories.
- Budget: $4,000-6,000, with rate intel from the brand's last three micro-creator deals ($3,500-4,500 for comparable scope).
- Must-haves: 90-day paid usage, launch-week posting.
- Nice-to-haves: 60-day exclusivity.
- Direct with creator.
- Repeat intended.
```
INFLUENCER NEGOTIATION PLAYBOOK - @glowbyrita, 2026-08-25
Deal shape : flat fee + priced usage tiers - rank 1, and the only shape left standing
(retainer deleted: repeat intent real but no first deal closed yet;
hybrid deleted: no tracking live before launch)
Term positions :
Term | Opening | Fallback | Walk-away
Deliverables | 2 reels + 3 stories, launch week | 1 reel + 3 stories, re-priced | <1 reel
Fee | $3,800-4,200 (own past-deal range)| $4,800 if usage/exclusivity held | $6,000 all-in ceiling
Usage | organic 6 mo + paid 90 days | paid 30-day blocks, priced renewal| no paid usage at all
Exclusivity | 3 named competitors, 60 days | 30 days, or drop for -$400 | open-ended demand
Revisions | 2 minor rounds included | +1 round at a pre-agreed price | "unlimited until happy"
Payment | net-30, date in contract | net-15 as a ladder concession | creator demands >50% before contract
Concession ladder : 1) net-15 2) third story flex 3) posting-day flex inside launch week
4) drop exclusivity 5) shorten paid usage to 30-day blocks
Red flags : quote >$6k with no scope change -> re-anchor on deliverables sketch;
"let's skip the contract, DMs are fine" -> written contract or exit
Walk-away line : $6,000 all-in; no paid usage = no deal; disclosure pushback = exit
Non-negotiable : #ad disclosure per the disclosure skill - never on the ladder
To contract : deliverables + window, usage tier + duration, exclusivity scope + end date,
revision cap + minor/major definition, net-30 date, kill fee, tracking (code + UTM)
```
Why it holds:
- Every term has three numbers.
- The fee traces to the user's own log.
- The ladder leads with net-15, which costs the brand only working-capital timing and buys the most back.
- Both usage and exclusivity are time-boxed with priced extensions.
Posting-day flex survives at rank 3 only because the launch _week_ is the must-have, not a single date; a fixed date would have deleted that row.
## B2B example - devtools SaaS x DevOps newsletter
Interview facts:
- B2B creator program.
- Newsletter, 30k subscribers; writer represented by a small agency.
- Deal shape: 3 dedicated sends over a quarter.
- Budget: $4,500, with rate intel = the writer's published sponsor page ($1,200/send) plus one comparable past deal.
- Must-haves: milestone-tiered commission on trials, tracking links.
- Note: B2B usage/exclusivity norms are undocumented; every term must be explicit.
```
INFLUENCER NEGOTIATION PLAYBOOK - Pipeline Weekly, 2026-08-25
Deal shape : CPM-sanity-checked flat per send + funnel-tiered commission - the hybrid,
ranked last on efficiency and chosen anyway: tracking links are a stated
must-have and live before send 1, so its deletion condition does not fire,
and the compounding-relationship answer outranked speed here
(newsletters price on CPM, not flat fee - one marketplace's published method;
B2B audiences command premium CPMs per the same single source)
Term positions :
Term | Opening | Fallback | Walk-away
Deliverables | 3 dedicated sends, 1/month | 2 sends + 1 secondary placement | 1 send (no sequence effect)
Fee | $1,100/send (their card, CPM-checked)| $1,250/send if commission accepted| $1,600/send
Commission | tiered on milestones: trial -> qualified lead -> closed (one vendor's B2B convention, shape only) | flat % on trials, 30-day window | commission refused AND fee at ceiling
Usage | quote send copy in brand channels, 6 mo - stated explicitly, no B2B norm to lean on | 3 mo | none
Exclusivity | none requested (no documented B2B norm; not needed here) | - | -
Payment | net-30 per send | net-15 | prepay all 3 sends before send 1
Concession ladder : 1) net-15 2) shift send dates 3) drop usage to 3 mo 4) raise per-send fee
to buy commission acceptance 5) next-quarter renewal for rate hold
Red flags : agency opens with "what's your approved budget?" -> budget-discovery script;
answer with deal shape + opening range, never the ceiling
Walk-away line : $4,800 all-in; no tracking links in copy = no deal
Non-negotiable : sponsored-content disclosure in every send - route to disclosure skill
To contract : send dates, placement type, copy-approval SLA, commission tiers + attribution
window + payout timing, usage grant + duration, net-30, tracking links live pre-send
```
Why it holds:
- CPM is used only to sanity-check the writer's own card, not as this skill's benchmark.
- Absent B2B norms are named and every term made explicit.
- The manager-facing anchoring rule (invite their number, hold the ceiling) is applied.
It also shows the ranking working as a default rather than a law: the lowest-ranked shape wins here because its deletion condition was checked and cleared, and the playbook says so instead of quietly reordering.
## Negative example - annotated
The same B2C deal, prepped wrong:
```
NEGOTIATION NOTES - @glowbyrita
1. Open at $3,000 flat and agree the price first - we'll figure out
exact deliverables once we've shaken hands on the number.
2. If she pushes back on money, offer perpetual usage of whatever
she makes - costs us nothing.
3. Exclusivity: she just shouldn't work with competitors while
we're working together.
4. Revisions: we keep notes coming until the video feels right.
5. If she's difficult on price, offer to drop the #ad label -
the post performs better without it anyway.
6. Payment: net-90, that's what finance prefers.
7. No walk-away number - stay flexible and see how it goes.
```
Line-by-line:
1. **Rate before scope.** A price agreed against undefined deliverables re-opens the moment scope lands - and the corroborated sequencing finding says terms are inputs to the number, not afterthoughts.
2. **Perpetual usage is not free.** It is the deal's highest-value clause; one vendor's own convention prices perpetual buyouts at 200-300% of base. Offering it as a costless sweetener gives away more than the fee dispute is worth.
3. **Open-ended exclusivity.** No duration, no named competitors, no price. Every documented convention time-boxes it and narrows scope; "while we're working together" plus perpetual usage (line 2) means the lockout literally never ends.
4. **Unlimited revisions.** The one documented convention caps included rounds at two and prices the rest; "until it feels right" is the exact vague clause that convention exists to prevent.
5. **Disclosure traded away.** The non-negotiable gate, and the brand carries liability for creator non-disclosure. This line alone should kill the playbook in review - it is an automatic-exit trigger, not a concession.
6. **Net-90.** The best-sourced failure in this domain: documented late-payment drift is why creators drop brands and why managers now negotiate interest clauses. Imposing it on purpose burns the repeat relationship the brand said it wanted.
7. **No walk-away.** A threshold decided mid-call under pressure is not a threshold; every term needs opening, fallback, and walk-away before the conversation starts.
references/red-flags.md›
# Red flags and counterpart etiquette
Signals to watch during negotiation - on both sides of the table - and the response to each. Brand-side flags matter because the user's own organization can be the one waving them; fix those before the call, not during it.
## Brand-side red flags (audit your own side first)
| Flag | Why it hurts | Response |
| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Different internal teams quoting the same creator wildly different numbers (sourced) | Destroys the brand's rate credibility; the creator now negotiates against your highest leak | Appoint one internal rate authority before outreach; align every team on the range |
| Payment stretching past stated terms - 60/90/120+ days documented (sourced) | Practitioners call it the industry's "dirty little secret"; creators drop brands over it | Commit to net-30 or better in the contract; accept a mirrored late-payment penalty |
| Perpetual-usage language in your template | Undervalues creator labor; sophisticated counterparts will price it punitively or walk | Replace with a time-boxed license and pre-agreed renewal pricing |
| All-vertical, 12-month post-term "blackout" non-competes (sourced) | Reads as bad faith; invites a large premium or a refusal | Narrow to named direct competitors, 3-6 months, with carve-outs |
| Exclusivity silently outlasting the paid-usage window | Ongoing paid amplification of old content blocks the creator beyond the stated lockout | Reconcile both durations in the contract explicitly |
| Anyone on your side offering to trade disclosure | Non-negotiable gate; the brand carries liability for creator non-disclosure | Remove it from the table; route to the disclosure skill; escalate internally if repeated |
## Creator-side red flags
| Flag | Response |
| ------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Rate far above your intel with no scope justification | Ask what the number includes (usage? exclusivity? revisions?); re-anchor on the deliverables sketch; walk if the gap survives the ladder |
| Unwilling to grant the usage rights the campaign needs | Below your minimum-usage walk-away the content is unusable at any price - trade duration/scope, or exit |
| Audience-authenticity doubts surfacing mid-negotiation | Vetting belongs upstream (`mbfinotti/partnerships-skills@influencer-discovery-brief`); pause the negotiation and re-vet rather than pricing the doubt in |
| Resists a written contract, prefers "keeping it casual" | Every source pattern converges on written agreement as the closing requirement - no contract, no deal |
| Pushes back on the disclosure obligation | Automatic exit - this is the gate, not a term |
| Agrees to everything instantly, no questions on scope | Fast total agreement often hides unread terms; confirm the key terms back in writing before celebrating |
## Talent manager vs. direct creator
What is well established:
- A manager adds negotiation leverage and payment-term enforcement the creator often can't apply alone.
- The cost side: manager commissions reportedly up to ~40%, and managers can inflate a mid-tier creator's rate past their deal flow.
- Expect budget-discovery scripts from agencies; answer with the deal shape and your opening range, never the approved ceiling.
Etiquette:
- Never go around a listed manager to the creator - relationship-fatal upstream and downstream.
- With a manager: expect professionalized asks (rate card, conditions-attached anchors, term-by-term trading); respond in kind - written positions, named terms, no vague bundles.
- With a direct creator: keep the same term rigor but carry the relationship weight yourself - explain _why_ behind each ask, keep payment terms generous, and remember repeat intent; the pressure a manager would apply on payment timing, you should apply on yourself.
- Either way, identical closing rule: every agreed term reaches the written contract, reviewed by qualified counsel.
SKILL.md›
---
name: influencer-negotiation-playbook
description: Prepare a brand-side partnership manager to negotiate deal terms with an influencer or creator, from the creator's first positive reply to a signed contract - a written playbook of term-by-term opening positions, a concession ladder, red-flag responses, and walk-away thresholds covering rates, usage rights, exclusivity, revision limits, payment terms, and kill fees. Covers B2C brand collabs and B2B creator programs. Use whenever the user mentions creator rates, creator deal terms, usage rights, exclusivity, or negotiating with a creator's talent manager, even if they never say negotiation. Requires the user's own rate benchmarks. Do NOT use for the first-touch pitch - use mbfinotti/partnerships-skills@influencer-outreach instead.
license: MIT
metadata:
author: Maya-Beth Finotti
version: "1.4.7"
---
# Influencer Negotiation Playbook
Build the playbook a brand-side partnership manager takes into deal-term negotiation with one creator. The window opens when the creator replies with interest and closes at contract signature.
No named negotiation framework (BATNA/ZOPA, tactical empathy, Ackerman, MESO) is documented as genuinely used in creator deal-making - targeted searches of two high-volume trade publications returned zero hits tying any of them to creator deals. This skill therefore uses plain working vocabulary (opening position, concession, walk-away threshold) and brands no method.
Nearly every quantified convention in its references traces to one vendor publication (Influencer Marketing Hub, mostly two staff writers, no survey backing, sometimes inconsistent between its own articles). Treat every such number as a negotiation range to pressure-test against the user's own rate intel, never as market price.
This skill prepares the human. It never:
- Negotiates on the user's behalf.
- Impersonates the user.
- Sends messages on the user's behalf.
It is not legal advice: final terms must land in a written contract reviewed by qualified counsel.
## Interview
Ask before drafting anything.
- One question per message, with multiple-choice answers when possible.
- Skip any question the user already answered.
- Is this a B2C brand collab or a B2B creator program (newsletter, podcast, industry expert)?
- Who is the creator, on which platform(s), and what tier/audience size?
- What do you want the creator to make - a rough deliverables sketch (formats, counts, timing)?
- What budget range is approved, and what rate intel or benchmark do you already hold? This skill does not benchmark rates - bring a range from past deals, the creator's rate card, or your own research.
- Which terms are must-haves and which are nice-to-haves?
- What usage rights do you actually need (organic repost, paid ads/whitelisting, duration, territory), and is competitor exclusivity required?
- By what date must the content be live - a fixed launch date, or a flexible window?
- Do you want a one-off campaign win, or a relationship that compounds into cheaper, faster deals later?
- What is your effort ceiling for running this deal - hours per week, whether anyone already owns tracking and payout reconciliation, and how much internal sign-off you can spend?
- Who negotiates - you directly with the creator, or via a talent manager/agency?
- What is your internal budget authority, and who signs off above it?
The live-by date, the one-off-versus-compounding answer, and the effort ceiling move the rankings in this skill. Re-rank every menu against them, and say which answer moved which option:
- A fixed date inside two weeks pins the flat one-off shape and deletes posting-date flexibility from the concession ladder.
- A compounding mandate promotes the retainer.
- A thin effort ceiling, or nobody owning attribution, deletes the hybrid flat+commission shape outright.
## Workflow
1. Run the Interview; collect every answer before drafting.
2. Gate on rate intel: if the user brings no rate range, stop and ask for one. Never build a rate benchmark - that is out of scope, and no sibling skill covers it either, so do not route the request onward as if someone else will answer it. Instead hand the user the three ways to get a band themselves, in this order, then wait:
- efficiency: creator's own rate card > quotes from 3-5 comparable creators > the platform's published creator-earnings ranges
- value (how well the number survives being challenged in the room): comparable quotes > rate card > published ranges
- cost: comparable quotes (a week of outreach and waiting on replies) > published ranges (an hour of reading) > rate card (one message)
- What each option buys, beyond the ranking above:
- **Rate card**: leads on ratio, not on being free. One message puts a real number on the table, but it is the creator's ask, not a band.
- **Comparable quotes**: the only option producing a band you can defend when the counterpart pushes. Recommend them whenever the campaign date is more than a couple of weeks out.
- **Published ranges**: the fallback when neither is reachable. They stay a directional sanity check, never an opening position.
3. Enumerate every negotiable term separately using [references/deal-terms-landscape.md](references/deal-terms-landscape.md). Never negotiate "the deal" as one number.
4. Enter brainstorming mode on deal shape, working the ranked menu in Deal shapes below. Apply its deletion conditions first, propose the top surviving shape plus the one behind it, and name which Interview answer moved the order. Ask questions one at a time; draft nothing until the user picks a shape.
5. Set an opening position, a fallback, and a walk-away threshold for every term, per [references/concession-ladder.md](references/concession-ladder.md). Apply its anchoring decision rule explicitly - who names a number first is a sourced, unresolved tension, not a solved question.
6. Order the concession ladder by what each give buys back per unit of cost to you, not by which give is cheapest, using the ranked table in [references/concession-ladder.md](references/concession-ladder.md). Delete the rows its conditions rule out instead of carrying them to the bottom, and state the resulting order in the playbook.
7. Attach red-flag responses and, when a talent manager is involved, the manager-specific etiquette from [references/red-flags.md](references/red-flags.md).
8. Insert the disclosure gate: disclosure/FTC compliance is a non-negotiable condition of the deal, never a tradeable term. Route obligations to `mbfinotti/partnerships-skills@affiliate-disclosure-compliance`; do not restate regulation.
9. List what must reach the written contract (deliverables, usage tier, exclusivity scope+duration, revision cap, payment terms, kill fee, disclosure obligation, tracking).
10. Self-check against the Quality gate; iterate until every item passes.
11. Validate the playbook with the user section by section - terms, ladder, red flags, contract list - before finalizing.
12. Deliver the playbook with the reminder: the user negotiates, and counsel reviews the contract before signature.
13. If your harness has persistent memory, log the deal's opening vs. final terms once known (see KPIs); otherwise hand the user the log table to keep.
## Deal shapes
Step 4's menu, ranked. Three shapes carry a creator deal; the orderings disagree, so state the one you are using out loud:
- efficiency (payoff per round of negotiation and per week of ops): flat one-off > retainer > hybrid flat+commission
- value (total payoff over a quarter): retainer > hybrid > flat one-off
- cost (effort to set up and run): hybrid > retainer > flat one-off
- compliance cost: hybrid > retainer > flat one-off
Lead with the flat one-off because it wins the ratio, not because it is the smallest deal. The shape with the biggest payoff is also the one that costs a standing job to run, and only the ratio answers which shape to propose on Monday.
| Shape | What it buys | What it costs you | Compliance exposure |
| -------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Flat fee, one-off | One campaign, delivered and closed, with usage and exclusivity priced as add-ons rather than bundled | One negotiation, hours of prep, nothing owed after signature | One time-boxed usage grant and one disclosure obligation; fully reversible once the window ends |
| Retainer / multi-campaign volume | A lower per-deliverable rate, reserved creator capacity, and a relationship that makes the next deal cheaper to close | Several more rounds, budget authority spanning a quarter, and standing relationship management | Exclusivity and usage windows running the retainer's full length - the hardest terms to unwind mid-flight |
| Hybrid flat + commission | Pay that tracks outcomes, with downside protection if the campaign underperforms | Attribution, reconciliation, and payout operations - a standing job, not a setup task - plus a higher fixed ask from a creator trading certainty away | Ongoing material-connection disclosure past the campaign, payout and tax handling, and commission terms counsel has to read |
Default: flat fee, one-off. Move up one rung to the retainer once a first deal with this creator has closed and repeat intent is real on both sides.
Delete, do not demote:
- Drop the hybrid from the menu entirely when tracking is not live before content posts or nobody owns payout reconciliation. An untracked commission is a dispute with a creator, not a deal shape - do not hold it in reserve as an over-budget bridge either.
- Drop the retainer when repeat intent is not real or budget authority stops at this campaign. Volume pricing bought against a commitment you cannot honour costs more than paying full rate once.
- Never present a deleted shape demoted "for completeness"; a ruled-out option in a menu gets picked eventually.
This order is a default, not a law: it shifts with the deal and with who runs it. Re-rank against what you already know about the user before proposing:
- An existing signed relationship with this creator puts the retainer first, because its negotiation and trust costs are already sunk.
- In-house legal plus a live affiliate program collapses the hybrid's cost and compliance axes and promotes it.
- A fixed launch date inside two weeks pins the flat one-off whatever else is true.
## Invocation and expected output
Typical invocations:
- "@plantsbypriya replied and wants to talk terms - 2 reels + 3 stories, budget $4-6k from our past deals. Build my negotiation playbook."
- "The DevOps newsletter writer is interested but her manager quoted double our budget. Prep me for the call."
Deliver one structured artifact:
```
INFLUENCER NEGOTIATION PLAYBOOK - <creator>, <date>
Deal shape : chosen shape + its rank, which rivals were deleted and by which condition
Term positions : table - term / opening / fallback / walk-away
Concession ladder : ordered trades - give / order / what it buys back
Red flags : counterpart signal -> scripted response
Walk-away line : total-budget ceiling + automatic-exit conditions
Non-negotiable : disclosure obligation (gate, not a term)
To contract : every agreed term that must appear in writing
```
## B2B and B2C
- Scope-before-rate sequencing, the written-contract requirement, the disclosure gate, and payment-term hygiene apply identically to both. Published guidance is unsegmented, which weakly suggests universality - treat that as an inference, not a documented rule.
- B2B documented specifics: funnel-stage tiered commissions (e.g. tiers at MQL/SQL/closed-deal), % of first-year ARR for high-ticket deals, newsletter pricing on CPM rather than flat fee, podcast mid-roll host-read CPM, and at least one major podcast marketplace publishing no rates at all (privately negotiated).
- LinkedIn now has documented relative rate shapes (consistent with this skill's base-rate-agnostic approach): a technical/SaaS creator commands roughly a 40-80% premium over a general professional-content creator of the same tier, format multipliers apply on top (carousel +20-35%, video +40-80%, newsletter placement 1.5-3x, a speaking slot ≈4x a sponsored post), and pricing varies by region (APAC roughly 30-60% below North America). YouTube has no published technical-versus-general rate split the way LinkedIn does - the closest figure found is one sponsorship-tracking platform's general Technology-niche CPM (SponsorRadar: $30-60, against $10-25 for gaming), directional only and not developer-specific. B2B exclusivity still has no published convention to inherit - set those terms explicitly instead of assuming B2C conventions transfer.
- B2C: the tier-based rate shapes, usage-rights ladders, and exclusivity conventions in the references skew B2C - apply them there with normal caution about how each number was produced.
## Quality gate
Score the playbook against all eleven items. Pass threshold: 11/11. Iterate until nothing fails.
1. Every negotiable term has an opening position AND a fallback AND a walk-away threshold - no term carries only one number.
2. Deliverables scope is fully defined before any rate appears; price tracks scope 1:1.
3. No number is presented as an industry standard; every vendor-sourced figure is labeled as one vendor's convention and framed as a range.
4. Rate positions trace to the user's stated rate intel, not to figures this skill supplied.
5. Disclosure appears only in the non-negotiable section - never on the concession ladder.
6. Usage rights and exclusivity are each time-boxed with priced extensions; no perpetual or open-ended language survives anywhere.
7. Revision rounds are counted and capped, with re-pricing defined beyond the cap.
8. Every ladder step names what the concession buys back; nothing is given for free.
9. Payment terms state a specific net window; the anchoring decision rule was applied explicitly, not defaulted.
10. The playbook ends with the written-contract checklist and the counsel-review reminder.
11. The chosen deal shape is the top-ranked shape surviving its deletion conditions, or the playbook names the Interview answer that overrode the default order.
## KPIs
- No trustworthy public benchmark exists for creator-deal negotiation outcomes. Never invent or quote one.
- Log every deal instead: terms asked, terms won, concessions given, final vs. opening on each term, days from positive reply to signature.
- After a handful of deals, the user's own history is the benchmark: concession patterns, terms that always slip, realistic days-to-signature.
- If your harness has persistent memory, keep the deal log there across sessions; otherwise hand the table to the user to maintain.
## Common failure modes
| Failure | Fix |
| ----------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Negotiating rate before scope is defined | Lock the deliverables list first; every rate discussion references a fixed scope |
| Treating usage rights as a throw-in | Price usage as its own term - duration, organic vs. paid, territory - it is a top-value clause |
| Open-ended exclusivity | Time-box it, restrict to named competitors, price extensions per period |
| Unlimited revision rounds | Cap included rounds in writing; define minor vs. major; price rounds beyond the cap |
| Scope creep answered without re-pricing | Acknowledge the added deliverable, name it specifically, attach a revised price immediately |
| Perpetual-usage language accepted | Replace with a time-boxed license plus pre-agreed renewal pricing |
| Exclusivity outlasting the usage window | Reconcile both durations in the contract so old paid content can't silently extend the lockout |
| Imposing net-60/90 payment terms | Best-sourced failure in this domain - late payment demonstrably burns creator relationships; commit to net-30 or better |
| Different internal teams quoting different numbers | Set one internal rate authority before outreach; inconsistency destroys negotiating credibility |
| Treating disclosure as tradeable | It is a gate - a counterpart or colleague proposing to trade it triggers the walk-away script |
| One-shot extraction from a repeat-intent relationship | Frame terms as the first move of a repeating deal; the second collaboration usually outperforms the first |
## Reference
- `mbfinotti/partnerships-skills@influencer-outreach` for the cold pitch upstream - it stops at the positive reply where this skill starts.
- `mbfinotti/partnerships-skills@influencer-discovery-brief` for choosing and vetting the creator - assumed done here.
- `mbfinotti/partnerships-skills@influencer-campaign-brief` for the creative brief after signature - this skill stops at the signed contract.
- `mbfinotti/partnerships-skills@affiliate-disclosure-compliance` for disclosure obligations - the non-negotiable gate.
- `mbfinotti/partnerships-skills@affiliate-commission-structure` when the deal includes a commission component.