The Open Creator
Rate Standard.

OCRS is an open methodology for pricing creator deals. Fair Rate = BMV × CM × RM × QA × MA — five multipliers covering audience value, content effort, usage rights, audience quality, and market context. Every coefficient is sourced from public benchmarks (Influencer Marketing Hub, Hubfluence, IAB, eMarketer). Every input is publicly measurable. Anyone with the same inputs gets the same answer.

No. OCRS is an open standard for pricing — it ships independently of any platform. CreatorScore publishes and maintains v1.3, but the methodology, formula, and coefficients belong to the industry. Any tool, agency, or marketplace can implement OCRS without integrating CreatorScore. The trust score and OCRS are deliberately decoupled.

Most rate calculators output a single number with no sourcing. OCRS outputs a fair rate plus a confidence band (±15% baseline, widening to ±25% or ±40% on small samples). It explicitly prices rights, exclusivity, and production effort line-by-line. And it documents every coefficient, so brands can defend the number to finance and creators can negotiate from a sourced position.

Fair Rate = BMV × CM × RM × QA × MA. BMV (Base Media Value) is a per-platform creative floor plus Bayesian-shrunk median views × sponsored-content CPM. CM (Content Multiplier) is length × production × concept × deliverable count. RM (Rights Multiplier) prices usage tiers and exclusivity. QA (Quality Adjustment) compares engagement to the niche benchmark. MA (Market Adjustment) is geo × niche × season. Each piece is independently auditable.

Because a brand commissions content from a person, not only impressions. A pure views-times-CPM model priced a 4,000-view creator's Reel at about $60, which no brand actually pays for a scripted, shot, and edited deliverable. Since v1.1 BMV includes a per-platform creative floor — the labour of producing one deliverable — which is then scaled by the same content, rights, quality, and market multipliers as media value. For macro creators the floor is under 1% of their rate.

Not necessarily. OCRS models what is publicly measurable: audience, content effort, rights, engagement, and market. It does not model brand power, inbound demand, an agent in the room, or a track record of converting for brands — the premium drivers that let an in-demand creator charge above the published range for their tier. A rate above the band is a negotiating position backed by those drivers, and the calculator says so rather than pretending they don't exist.

Creator data is noisy. A single viral post can fake market value if you average a small sample. OCRS applies Bayesian shrinkage to median views (pulling small samples toward the category prior) and reports a confidence band that widens as sample size shrinks. Below 30 posts the band is ±25%; below 10 posts it's ±40%.

Authenticity and consistency factors require time-series data (posting cadence, follower growth shape, engagement stability) that not every public profile exposes consistently. The current version defaults both to 1.0. A later version will compute them from the ScrapeCreators historical data pipeline. The fair rate is therefore a slightly conservative estimate — premium creators with high consistency will see lifts when those factors land.

Per 1,000 impressions, not views — LinkedIn reports impressions and B2B creators quote on them. Since v1.3 a LinkedIn post carries a $200 creative floor and a $75 CPM, and a LinkedIn video a $500 floor and an $85 CPM, with a 3.0% impressions-based engagement benchmark for every niche. B2B sponsorships clear at 3–6× consumer-video CPMs: transacted 2026 evidence puts sponsored LinkedIn posts at roughly $50–$125 per 1,000 impressions, and a 20K-follower creator with 8,000 median impressions prices at about $725 on OCRS, next to Favikon's $798 transacted median. Text, image, carousel, and document posts have no running time, so the length factor is neutral; the founder / executive, professional, business, finance, and tech niches add the B2B premium.

The primary deliverable is priced at full rate, then each extra platform is added as its own line on that platform's own median reach. Only the creative work (floor, production add-ons, concept premium) is discounted — the shoot was paid for once — at a reuse share that depends on how the content gets there: a same-file cross-post charges 25% of the creative work and 60% of the reach value, a native adaptation 50% / 75%, separately shot content 100% / 90%. Reach, per-platform whitelisting, quality, and market are never discounted; paid-media terms and exclusivity are charged once. A same-file cross-post lands at roughly half that platform's standalone rate, which is where talent managers quote it, and the package total can never fall below the primary.

Yes. The methodology is open under CC BY 4.0. Implement it in your CRM, marketplace, agency pricing sheet, or rate card software. The full PDF documents every coefficient and edge case. If you submit deals to the validation study, you're directly improving the next version's coefficients for everyone.

Anonymous deal submissions (platform, niche, geo, season, deliverable, rights, and what was actually paid) inform the next version's coefficients. Submissions are write-only — no submitter can read others' data. We publish aggregated learnings in the next version of the methodology PDF and in the recalibration log.