Latest / Influencer Marketing with Fexingo: Creators, Sponsorships, and Modern Endorsement Deals / Why Influencers Are Moving Into Private Label Deals
Transcript
- Lucas: So the chocolate bar you grab at a convenience store — there's a decent chance it was dreamed up by a YouTuber, not a food scientist. And that's not hyperbole. Luna: You're talking about the private-label pivot. Creators going from slapping their name on someone else's product to actually owning the formula, the packaging, the supply chain. Lucas: Exactly. Feastables is the poster child here — launched by MrBeast in 2022, but the model has spread fast. By mid-2026, we're seeing creators in beauty, supplements, even pet food doing the same thing. Luna: But what's the actual difference between a sponsored post and a private-label deal? Isn't it still just an endorsement with extra steps? Lucas: The difference is ownership. In a traditional sponsorship, the creator gets a flat fee — maybe fifty thousand dollars for a campaign. In a private-label deal, they negotiate for equity or a cut of revenue per unit sold. So if the product takes off, their upside isn't capped. Luna: And the brand side — what's in it for them? Why give away equity to a creator instead of just paying for ads? Lucas: Because a creator with equity is a creator who shows up. They're not just posting a code and moving on — they're iterating on the flavor, the packaging, the launch strategy. Brands essentially buy a co-founder who also happens to have millions of eyeballs. Luna: Right, so it's a deeper integration. But I wonder — does that blur the line between genuine recommendation and paid promotion even further? Lucas: It absolutely does. The FTC is already looking at this. If a creator owns ten percent of a company and then raves about its product on Instagram, is that an endorsement or is it just them talking about their own business? The rules haven't fully caught up. Luna: So what's the typical deal structure look like? Is there a standard template yet? Lucas: Not a standard, but patterns are emerging. In food and beverage, the creator often gets between five and fifteen percent equity in exchange for a multi-year commitment that includes content, appearances, and sometimes even R&D input. Cash advances are lower — maybe ten to twenty percent of what a traditional sponsorship would pay — but the backend potential is larger. Luna: And the creator's audience becomes the distribution channel. No need to buy ads on Meta if your launch video gets five million views. Lucas: Exactly. And that's the real innovation — the product is the content, and the content is the product. Feastables sold out its first run in days because MrBeast made a video about it. That's something no traditional CPG company can replicate easily. Luna: But not every creator has MrBeast's scale. What about mid-tier influencers with, say, two hundred thousand followers? Can they get equity deals? Lucas: They can, but the terms are different. I've seen deals where a mid-tier creator gets a smaller equity slice — three to five percent — but with a faster vesting schedule. Or they might get a profit-share on products they specifically help launch, rather than overall company equity. Luna: And the brand gets access to a niche, highly engaged audience. A creator with two hundred thousand loyal followers in vegan skincare might be more valuable to a new brand than a general lifestyle influencer with two million. Lucas: Exactly. It's about relevance, not just reach. I talked to the founder of a supplement company last month who said their best-performing product was developed directly with a fitness creator who had a hundred fifty thousand subscribers. The creator suggested the ingredient blend, named it, and now gets ten percent of net revenue. Luna: That's a pretty generous cut. But I guess if the creator is effectively the product development lead and the marketing department rolled into one, it makes sense. Lucas: Quick honest thing — a handful of listeners chip in monthly through buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo, and that's literally what funds making this many of these episodes. We don't run ads, so it's listener support that keeps the conversations going. Luna: Yeah, and it means we can dig into niche topics like this without worrying about sponsor approval. So back to the equity model — what happens when a deal goes sour? Lucas: That's the part people don't talk about. If the brand gets acquired or goes under, the creator's equity can become worthless or tied up in litigation. I've seen cases where creators didn't have proper legal review and ended up with restricted stock that they couldn't sell. Luna: So the creator needs a lawyer who understands both entertainment and corporate finance. That's a pretty narrow specialty. Lucas: It is. And that's why we're seeing more creators hiring their own CFOs or fractional general counsels — they need someone who can evaluate a term sheet, not just a contract for a sponsored post. Luna: We did an episode on that — episode 119, influencers hiring CFOs. This feels like a natural extension. Lucas: Absolutely. And there's another angle: some creators are skipping the brand partnership entirely and launching their own private-label products from scratch. They contract with a manufacturer, handle the packaging, and sell direct to consumer. Luna: Which gives them full ownership, but also full risk. You're essentially starting a CPG company with a content engine attached. Lucas: Right. And the success stories — like Kylie Cosmetics — make it look easy, but the failure rate is high. I've seen data suggesting that only about one in five creator-owned product lines survives past the first year. Luna: What kills them? Is it the product itself, or the business side? Lucas: Usually it's the supply chain and logistics. Creators understand content, but they don't always understand minimum order quantities, shelf-life management, or retail distribution. That's why the hybrid model — partnering with an established manufacturer — is becoming more common. Luna: So the private-label partnership is kind of a middle ground: the creator brings the audience and the product concept, the manufacturer brings the production and distribution expertise. Lucas: Exactly. And the manufacturer gets a built-in launchpad. It's a win if both sides do their homework. But I think the bigger story is what this means for the influencer marketing industry overall. Luna: Which is? Lucas: The line between creator and business owner is disappearing. We're moving from an era where influencers were essentially freelance advertisers to an era where they're equity partners and entrepreneurs. The term 'influencer' might not even be accurate in five years. Luna: What would we call them instead? Brand co-founders? Creator-entrepreneurs? Lucas: Maybe just 'founders' — with a following. The ones who do this well aren't really influencing anymore; they're building companies. And the ones who treat it as just another sponsorship deal will get left behind. Luna: That's a good place to leave it. What's your takeaway for a creator listening who's considering a private-label deal? Lucas: Get a lawyer. Understand the cap table. And make sure you actually like the product — because you're going to be talking about it for years, not just one post. Luna: And for brands listening? Lucas: Treat the creator as a true partner. Give them real ownership and a real voice in product decisions. The ones who do that are the ones building lasting brands.