Use when the user asks to "review this influencer content" or "check if this post meets brand guidelines"; runs the typed STAR pre-publish gate, scores Trust...
安全
Creator Performance Audit
试用Audit creator/influencer performance for commerce teams — score creators on reach quality, engagement authenticity, conversion contribution, and cost efficiency, then output a keep/scale/renegotiate/drop decision with evidence.
它能做什么
Audit creator/influencer performance for commerce teams — score creators on reach quality, engagement authenticity, conversion contribution, and cost efficiency, then output a keep/scale/renegotiate/drop decision with evidence.
技能文档
Creator Performance Audit
Turn scattered creator campaign data into a clear keep / scale / renegotiate / drop decision.
Quick Reference
| Decision | Strong | Acceptable | Weak (avoid) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Success metric | Revenue or profit per creator dollar (tracked links/codes) | Engaged-view CPM + assisted conversions | Follower count, raw likes |
| Attribution | Dedicated codes/links + post-purchase survey | Platform attribution with stated window | "Sales went up that week" |
| Engagement check | Engagement rate vs account's own 90-day baseline | Vs category benchmark | Vs global average across niches |
| Authenticity | Comment quality sampling + follower growth curve | Spot-check comments | Trust the media kit |
| Cost basis | Full cost: fee + product + shipping + usage rights + agency | Fee + product cost | Fee only |
| Verdict | One of keep/scale/renegotiate/drop per creator, with thresholds | Ranked tiers | "Mixed results, continue monitoring" |
| Sample window | Last 3-6 campaigns or 90 days | Last 2 campaigns | Single post |
Solves
- Vanity-metric decisions — creators get renewed for likes and views that never convert.
- No cost truth — fees look fine until product, shipping, usage rights, and agency cuts are added.
- Fake or drifted audiences — inflated engagement, bought followers, or an audience that no longer matches the buyer profile.
- One-post judgments — a viral fluke or a flop drives the renewal decision instead of a stable sample.
- Un-comparable creators — TikTok CPMs vs Instagram saves vs YouTube AVD, with no common scorecard.
- No action at the end — audits that end in "interesting" instead of keep/scale/renegotiate/drop.
Use when
- Deciding whether to renew, scale, renegotiate, or drop specific creators
- Building a quarterly creator portfolio review
- Comparing creators across platforms on one scorecard
- Vetting a creator's real performance before a bigger commitment
Do not use when
- Prospecting brand-new creators with no campaign history (that's vetting, not auditing — this skill only covers pre-commitment vetting checks partially)
- You need raw data extraction without synthesis
- The question is creative strategy, not performance
Inputs
- Creator list with platform(s) and campaign history (posts, dates, deliverables)
- Cost data: fees, product cost, shipping, usage rights, agency commissions
- Performance data: impressions/views, engagement, clicks, conversions, revenue (tracked links/codes if available)
- Business context: target audience, margin structure, campaign goals
- Optional: category benchmarks, past audit results
Workflow
Step 1 — Fix the question and the window
Define what "performing" means for this business (profit per dollar, CAC vs blended CAC, content library value) and set the sample: minimum 2-3 campaigns or 90 days per creator. Note any creator being judged on a single post — flag as low-confidence.
Step 2 — Assemble full cost per creator
Fee + product cost + shipping + usage/whitelisting rights + agency commission + internal handling. This is the denominator for everything. See references/metrics-benchmarks.md for the cost checklist.
Step 3 — Normalize performance across platforms
Compute the common scorecard (references/metrics-benchmarks.md): engaged-view CPM, engagement rate vs the creator's own baseline, CTR, conversion rate, revenue per creator dollar. Platform-specific metrics stay as secondary evidence.
Step 4 — Run authenticity checks
Follower growth curve (spikes = suspicion), engagement-to-follower ratio vs category norms, comment quality sampling (generic emoji walls vs real questions), audience geo/demo match to buyer profile. See references/audit-framework.md.
Step 5 — Score and classify
Score each creator on the four axes (reach quality, engagement authenticity, conversion contribution, cost efficiency) and map to a verdict: keep / scale / renegotiate / drop, using the thresholds in references/audit-framework.md.
Step 6 — Write the action plan
Per creator: verdict, evidence (2-3 numbers), and the concrete next step (new rate, different deliverable, usage-rights renegotiation, replacement candidate). Portfolio-level: concentration risk, budget reallocation.
Step 7 — Self-check
Run assets/audit-checklist.md before delivering. Output follows references/output-template.md.
Worked Example 1 — Three creators, one budget
Input (summary): DTC skincare brand, 3 creators over 90 days.
| Creator | Platform | Full cost | Views | Eng. rate | Tracked revenue |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | TikTok | $6,800 (3 posts) | 2.1M | 6.2% | $4,100 |
| B | $4,500 (4 posts) | 380K | 4.8% | $9,700 | |
| C | TikTok | $9,000 (3 posts) | 4.6M | 1.1% | $2,300 |
Output (verdict section):
B — SCALE. Revenue per dollar 2.16, best in portfolio; engagement steady vs her 90-day baseline (4.8% vs 4.5%); comments show purchase-intent questions. Action: propose 6-post quarterly package before her rates adjust; add usage rights for ads — her post #2 outperformed our best paid creative. A — KEEP (watch). RPD 0.60 looks weak, but 71% of tracked conversions came from the one post with a direct product demo; the two "lifestyle" posts converted ~0. Action: renew at same rate but change the brief to demo-format only; re-audit after 2 posts. C — DROP. RPD 0.26 with the portfolio's highest cost. Engagement 1.1% vs TikTok category norm ~4%; follower curve shows two +80K single-day spikes (likely purchased); comments are generic emoji strings. The 4.6M views are not reaching buyers. Action: do not renew; reallocate $9K → B's package ($6K) + test one new demo-style creator ($3K).
Worked Example 2 — Single creator renewal call
Input (summary): Gadget brand, creator on YouTube, $12K for 2 dedicated videos + 1 short. Views 640K total, AVD 4:10 on 9-minute videos, 3,900 clicks, 210 orders tracked ($18,900 revenue), gross margin 38%.
Output (verdict section):
RENEGOTIATE. Revenue per dollar 1.58 but margin-adjusted return is 0.60 — below the 0.8 renewal bar. The content itself performs (AVD 46%, CTR 0.61%, CVR 5.4% — all healthy), so the problem is price, not the creator. Action: counter at $8.5K for the same package (breakeven at current conversion is $7.2K) or same fee with usage rights + a dedicated coupon push in the first 48h, where 63% of his conversions happened. Low-confidence note: 2 videos is a thin sample; lock a 2-video test at the new rate before any annual deal.
Common Mistakes
- Judging on follower count or raw views — reach that doesn't hit buyers is a cost, not an asset.
- Fee-only cost math — product, shipping, usage rights, and agency cuts routinely add 30-60% to true cost.
- Comparing engagement across niches — a 2% rate can be great in one category and terrible in another; compare to the creator's own baseline first.
- Ignoring the content variable — a "bad creator" may be a bad brief; check whether specific formats converted before dropping.
- Single-post verdicts — always state sample size and mark thin samples low-confidence.
- Skipping authenticity checks — follower spikes and emoji-wall comments invalidate every downstream metric.
- No margin adjustment — revenue per dollar above 1.0 still loses money on thin margins.
- Ending without a verdict — every audited creator gets keep/scale/renegotiate/drop plus a next step.
- Ignoring content library value — usage rights for a top-performing creative can justify an otherwise marginal deal; price it explicitly.
Resources
references/output-template.md— standard audit report structurereferences/metrics-benchmarks.md— scorecard metrics, formulas, and cost checklistreferences/audit-framework.md— four-axis scoring, authenticity checks, verdict thresholdsassets/audit-checklist.md— pre-delivery quality checklist
相关技能
Analyze creator revenue streams (Stripe, PayPal, affiliate, sponsorships) to calculate true profitability per content piece, identify unprofitable segments, forecast cash flow gaps, and recommend high-margin content verticals. Use when the user needs revenue analysis, margin reporting, content ROI, or cash flow forecasting.
Audit a landing page or funnel step and produce a prioritised CRO test plan. Use when asked to improve conversion rate, audit a landing/signup/checkout page,...
Audit a content library, docs site, or blog for AI-generated filler that's eroding trust and search performance — and triage what to fix, rewrite, or delete....
Use when the user asks to "analyze influencer campaign performance", "compare influencers", or "find what content worked"; produces metric scorecards vs targ...
Builds a comprehensive social media audit for a brand across all major platforms using apidojo's multi-platform scrapers. Triggers when the user asks to: do a social media audit for a brand, build a full social media presence report, analyze a brand's performance across all social platforms, create a cross-platform social media benchmark, audit a competitor's entire social media strategy, build a social media scorecard for a brand, or create a comprehensive social media analysis covering Twitter Instagram TikTok and YouTube. Returns per-platform metrics, follower counts, engagement rates, content mix, posting frequency, and overall brand health score. Ideal for social media managers, brand strategists, and agency teams doing comprehensive brand audits.