I’ve been thinking about one of the biggest inefficiencies in my agency, and I’m betting other people have the same problem: we’ve built up this whole library of UGC creators, microinfluencers, and content producers that we work with regularly. But the thing is, so have my partner agencies. And we’re all kind of… hoarding them?
So we end up in situations where I’m searching for a specific type of creator (say, green-beauty microinfluencers in Eastern Europe) and I spend three days vetting new people. Meanwhile, my partner agency has been working with three perfect fits for two years but I don’t know about them.
It’s obviously wasteful. We’re duplicating effort, we’re probably overpaying because we’re not leveraging each other’s relationships, and we’re slower to execute because we start from zero every time.
I’ve noticed that some partners are actually sharing their influencer networks and UGC collaboration tools within the hub. Like, they’ve set up access so their partner agencies can see who they work with, what those creators specialize in, past campaign performance, rates—everything.
The transparency part seems risky at first (do I really want to share my influencer spreadsheet?), but the argument is: if we trust each other enough to collaborate on campaigns, why not trust each other to use our networks efficiently?
What’s your take? Are you sharing influencer access with partners, or does that feel like giving away competitive advantage? And if you are, how do you structure it so both sides feel protected but you’re actually reaping the efficiency gains?
I’m particularly curious about UGC creators, because the quality/fit variation there is huge and it takes forever to find reliable people. Pooling that knowledge seems like it could save months.
Ooh, I actually have perspective on this from the creator side. I work with several agencies, and the ones that have shared my information across their partner network are the ones that actually get consistent work.
Like, when two agencies collaborate and I’m in both their networks, I end up getting more interesting briefs, better paying gigs, and longer-term relationships. It’s less feast/famine. But the thing is—this only works when the agencies actually communicate about who they’re working with and why.
I’ve also seen the opposite: agencies hoarding creators, getting mediocre results because the creator isn’t the right fit, then moving on. Whereas if they’d asked their partner agency, “Hey, who do you use for this?” they would’ve gotten a warm intro and better results immediately.
From my perspective, pooling networks is actually better for creators too, because it means we’re taken on by agencies that actually know what we’re good at, not just whoever was available that week.
The only caveat: creators need to be informed that their profile/info is being shared with partner agencies. Not permission-gated necessarily, but at least transparent. I’ve had moments where I found out an agency shared my contact with someone without mentioning it, and it felt invasive.
But if they say upfront, “We work with partner agencies on collaborative campaigns, here are the partners, they might reach out,” that’s actually fine and feels professional.
We started sharing our influencer and UGC networks with partner agencies about a year ago, and honestly, it’s been one of our better decisions.
Here’s why it works: when both agencies have access to a shared list of vetted creators and their performance history, we stop re-vetting people who’ve already proven they deliver. We also stop overpaying because we can see what rates other partners negotiated with the same creators.
The key to making it work without feeling like you’re giving away competitive advantage is to categorize your network by competency, not secrecy. You’re not even hiding your creators—they’re the same people you’d refer to a partner anyway. You’re just making that referral systematic instead of ad-hoc.
For us, it meant setting up a simple shared spreadsheet (partner agencies have read-only access) with creator names, specialties, past performance, rates, and availability. We just refuse to share pricing negotiations or client confidentiality—the raw stuff that’s actually sensitive.
The result? Our partner and we run faster together. We launched a joint campaign in 3 weeks that would normally take 6, partly because we weren’t vetting creators from scratch.
One thing I’d add though: you need trust first. Don’t start this with an agency you’ve only done one project with. Do it with someone you’ve actually built a working relationship with.
We also set informal ground rules: if you’re pulling creators from the shared network, you tell me afterward so I know the status. Sometimes they pick up additional clients through the shared access and get booked for a while. That’s good for them, and it helps me know who’s available.
Basically, transparency without over-control.
I’d frame this as a network efficiency problem. Shared influencer/UGC access is really about reducing search costs and vetting time across the partnership.
From a data perspective:
What you gain: Faster creator sourcing (fewer days to brief), lower vetting costs (reusing existing assessments), better fit rates (warm intro vs. cold outreach), and potentially better rates (negotiating power with known creators).
What you risk: Once a creator is in a shared network, you lose exclusivity. They could be working for a competitor. But honestly? If they’re good enough to share, they’re probably already worked with multiple agencies anyway.
The model that seems to work best is: create a shared library of creators with performance data and outcomes, but keep the relationship/negotiation part fresh each time. Don’t try to pre-negotiate rates corporately; let the individual project drive that.
One thing to measure: Creator reuse rate. If you’re pulling from a shared network, are you actually reusing creators at higher rates than if you were sourcing independently? If the answer’s yes, the collaboration is working. If the answer’s no—if you’re still replacing creators frequently—then the network sharing isn’t adding value and you might want to reconsider.
The Hub’s collaboration tools make this easier because they can track usage and outcomes. You’re not relying on memory or manual updates.
This is actually something I’m really excited about, because it changes the game for partnership dynamics.
When you share influencer networks and UGC access, you’re not just being efficient—you’re building mutual investment. If you both know each other’s creators and you’ve both seen the data on who delivers, it’s the kind of relationship that gets stronger over time, not weaker.
I’ve been introducing agencies specifically so they can explore this kind of resource pooling. The ones that do it successfully end up doing more projects together because they’ve built this operating system together.
My advice: start small. Pick one category of creator or one UGC specialization that you both are active in. Build a small shared library, use it on a project, and see if the efficiency gains are real. If they are, expand from there.
Also, be explicit with creators about the sharing. I’ve seen some awkwardness happen when a creator found out they were in a shared network without being told. Just a quick heads-up prevents that.
This is making me realize we’re probably wasting a ton of time rebuilding capability that already exists elsewhere.
We need to bring on some UGC creators fast for a new product line, and I’ve been assuming we have to vet everyone ourselves. But if we could access a partner’s existing network and learn from their experience? That cuts months out of the timeline.
I’m going to talk to the partner agencies we work with about trying this. Start with maybe five shared creators and see if it actually speeds things up or if it’s just theoretical efficiency.
Thanks for the reality check on this. It sounds like it’s more doable than I thought.