We’re at a point where we need to onboard a bunch of UGC creators pretty quickly, but I’m paranoid about quality. We’ve had bad experiences before—creators who promise one thing and deliver something completely different, or creators whose style doesn’t match the brand even though they seemed like a fit. Now we’re expanding into LATAM, and I’m genuinely unsure how to vet people across a region I don’t know as intimately as the US market.
Right now, our vetting is kind of: check their portfolio, maybe ask for a sample video, and if it looks okay, we onboard them. But I know that’s not rigorous enough, especially when we’re managing creators across two regions and we need consistency. I’m wondering: do you have a checklist or a rubric you use? How much do you weight portfolio quality versus communication style versus ability to follow a brief? And how do you actually speed up the vetting process without cutting corners—because I feel like I could spend weeks vetting each creator if I’m not careful.
Oh, I love this question because it’s so practical. What’s worked for us is building a vetting framework with weighted criteria. We score creators on: (1) Portfolio quality and brand alignment—does their content actually match what we need? (2) Brief comprehension—we give them a test brief for a competitor brand and see if they get it, (3) Communication—are they responsive and professional? and (4) Cultural fit—for LATAM specifically, we check if they understand local trends and can adapt. We also do a micro-audit: pay them a small amount for a 3-5 minute sample video with specific requirements. That reveals so much. The test video costs us maybe $50-100 per creator, but it filters out maybe 60% of the people who looked good on paper. Have you tried doing sample auditions?
When we started working with creators across LATAM, we realized quickly that portfolio alone doesn’t tell you much. What actually matters: (1) Can they follow a detailed brief without lots of back-and-forth? (2) Do they understand the product/brand category? (3) Are they reliable on turnaround times? We built a simple 10-question vetting form (technical + creative questions), then a sample video task that mirrors what we’d actually ask them to do. We also check their previous brand work—reach out to brands they’ve worked with when possible. For LATAM specifically, we always have a local team member do the vetting call, because cultural nuances matter. A creator might have great energy in their personal feed but completely miss the brand tone. How are you localizing your vetting process for LATAM?
We tracked this and it’s interesting: creators who passed a sample video test had a 78% success rate on their first brand campaign, versus 42% for creators we didn’t sample-test. That alone justified the extra step. We built a rubric: Portfolio (30%), Brief Comprehension Test (20%), Sample Video Quality (30%), Communication/Responsiveness (20%). The sample video is the heaviest weighted because it’s the most predictive. For LATAM, we also added a cultural fit score—does their content resonate with local audiences? That requires a local eye. We created a database of vetted creators per region so we don’t re-vet people. Have you tracked which vetting criteria actually predict campaign success for you? That data might help you optimize where to spend vetting effort.
Here’s the thing: vetting is an investment, not just a cost. We have a three-tier vetting process: Tier 1 is basic portfolio review (pass/fail), Tier 2 is a sample video and communication test, Tier 3 is a paid micro-project ($200-300) with a real brand brief. Creators only go to Tier 3 if they’re the ones we’re actually planning to work with on client campaigns. For LATAM, we added a requirement that at least one person on our team who understands the market reviews samples before we greenlight. We also built a creator database that we update and reuse. Once a creator is onboarded, we track their performance: speed, quality, revision cycles, brand fit. That data then informs who we bring back. Are you thinking pipeline or one-off? Because your vetting approach should be different depending on whether you’re building a talent roster or just hiring per project.
I’m gonna be real with you: when a brand asks for a sample video without paying, I usually know they’re not serious or they’re inexperienced. Even $50 makes a difference in how much effort I put in. That said, I totally understand why brands need to see how someone works. What was helpful for me was when brands told me exactly what they were looking for, gave me clear requirements, and paid fairly. The worst vetting experiences I’ve had were with brands that asked super vague questions like “can you make content?” instead of “can you make product demo videos with minimal text overlay?” Be specific in your vetting. Also, portfolio is useful but remember—creators evolve. Someone who made mediocre content a year ago might be ten times better now. Give people a chance to show their current level.
The framework we use is: 1) Portfolio fit (does their existing content style match the brand category?), 2) Complexity tolerance (can they handle detailed briefs or do they need simpler instructions?), 3) Revision willingness (are they open to feedback?), 4) Speed (how fast do they turn around content?), 5) Community authenticity (does their audience actually engage, or is it inflated?). The sample video task mimics a real scenario from one of our brands, so it’s predictive. For LATAM specifically, we’ve learned you need to vet not just the creator but the local context—is this creator trusted in their market? That requires asking around. Build relationships with local creator agencies or platforms; they often have good intel. Have you connected with local creator networks or agencies in LATAM? They can significantly accelerate vetting.