so i’m in this position where we’ve got a creator we love—they understand cross-market dynamics, their audience is exactly who we need to reach, and they genuinely seem interested in the partnership. but their creative instinct for how to present the brand is… different from what our brand thinking is.
it’s not a red flag, exactly. it’s more like we’re looking at the same brief and seeing different creative interpretations. they want to lean into one angle, we’re imagining it differently.
here’s the thing though—they’ve been doing this longer than we have, and they know their audience better than we do. but we also have strategic reasons for our approach. so it’s not like either of us is wrong, we’re just coming at it from different angles.
i don’t want to just kill their idea because it’s not what we initially imagined. but i also can’t let them go in a direction that contradicts what we’re actually trying to achieve as a brand.
so how do you actually have this conversation? like, not “we need you to do it our way” but a real negotiation where you end up with something that works for both of you?
and what does that even look like in practice—do you compromise, or is there usually one approach that actually makes sense?
have you been in a situation where you shifted your thinking based on the creator’s perspective? how did that turn out?
this is actually the moment where the best partnerships either happen or fall apart. and here’s the thing—the creator’s instinct is worth listening to. they know their audience intimately.
what i’d suggest: frame it as a discovery conversation, not a negotiation. “i love where you’re going with this. help me understand your thinking—why do you see this angle working better for your audience?”
then actually listen. there might be something you’re missing about how their audience will receive the message. or both approaches could work, and you just need to test one.
if there’s a real misalignment (like they want to make it humorous and your brand is luxury and serious), that’s worth discussing. but even then, it’s “our brand positioning is this, and we’ve found that humor dilutes that message for our core audience. what if we kept your energy but shifted the tone?”
most of the time, the best work comes from respecting what the creator knows while also honoring the brand’s positioning. it’s not 50/50—it’s 100/100, both sides fully invested.
okay so here’s a framework for this negotiation:
first, get specific: what exactly is different? is it tone? approach? messaging angle? get concrete.
then, look at data:
- what has worked for this creator with similar brands?
- what messaging approach has worked for your brand with similar audiences?
- is there past campaign data that supports either approach?
the conversation: “here’s what’s worked historically for our brand. here’s what’s worked for you. where do they overlap? where do they diverge? and what does the data suggest?”
often you find that both approaches can work if they’re layered differently. like, we do 60% your instinct, 40% our strategic angle. or you do one post their way, one post our way, and you compare performance.
the metric: which approach actually performs better with the audience? if you don’t know, that’s a sign you should test both.
what specific elements are in disagreement—tone, message, format, something else?
been here. we wanted our brand presented one way, the creator saw it totally differently. our gut was to push back, but we actually asked some questions first.
turns out the creator had worked with brands very similar to us before, and their approach had worked. so we asked: “okay, show us what that looked like. what was the result?”
they showed us past work, and honestly? it was better than what we were imagining. so we said “alright, let’s do it your way for the first post, we measure results, and then we can iterate.”
first post performed 40% better than our historical benchmarks. so we basically let them run with their instinct for the whole campaign.
the lesson: creators often know something you don’t. not always, but often enough that it’s worth exploring before you shut it down. and if there’s genuine disagreement, you can usually test it. one post their way, see what happens.
the negotiation that worked: “we trust your instinct, and here’s what we need to happen. show us how your approach gets us there.”
this is where collaboration frameworks matter. here’s what i use:
step 1: understand their reasoning
- don’t argue. ask. “why do you see this working this way?”
- listen for insights into audience psychology you might be missing
step 2: articulate your positioning
- “here’s why we think this matters for the brand”
- be strategic, not emotional
step 3: find the overlap
- “so you’re saying audience engagement matters most, and we’re saying brand positioning matters most. what if we approached this in a way that honors both?”
step 4: negotiate the execution
- sometimes it’s a blend
- sometimes it’s test-and-learn (do it their way, measure, iterate)
- sometimes you realize they’re right and you adjust
the key: frame it as partnership problem-solving, not creator-vs-brand.
if you genuinely can’t find alignment, that’s actually a signal that maybe the partnership isn’t right. but 80% of the time, there’s a way to honor both perspectives.
how much creative control did you commit to giving them in the initial agreement?
okay so from my side—when a brand is like “we need you to change this,” i immediately feel less attached to the work. but when they ask why i’m thinking a certain way, and they actually engage with my answer, i feel way more collaborative.
there’s been times when i’ve proposed something and the brand explained why their approach actually makes more sense for their strategy. and you know what? i shifted. because they explained it, not just demanded it.
the negotiation that works is when both of us are trying to solve the same problem: how do we present this brand in a way that resonates with the audience and achieves the strategic goal?
if the brand is just “we want it this way because we’re paying,” yeah, i’ll do it. but the work suffers. if they’re like “here’s our thinking, what do you think?”, suddenly i’m invested in finding the best solution.
my honest take: if the creator’s instinct is in a totally different direction, there might be something worth exploring. they live in the audience’s brain. but the brand has context the creator might not have. so it’s actually worth sitting with both perspectives.
can you test both approaches on a smaller scale first?
this is a strategic alignment issue, not a personality conflict. here’s how to approach it:
first, identify what’s actually different:
- Is it the brand positioning? (fundamental, probably can’t compromise)
- Is it the creative execution? (flexible, very compromisable)
- Is it the audience angle? (testable)
then, frame the negotiation strategically:
“our brand strategy is . your audience insight suggests [Y]. both matter. how do we create content that honors our positioning while resonating with your audience?”
often what feels like a conflict is actually a false dichotomy. both can be true.
the conversation:
- “what’s working for you with your audience right now?”
- “here’s what we’ve learned works for our brand messaging”
- “where’s the overlap?” (this is key—find the overlap first)
- “what do we test first?”
if you genuinely can’t find strategic alignment, then yes, one of you is probably wrong. But 90% of the time, there’s a smarter approach that incorporates both perspectives.
red flag: if the creator wants to do something that directly contradicts your brand positioning. that’s a real disagreement.
green light: if they’re suggesting a different angle to the same positioning. that might actually be better.
which category does this fall into?