The short answer: For direct-to-consumer brands, micro and nano creators convert better per pound spent, and the difference shows up in cost per thousand impressions rather than in engagement rate. Augmentum Media's seeded micro and nano programmes have produced content at cost CPMs of £2.49 and £3.27, against a £16.34 CPM on a mid-tier paid campaign using creators averaging 235,000 followers. The band that works for DTC is roughly 3,000 to 50,000 followers, with a practical ceiling around 100,000 to 150,000. Macro creators buy reach. Micro creators buy conversion and content volume.

What is the difference between micro and macro influencers?

The difference is follower count, and everything that follows from it: cost, reach, engagement, and how much of the audience actually knows the creator personally.

There is no governing body setting these bands, so definitions vary by a few thousand either way. The ranges below are the ones Augmentum Media works to when building programmes for health and wellness brands.

The commercially useful split is not micro against macro. It is creators whose audience treats them as a person against creators whose audience treats them as a channel. That line sits somewhere around 100,000 followers, which is why it is the ceiling on most well-run direct-to-consumer programmes.

Is 100k followers a micro influencer?

No. At 100,000 followers a creator is mid-tier, and most rate cards price them accordingly.

This is the most common definitional confusion in the search results, and it matters commercially rather than academically. A brand that thinks it is buying micro influencers at 100,000 followers is budgeting for micro economics and paying mid-tier prices. Augmentum Media sets a practical maximum of roughly 100,000 to 150,000 followers on seeded programmes for exactly this reason: above that line, cost rises faster than conversion.

Which converts better, micro or macro influencers?

For direct-to-consumer brands selling a physical product at a normal basket size, micro and nano convert better. Three reasons, in order of how much they matter.

Trust transfers at small scale. A recommendation from someone whose comments you read is a different object from an endorsement by someone with a management team. It reads as advice rather than advertising.

The economics compound. One macro creator is one piece of content. The same budget spread across micro creators returns dozens of pieces, in dozens of contexts, which you then own, test and put paid spend behind.

They convert into something durable. Between 15 and 25 percent of seeded creators typically convert into an affiliate or ambassador relationship, and around 35 percent on the best-run programmes Augmentum Media operates. That conversion is what turns a campaign into a channel. It does not happen at macro, where the relationship is transactional by design.

The reach argument for macro is real and it is the one thing macro genuinely does better. If you need 5 million people to see one message in one week, micro cannot do that efficiently. Almost no direct-to-consumer growth problem is actually that problem.

What does each tier cost per thousand impressions?

This is the comparison the ranking pages for this question do not make, and it is the one that settles the argument. Engagement rates are easy to quote. Cost per thousand impressions is what you actually pay.

Verified figures from live programmes:

Read the last row carefully, because it is not a failure. A £16.34 CPM that beat its target by 18 percent, with a 5.3 percent average engagement rate against a 1.5 to 2 percent benchmark, is a good paid campaign. It simply costs roughly five times per thousand impressions what the seeded micro programmes cost.

The tier question is not "who engages better". It is "what does a thousand impressions cost me, and what do I own afterwards". On verified Augmentum Media programmes that number has ranged from £2.49 at micro and nano to £16.34 at mid-tier paid.

The other half of the equation is content volume. The Lululemon programme produced more than 1,300 creatives, averaging around 11.4 to 11.9 pieces per influencer. That is a content library, not a campaign, and it is not something a macro partnership produces at any price.

Why is engagement rate the wrong way to choose a tier?

Because engagement rate is a ratio, and you cannot spend a ratio.

The standard argument runs: micro influencers have higher engagement rates, therefore micro influencers are better. The first half is usually true. The second half does not follow, and the evidence in the table above is the reason. That mid-tier paid campaign hit a 5.3 percent engagement rate against a 1.5 to 2 percent benchmark, comfortably beating typical micro engagement. It still cost five times as much per thousand impressions.

Engagement rate tells you whether an audience is awake. It tells you nothing about what reaching that audience cost, whether anyone bought anything, or whether you can use the content afterwards. Augmentum Media selects creators on audience fit and programme economics, and treats engagement rate as a screening filter for fake or dormant followings rather than as a reason to choose a tier.

If you want the full argument for why reported reach numbers deserve this much scepticism, our guide to earned media value covers how to price earned reach in a way that survives a finance review.

How many micro influencers do you need to match one macro?

The honest answer is that the question is framed wrongly, and the framing is what costs brands money.

You do not replace a macro creator with an equivalent number of micro creators, because you are not buying the same thing. Macro buys one large simultaneous audience. Micro buys many small audiences, across many contexts, over time, plus the content and the affiliate pipeline that comes with them.

What that looks like at scale on real programmes: an Augmentum Media discovery engine surfaces 500 or more on-brand creators a month with a campaign opt-in rate above 60 percent and content live within two weeks. Huel deployed more than 6,000 creators for retail awareness around a Target launch. Mother's Earth seeded more than 3,200 influencers within 12 months. A UK wellness shots brand seeded 2,700 or more influencers, producing 4,500 or more content pieces and 7 million or more impressions.

None of those numbers is reachable through macro partnerships, at any budget. The comparison is not one against many. It is a moment against a system.

When is a macro influencer the right choice?

Three situations, and it is worth being straight about them rather than pretending the tier is never useful.

A launch moment that needs simultaneous reach. A retail listing, a category entry, a funding announcement. Something where everyone seeing it at once has value in itself.

Credibility by association in a sceptical category. In supplements and functional health, one genuinely respected voice can do work that a hundred smaller creators cannot, because the objection you are overcoming is trust in the category rather than awareness of the brand.

Content you could not otherwise produce. Some creators bring production quality that functions as a brand asset well beyond their own audience.

Even then, treat it as a media buy with a fee and a deliverable, not as a growth channel. Negotiate it: on that mid-tier paid campaign, Augmentum Media negotiated an average 30 to 40 percent discount against the creators' opening fees, with a 4 to 5 day content turnaround in Q4.

How should a DTC brand split its creator budget across tiers?

Start from what each tier is for, not from a percentage split.

The default shape for a health and wellness brand between roughly £2m and £50m in revenue: build the base at nano and micro through seeding, where the cost is product and fulfilment rather than fees. Convert the 15 to 25 percent who genuinely love the product into affiliates on trackable links. Put paid budget behind the content that has already proven it performs, rather than paying for content that has not. Add mid-tier or macro only when you have a specific moment that needs simultaneous reach.

That order matters more than the ratio. Paying a macro creator first is buying the most expensive version of an outcome you have not yet proven you can get cheaply. Augmentum Media builds programmes in that sequence for every client, which is why the seeded CPMs in the table above sit where they do.

The mechanics of the first stage, including how seeding programmes are sourced and what share of creators convert, are covered in our guide to influencer seeding.

As of August 2026, none of the pages ranking for this question publish a cost-per-thousand comparison between the tiers. If you are being sold a tier rather than an outcome, ask for that number first.

Frequently asked questions

What is a micro influencer?

A micro influencer is a creator with roughly 10,000 to 50,000 followers. The tier is defined by

follower count, but what makes it commercially distinct is that the audience still treats the

creator as a person rather than as a media channel.

What is a macro influencer?

A macro influencer is a creator with roughly 500,000 to 1,000,000 followers. Above one million they

are usually classed as mega. Macro creators are bought for simultaneous reach and brand safety

rather than for conversion.

Is 100k followers a micro influencer?

No. At 100,000 followers a creator is mid-tier and is priced as such. This matters because brands

that think they are buying micro economics at that level end up paying mid-tier fees.

What are the 4 types of influencers?

Most classifications use nano (3,000 to 10,000), micro (10,000 to 50,000), macro (500,000 to

1,000,000) and mega (over 1,000,000), with mid-tier (50,000 to 500,000) sitting between micro and

macro in five-tier versions.

Do micro influencers convert better than macro influencers?

For direct-to-consumer brands, generally yes, and the difference shows up in cost per thousand

impressions rather than engagement rate. Verified seeded micro and nano programmes have run at

£2.49 and £3.27 CPMs against £16.34 on a mid-tier paid campaign.

How much do you pay a micro influencer?

On a seeding model you pay in product rather than fees, which is what produces the low cost CPMs

above. On a paid model, rates vary widely by market, platform and niche, and opening rate cards are

negotiable: discounts of 30 to 40 percent against opening fees are achievable on mid-tier deals.

What is a good engagement rate for a micro influencer?

Typical benchmarks sit around 1.5 to 2 percent, and strong campaigns run well above that. Use

engagement rate to screen out fake or dormant followings, not to choose a tier, because it tells you

nothing about cost or conversion.

How many micro influencers equal one macro influencer?

They are not interchangeable. A macro creator delivers one large simultaneous audience; micro

creators deliver many small audiences over time, plus content volume and an affiliate pipeline.

Well-run programmes work with hundreds of micro creators a month rather than substituting for a

single macro deal.

Are nano influencers worth it?

For direct-to-consumer brands, yes. Nano creators at 3,000 to 10,000 followers have the highest

trust and the lowest cost, and they are the tier most likely to convert into long-term affiliates.

Most programmes set a floor around 3,000 followers.

Should I use micro or macro influencers for a product launch?

Use micro to build a base of authentic content and find advocates, and consider macro only for a

moment that genuinely needs everyone to see it at once, such as a retail listing. Paying macro first

buys the most expensive version of an outcome you have not yet proven cheaply.

Which tier produces the most content?

Micro and nano, by a wide margin. One verified programme produced more than 1,300 creatives at an

average of around 11.4 to 11.9 pieces per influencer, which is a content library rather than a

campaign.

What follower range should a health and wellness DTC brand target?

Roughly 3,000 to 50,000 followers as the core band, with a practical ceiling around 100,000 to

150,000. Above that ceiling, cost rises faster than conversion on product-led programmes.

Want a creator programme built at the tier that actually converts for your brand? We build seeding-to-affiliate engines for health and wellness DTC brands. Let's talk.