Influencer marketing case study: compare your past campaigns and draft the one you send to new clients

For
UGC and influencer agencies that want a case study to win the next brand, and brand teams comparing creator programs. Not for creators reviewing their own account.
You provide
A sheet of past campaign posts (Excel, CSV or pasted cells) with a Campaign column and, if you have them, Tier, Content type and Fee columns. Platform exports or PDF recaps are optional.
Price
Free plan: 100 credits, no card. Lookups take about 1 credit per TikTok or YouTube link and 2 per Instagram Reel; the comparison and case study add about 10 to 15. The 33-post example took 52 credits: 41 for the lookups, 11 for the report.
What you get
One document in two parts. Part 1 compares the campaigns: tables by campaign (split by platform), by creator tier, by content type and by any other label column in your sheet, with views, average views per post, engagement rate and cost per 1,000 views, plus 3–5 findings. Part 2 is a one-page case study draft for a prospective client, with placeholders where it needs a goal or a sales figure only you know. Your sheet comes back with each post's stats added.
Coverage
Public TikTok videos, Instagram Reels and posts, and YouTube Shorts and videos, with no fixed number of links per run, grouped by the columns of your sheet. Figures the public pages do not show (reach, clicks, sales) can come from a platform export or PDF you add; they are quoted as reported, not checked.
Time to report
Usually 1–3 minutes.
Account
Sign-in with Google required to run it. You can read the example and fill in the form without an account.

How do I turn past influencer campaigns into a case study?

Put every post from the campaigns in one sheet with a Campaign column (add Tier, Content type and Fee if you have them) and upload it. Nolyn reads each post's public views and engagement, totals every campaign, platform, tier and content type in code, works out cost per 1,000 views and drafts a one-page case study with placeholders for the goal and sales only you know. In a run on November 8, 2026, 33 public posts from three Poppi and Owala campaigns came back with 3,212,727 views in about 2 minutes for 52 credits, and the check that mattered: one post held 98.9% of one campaign's views and 70.3% of the top tier's.

Agencies win new brands with proof from past work, and the proof usually sits in a dozen tracking sheets. Put the posts in one sheet with a Campaign column, plus Tier, Content type or Fee if you track them. Nolyn reads every post's public views, likes, comments and shares, totals each campaign, platform, tier and content type in code, works out cost per 1,000 views from your fees, flags any result that rests on one breakout post, and writes a one-page case study draft you can edit and send.

Upload your campaign sheet

Paste or upload a PDF, CSV or Excel export with figures the public pages do not show, such as reach, clicks or sales. They are quoted as reported and kept apart from the public counts. Links in this text are not looked up.

Start from an example:

Sign in to run it. New accounts get 100 free credits; research uses credits for AI and data lookups.

Example resultFrom a real run on November 8, 2026
Example: three public campaigns from Poppi and Owala, 33 posts
See the full example
Posts read
33 of 33
Total views
3,212,727
One post's share
45.0%
Cost per 1,000 views
$12.41

Key findings

  • One post decided three headline numbers
  • The same launch reached about as many people on Reels as on TikTok

The report includes

  • Campaign against campaign, platform against platform
  • Which creators and content did best
  • A case study draft to send
  • Your sheet with the stats

What you get

Campaign against campaign, platform against platform

Each campaign's posts, views, average views per post, engagement rate, fees and cost per 1,000 views, and the same campaign split by TikTok, Reels and Shorts when it ran on more than one.

Which creators and content did best

The same table for every label column in your sheet: creator tier, content type, paid partner against ambassador, or anything else you track. Totals are computed in code, so a figure in the case study is the figure in the table.

A case study draft to send

A one-page draft for a prospective client: headline result, challenge, what was run, results, lessons. Creators are named by tier and content type, and anything only you know, like the client's goal or sales, is left as a bracketed placeholder.

Your sheet with the stats

The sheet you uploaded comes back with every row and column in place and each post's views, likes, comments, shares, saves and engagement rate added, as a CSV to open in Excel or Google Sheets.

Example: three public campaigns from Poppi and Owala, 33 posts

A real run on November 8, 2026 with 33 public creator posts from three campaigns: Poppi's Cran Fizz return (8 TikToks, November 2–6, 2026) and Sour Apple flavor (9 TikToks, August 28 to November 7), found under #poppipartner and #poppiambassador, and Owala's summer bags launch (8 TikToks and 8 Instagram Reels, June 2 to July 3, #owalapartner). We sorted creators into tiers by their public follower counts on November 8 (Nano under 10K, Micro 10K–100K, Mid 100K–500K, Macro 500K–1M, Mega 1M and up), labelled each post's content type from its caption, and marked #poppiambassador posts without #poppipartner as product-only ambassador posts. The brands' real fees are not public, so the sheet used example fees by tier: $150 Nano, $400 Micro, $1,200 Mid, $3,000 Macro, $8,000 Mega.

Posts read

33 of 33

3 campaigns, 32 creators, 25 TikTok + 8 Reels

Total views

3,212,727

Collected November 8, 2026

One post's share

45.0%

of all views, and 98.9% of Sour Apple's

Cost per 1,000 views

$12.41

At $39,600 in example fees, 28 paid posts

GroupPostsViewsMedian postEngagementFees (example)Cost / 1K views
Campaign: Poppi Sour Apple91,462,8301,1116.14%$4,250$2.93
Campaign: Poppi Cran Fizz81,117,42698,8583.22%$23,600$21.34
Campaign: Owala summer bags16632,4719,7424.59%$11,750$18.58
Campaign: Owala summer bags · TikTok8326,10811,3995.33%$8,750$26.83
Campaign: Owala summer bags · Reels8306,3634,8783.46%$3,000$9.79
Tier: Macro42,057,695285,9076.28%$12,000$5.83
Tier: Mid7540,57711,4281.60%$7,200$13.60
Tier: Mega2444,327222,1642.21%$16,000$36.01
Tier: Micro10141,1332,2713.97%$3,200$24.33
Tier: Nano1028,9951,1183.17%$1,200$43.45
Content: Showcase182,033,1906,3404.81%$11,500$5.69
Content: Lifestyle5451,14538,6365.47%$15,600$34.58
Content: ASMR1332,972332,9725.70%$3,000$9.01
Content: Recipe3287,0579362.72%$8,150$28.48
Content: Unboxing / taste test6108,3633,9307.97%$1,350$13.67
Deal: Paid partner283,190,6159,7424.79%$39,600$12.41
Deal: Ambassador522,1121,3229.59%product only—

One row per group, totalled by the tool's code from the 33 lookups. Median post = the middle post's views (a one-post group shows that post). Engagement rate = (likes + comments + shares) ÷ views; Reels show no shares and two Reels hide likes, so Owala's rate covers 14 of 16 posts and platforms are compared on views first. Fees are examples by tier, not the brands' rates; product-only ambassador posts are left out of cost per 1,000 views.

One post decided three headline numbers

A Macro creator's Sour Apple TikTok had 1,447,245 views: 98.9% of that campaign's views, 70.3% of the Macro tier's and 45.0% of all 33 posts. Without it, the other three Macro posts drew 610,450 views at $14.74 per 1,000 instead of $5.83, and Sour Apple's median post had 1,111 views. A case study that leads with "Macro creators at $5.83 per 1,000 views" would be selling one post.

The same launch reached about as many people on Reels as on TikTok

Owala's 8 TikToks drew 326,108 views and its 8 Reels 306,363. Engagement (5.33% against 3.46%) is not a fair comparison, since Reels hide shares. At the example fees the Reels cost $9.79 per 1,000 views and the TikToks $26.83, but that gap comes from who was booked (a $3,000 Macro creator on TikTok, four $150 Nano creators on Reels), not from the platform.

Ambassadors engaged, paid creators reached

The 5 product-only ambassador posts had a 9.59% engagement rate against 4.79% for the 28 paid posts, but 22,112 views in total against 3,190,615. In a pitch, ambassadors are a cheap source of engaged content, not of reach.

A high-view post with almost no likes

One Mid-tier Cran Fizz showcase had 289,667 views but 272 likes, 23 comments and 10 shares, a 0.11% engagement rate. Numbers like that often mean a post was also run as an ad. Public data cannot confirm it, so the report flags it as a possibility before those views go into a case study.

Every figure was recomputed from the saved TikTok and Instagram responses of this run (evidence file in our repository). The 33 lookups took 41 data credits (25 TikTok at 1, 8 Reels at 2) and the comparison and case study 11, 52 in all, in 2 minutes 14 seconds. That run's case study led with the Macro tier's $5.83 per 1,000 views without saying that one post carried 70.3% of those views. The tool now prints each group's median and any post holding half or more of a group's views, and the brief asks the report to judge such a group on its median. Counts keep growing while posts get views; each run records its collection time.

How the comparison and case study are built

  1. Read your sheet

    Each row's TikTok, Instagram or YouTube link is found, tracking parameters removed and repeated posts flagged. Columns with a few repeating values (Campaign, Tier, Content type) become the groups to compare; a creator name column does not.

  2. Look up every post

    Each distinct post is looked up once from its public data: views, likes, comments, shares and saves where the platform shows them. A failed lookup is retried with a second source and not charged.

  3. Total each group in code

    Views, average views per post, engagement rate, fees and cost per 1,000 views are added up for every campaign, platform, tier and content type by code, not by the AI, and the rows that could not be read are listed.

  4. Write the findings and the draft

    Nolyn writes the findings and the case study from those totals, keeps reported figures from your exports apart from the public counts, and leaves placeholders where the story needs a number only you have.

Who uses it

UGC and influencer agencies

Turn last quarter's campaigns into a case study for the next pitch: which creator tier and format delivered, on which platform, at what cost per 1,000 views, written so a brand can read it in a minute.

Brand teams with creator programs

Compare paid partners against ambassadors, or this launch against the last one, before deciding where the next budget goes.

Agency strategists preparing a test

See whether a cross-platform test has a story: the same campaign on TikTok and Reels side by side, with the engagement caveat spelled out.

Limits

Only public posts and public counts, as the platform shows them at the moment of the lookup. Nolyn cannot read TikTok Studio, Instagram Insights or YouTube Studio, so reach, watch time, clicks and sales only appear if you add them from an export, and they are quoted as reported. Instagram and YouTube do not show shares or saves, and creators can hide like counts. Tiers and content types are whatever your sheet says; Nolyn does not label them. A group with one or two posts is reported as an anecdote. There is no fixed number of links per run: long lists keep going in steps until every link is read. Uploads up to 3 MB. A case study draft needs your review before it goes to a client: check the facts, fill the placeholders and get the brand's permission to name it.

Questions

The brand's starting point, what was run (how many creators, which tiers, which platforms, which dates), three or four results with the figure behind each, what the agency learned, and what it would do next. Results a brand can check, such as public views and engagement, carry more weight than adjectives. Reach, clicks and sales come from the platforms' own dashboards, so name where each one came from.

Compare views and cost per 1,000 views first. Engagement rate is not like for like: TikTok shows shares and Instagram does not, so the same post reads lower on Reels. Put the posts in one sheet with a Campaign column, upload it, and each campaign comes back split by platform.

ROI needs revenue: (revenue from the campaign − creator fees) ÷ creator fees, with revenue from a discount code, an affiliate link or the shop's own reports. Public data gives the cost side: fees divided by views gives cost per 1,000 views, which you can compare across campaigns and creator tiers. Add revenue from your exports to the optional field and the case study quotes it as reported; the free earned media value calculator works out ROI and EMV for one campaign.

It depends on your campaigns, so compare your own instead of an industry average, and check the median. In the November 8 example the Macro tier looked best at $5.83 per 1,000 views until its one breakout post was set aside: the other three Macro posts cost $14.74. The two Mega posts cost $36.01 per 1,000 views, too few to call a pattern.

No. Views, likes, comments, shares and saves are read from the public posts. Reach, watch time, clicks and sales are only in each platform's own dashboard; paste or upload those exports if you want them in the case study.

Yes, in the optional results field: the PDF's text is added to the field in your browser, and the case study quotes its figures as reported, apart from the public counts. Put the post links themselves in the sheet field, because links in the results text are not looked up. Scanned PDFs have no text to read; paste the figures instead.

The campaign report is for one campaign and one client: totals per creator and a recap email. This tool compares several campaigns against each other by campaign, platform, tier and content type, and writes a case study for a prospective client.

You can start free: new accounts get 100 one-time credits, no card required, enough for one comparison the size of the 33-post example. Failed lookups and repeated links are not charged. Paid plans add monthly credits: Plus has 1,500, about 28 runs of that size a month.

To run it, yes: sign in with Google. It is free and asks for no card. You can read the example and fill in the form before signing in.

Related tools

All tools

Influencers and UGC (brands and agencies)

All tools

Guide

How to find influencers for your brand

How to find influencers for your brand: 6 places to look, a vetting checklist and a real search (40 results, 9 in range, 2 worth contacting), plus UGC creators.

Tool

YouTube Competitor Analysis

Compare channels' rhythm, views and topic gaps.

Comparison

Best UGC platforms for brands in 2026

Best UGC platforms for brands checked Oct 24, 2026: Insense, Trend, JoinBrands, Collabstr, Billo and more, with prices per video, usage rights and free options.

Tool

Influencer Vetting

Check a TikTok or Instagram creator before you pay: recent views, brand posts and comments.

Tool

Engagement Rate Calculator

Free TikTok, Instagram and YouTube engagement rate, no sign-up.

Tool

Influencer rate calculator

What a creator's fee costs per view and per engagement, the fee at your target CPM and the orders it needs to pay back.