A creator brief turns a selection decision into content. It must make sure the content serves the objective, says nothing untrue and meets the rules, while leaving the creator room to make something their audience will believe. Briefs fail more often on the second job than the first.

The research explains why. Martínez-López et al. (2020), studying followers' responses to sponsored Instagram posts, found that trust in the influencer was the main route to a post's credibility, that trust fell when a post looked commercially oriented, and that visible brand control made followers less willing to seek more information about the product. Audrezet, de Kerviler and Moulard (2020) showed that creators protect their authenticity by working with brands that fit their own voice and being open about the deal; a script makes both harder. Wies, Bleier and Edeling (2023), discussed in Module 4, found that engagement fell less for larger creators who had more freedom over content. The rule follows: control what you must, and nothing more.

What the brand must fix is short. One objective, taken from the influencer role already chosen. The audience, described by need. No more than three key messages, written as substance to convey, not lines to read. Mandatories: the disclosure label and where it goes, the product name, link or code, tags and deadlines. The claims that may and may not be made, with permitted wording given exactly, because a paraphrase can turn a lawful cosmetic claim into an unlawful medicinal one (see Lesson 5.4). Deliverables, dates and a short list of things to avoid.

Everything else belongs to the creator: format, hook, tone, setting, how the product fits their routine, and their honest view, including what it does not do. A section headed "Yours to decide" makes the boundary explicit. Campbell and Farrell (2020) argue that part of what brands buy is the creator's skill as a content producer; an over-written brief pays for that skill and then discards it. Co-creation goes further: ask lead creators how they would tell the story, and send product early enough that they have genuinely used it before posting.

Approvals need the same discipline. Agree in advance what the brand will review (facts, claims, disclosure, safety), what it will not (voice and style), how many rounds and how fast. Approval does not transfer responsibility: if an approved post breaks the rules, the brand is still answerable, as Lesson 5.3 explains.

For Moorfield Botanics, Amara's brief for the Barrier Repair Serum fixes the objective (credible discovery among reactive-skin audiences), three key messages and the claims Dr Siân Lloyd, Head of Product and Regulatory, has evidence for; format and tone belong to the creators.

The contract turns the brief into obligations both sides can rely on. As the selection module noted, creators now run businesses (Haenlein et al., 2020): many have agents, and they expect clear terms. Informal deals agreed by direct message are where most disputes about rights, payment and disclosure begin.

Deliverables come first: platforms, formats (feed post, short video, Stories, live), number, length, dates, and whether posts must stay live for a minimum period.

The fee structure should follow the creator's role. A flat fee gives certainty and leaves the creator free to be honest, which suits a credibility role. A performance fee (per click or sale) moves risk to the creator but pushes towards hard selling and pays nothing for the trust they lend. Affiliate commission through a unique link or code rewards conversion directly, and is still advertising that must be labelled. Hybrids combine a flat base with commission. Gifting is not free either: a product sent in hope of a post is an incentive, with consequences covered in Lesson 5.3.

Exclusivity should be narrow (sensitive-skin skincare, not "all beauty"), time-limited and paid for, because it removes income the creator would otherwise earn.

Usage rights are the term most often forgotten. In the UK the creator normally owns copyright in what they make, so a brand that wants to reuse it needs a licence stating where (reposts, paid ads, website, email, retailers), for how long, in which territories and with what edits. Running ads from or with a creator's handle, often called whitelisting and offered through tools such as Meta's partnership ads and TikTok's Spark Ads at the time of writing (2026), also needs the creator's account permissions. Paid usage is usually priced separately. Moorfield's contracts grant it 90 days of paid usage rights for amplification, on which the creator amplification in Module 6 depends.

Approval rights record the review process agreed in the brief. The disclosure obligation should be explicit, with the brand able to require corrections. A morality clause lets either side end the deal if the other's conduct seriously damages its reputation; making it mutual is fairer, because creators take risk from brands too. Payment terms fix when fees are paid (for example, part on signature, part on posting) and how quickly invoices are settled. Termination covers notice, payment for work done, and what happens to the content and licence when the deal ends.

Finally, the contract should provide for measurement: a unique code and tracked link per creator, and an agreement to share platform performance data, which Module 7 relies on.

Influencer content persuades partly because it does not look like advertising; the persuasion knowledge model (Friestad and Wright, 1994) predicts labels will trigger scepticism. Evans et al. (2017) found that clearer disclosure language on Instagram increased advertising recognition, which lowered brand attitudes and intention to share; Boerman, Willemsen and Van der Aa (2017) found that disclosure on a celebrity's Facebook post raised ad recognition and reduced intention to pass it on. Disclosure has a cost, but the law forbids blurring it, so the answer is the one Module 4 gave: choose creators whose credibility survives being seen as paid.

In the UK two regimes apply (as at October 2026). The CAP Code, enforced by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), requires marketing to be obviously identifiable (rule 2.1); influencer content is an ad when the brand paid for it, in money or in kind, and had some control over it, and affiliate content always is. Consumer law, enforced by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), goes wider: content must be disclosed whenever the creator received payment, a gift, a discount, commission or another incentive, whatever their following, even without brand control.

The joint ASA/CAP and CMA Influencers' guide to making clear that ads are ads (third edition, March 2023) sets the standard: a prominent label upfront, before anyone engages; "Ad" or "Advert" preferred over terms such as "sponsored", "gifted" or "collab"; every post and Story labelled; affiliate content identified as advertising. A brand tag, a code or a label buried in hashtags is not enough; platform "paid partnership" tools count only if the result is obvious. Check for a later edition: the ASA plans an update for new legislation.

That legislation is the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, whose consumer provisions took effect on 6 April 2025. The CMA can now decide that consumer law has been broken and fine up to £300,000 or 10% of global turnover, whichever is higher, without going to court, and the Act bans fake reviews and concealed incentivised reviews outright. The CMA's Social media endorsements: guidance for content creators, updated on 3 September 2025, reflects the Act; brands must tell creators they pay or gift to label posts, and both can be held responsible.

In the US, the FTC's revised Endorsement Guides (16 CFR Part 255, 26 July 2023) require material connections to be disclosed "clearly and conspicuously": difficult to miss, easily understood, in the same medium as the endorsement and, on social media, unavoidable. Advertisers should brief, monitor and correct endorsers, and can be liable when endorsers fail. The substance matches the UK's; enforcement differs.

Moorfield takes the simplest compliant line: every creator post and Story opens with "Ad".

When a creator makes a claim in content a brand has paid for, it is the brand's claim. The CAP Code requires marketers to hold documentary evidence for objective claims before the ad appears (rule 3.7), and a creator's honest experience ("my skin has never felt calmer") is not evidence for a claim about what a product does. That is why permitted claims go into the brief word for word.

Cosmetics have their own claims law. In Great Britain the UK Cosmetics Regulation (the retained version of Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009) governs cosmetic products, and Regulation (EU) No 655/2013, still in force in Great Britain as assimilated law, sets six common criteria every cosmetic claim must meet: legal compliance, truthfulness, evidential support, honesty, fairness and informed decision-making. Evidence must match the claim: a study showing improved skin barrier function after 28 days supports exactly that, not "repairs damaged skin".

The sharpest line is between cosmetic and medicinal claims. Under the CAP Code (rule 12.1), claims to prevent, treat or cure disease may only be made for licensed medicines or appropriately marked medical devices. Eczema is a medical condition, so "heals eczema" cannot be said of a cosmetic; the ASA advises checking classification with the medicines regulator before any eczema claim. For Moorfield, Dr Siân Lloyd confirms the company holds the evidence for "clinically shown to improve skin barrier function in 28 days"; "heals eczema", or any medicinal claim, is forbidden.

Some sectors add rules. Since 5 January 2026 paid online advertising of identifiable less healthy food and drink has been banned in the UK at any time, including paid creator content, subject to exemptions for brand-only ads and businesses under 250 employees. Since October 2022 the CAP Code has prohibited gambling ads likely to have strong appeal to under-18s, ruling out many creators popular with young people. The FCA's guidance on financial promotions on social media (FG24/1, March 2024) warns that influencers promoting regulated products without an authorised firm's approval may commit a criminal offence, and that firms remain responsible for promotions they cause to be made.

Protecting children runs through all of this. The CAP Code has specific rules for ads aimed at or featuring children; check audience age data, as vetting in Module 4 recommended, and take particular care with creators who are under 18.

Brand safety runs both ways: the brand needs the creator's content to stay consistent with its values, and the creator needs a brand that will not embarrass them. Sign-off should be a named process: who checks each claim against the evidence, who checks sector rules and audience age, who reviews brand safety, and who can stop a post.

A launch campaign ends; a reputation with creators does not. Module 4 set out the partnership models; this lesson is about how a brand behaves within them, which decides whether good creators want to work with it again.

Ambassador programmes turn the best campaign partnerships into longer relationships. Repeated, consistent advocacy reads as genuine preference, supporting the passionate authenticity Audrezet, de Kerviler and Moulard (2020) describe, and lets creators build the product into their content naturally. A programme needs a clear design: who is selected and on what evidence (audience response, content quality, reliability and compliance record, not results alone); how many and for how long; what they receive (a retainer or fee per deliverable, early access, product input); what is asked of them; how the relationship is reviewed; and how it ends. Ambassadors concentrate risk on fewer people, so review points matter.

Paying fairly is both ethical and practical. Duffy (2017) showed how much unpaid "aspirational labour" goes into building a creator career; brands that substitute gifting for fees, pay late or demand unpaid revisions draw on that labour for free. Fair practice is simple: pay a fee for work; set rates by tier and deliverable rather than negotiating stamina, so creators doing the same work are paid the same; pay separately for usage rights and exclusivity; and pay on the date promised.

Feedback makes the relationship two-way. Share results with creators, explain what worked, and ask what the brand could do better: unclear briefs, slow approvals, late product.

Creator wellbeing deserves explicit attention. Sponsored posts can attract abuse, especially when creators talk about their own skin or health. A brand can set realistic deadlines, help moderate hostile comments under campaign content and avoid asking for more personal disclosure than the creator wishes to give.

Things will still go wrong, and a plan made in advance keeps the response proportionate. A post missing its "Ad" label should be found and corrected the same day; UK and US regulators both expect brands to monitor and correct, and Stories, which disappear after 24 hours, need a process for capturing and checking them. Disappointing results are a lesson about the brief or the fit, not a reason to punish an honest creator. A creator controversy calls for establishing the facts, pausing content where needed, acting on the contract and communicating calmly. If the brand is at fault, its creators should hear it from the brand first.

For Moorfield Botanics, the launch is followed by always-on ambassadors, chosen from launch creators whose audiences responded and who were reliable to work with, and offered a longer relationship with product input rather than one-off posts.