Home / Journal / What usage is worth
Usage rights now have a published price. It is a share of their media budget.
For years the honest answer to what usage is worth was that nobody published one. That changed this year. The benchmark being quoted by people who negotiate these deals is 3% to 10% of the brand’s paid media budget, on a thirty day window, and usage now appears in almost every deal rather than some of them.
The benchmark
3% to 10% of the paid media budget, on a thirty day window.
The figure comes from Victoria Bachan, who runs creators at Wasserman, quoted in January this year. Her description of how it is actually priced: some people quote it per thirty days per asset, some ask for a portion of the budget, and if the overall paid media budget is $100,000 they will ask for anywhere from 3% to 10% of it.
Two other things came out of the same reporting and they matter as much as the percentage. Usage rights now appear in almost every creator deal rather than some of them. And the standard licence window has settled at thirty days.
Thirty days is short. A few years ago the range being asked for ran from six months to perpetuity, and creators signed it because they did not know it was negotiable. The window closing to thirty days is the single biggest thing that has gone in creators’ favour in this market, and most creators do not know it happened.
So the question stopped being whether you can charge for usage. It is now a question of arithmetic: what is the budget, how long is the term, and what percentage.
One honest caveat. That 3% to 10% is one named expert on the record, not a survey of a thousand deals. It is the best published benchmark that exists, and it is still one source. Use it as a starting position rather than a law.
The three facts
Usage appears in 90% to 100% of deals.
The standard window is thirty days.
The share of paid media budget being asked for is 3% to 10%.
Why it is a share of media, not a share of your fee
Because the licence is worth what they do with it, not what they paid you. A $1,000 post amplified behind $200,000 of media is a $200,000 advert with your face on it.
Pricing usage as a percentage of your own fee guarantees you capture none of that.
The line it turns on
What your fee buys them, and what it does not.
How to actually run it
Four questions, in this order, before you send a number.
Is there paid media behind this, and how much?
Ask it plainly. A brand running partnership ads or Spark Ads off your handle is not going to be offended, because it is a normal commercial question and the person reading it deals with media budgets all day.
If they will not say, that is information too. Price the licence on the assumption that the budget is larger than they are implying, because it usually is.
How long, and starting when?
A thirty day licence and a ninety day media flight are two different clocks. Ask when the media stops, not when the posting stops.
Get a start date in writing. A licence that begins on first use and a licence that begins on delivery can be weeks apart, and the difference is yours.
Where, exactly?
Social only, or does this reach the website, email, retail displays, streaming, out of home? Usage now routinely reaches past social, and off social is where nobody is tracking it.
Name the surfaces in the contract. Anything not named is not licensed, and that sentence is worth more to you than any percentage.
Is exclusivity in there too?
Exclusivity is a separate thing you are selling and it is often smuggled in beside usage. Being unable to work with a competitor for six months has a cost, and that cost is not covered by the licence fee.
Price the category and the period. Then decide whether the deal still makes sense with that number in it.
The arithmetic
What the benchmark produces at three budget sizes.
Applying the published 3% to 10% range to a paid media budget, for a thirty day window. This is the benchmark run as arithmetic, not a quote from any particular deal.
| Paid media budget | What the range means in practice | Usage fee, thirty days |
|---|---|---|
| $20,000a small amplification | A test flight, often one asset, one platform | $600 to $2,000 |
| $100,000the example quoted | A normal campaign flight across two or three placements | $3,000 to $10,000 |
| $500,000a large flight | Usually multi market, and usually where the licence creeps off social | $15,000 to $50,000 |
Arithmetic on a published range, not a rate card and not a promise. Where you sit inside 3% to 10% depends on how many assets, how many surfaces and how hard you negotiate. The range itself comes from one named expert, not a survey.
The wording
One line in your rate card does most of this work for you.
Fee covers organic posting on my channels for the agreed period. Paid amplification, whitelisting and any use off my channels is quoted separately.
That is it. It does three things at once. It says you know what amplification is, which immediately changes how the conversation is run. It makes usage a second line item rather than an argument about the first. And it means silence works in your favour instead of against you, because anything not granted is not granted.
Without a line like that, most contracts will read as though you granted everything, because the contract was written by the brand’s lawyer and the brand’s lawyer was not thinking about your interests. That is not a conspiracy. That is what a lawyer is for.
I buy this clause as well as sell it. When I am sourcing for a brand, usage is the line I expect to negotiate, and a creator who prices it separately reads as a professional rather than as difficult. The ones who worry about seeming awkward are worrying about the wrong thing. What reads as awkward is having no position at all.
If they push back
Ask for a term instead of arguing about the principle. Perpetual becomes twelve months. Twelve months becomes ninety days. Ninety days becomes thirty.
Every step down that ladder is money, and it is a much easier conversation than no.
What this is not
Not legal advice. I am not a lawyer, and a contract that matters to you is worth showing to one.
The percentages are published ranges. What you can charge depends on your work, your audience and your negotiation.
Where this comes from
Every figure on this page, and where it was published.
The benchmark is published research, and it is here with the publisher, the date and the named source attached. It is one expert on the record rather than a survey, and the page says so where it uses it.
The negotiating sequence is mine, from six years of running this clause from the buying side.
- Digiday 14 January 2026. The 3% to 10% range, the thirty day standard window, usage appearing in 90% to 100% of deals, and the observation that usage now reaches past social. Attributed to Victoria Bachan, SVP Creators at Wasserman.
- Digiday 19 August 2024. The earlier state of the market, when licence asks ran from six months to perpetuity. Quoted here only as the before picture, and it is two years old.
- EMARKETER 29 April 2026. Why the licence is the growing half. Amplification spend is forecast to match creator sponsored content revenue in 2027 and exceed it in 2028.
What to do with it
Read the clause, then price the term.
The clause itself, word by word, with what each phrase is doing to you, is on the usage rights page. This piece is the price. That one is the wording.
The calculator runs usage on top of the base fee, and the Brand Partnership Guide is 62 pages on the money and the paperwork, including the eight clauses that cause almost every argument.
The list
What brands are actually paying.
Rate breakdowns, pitch teardowns, and when a brand comes to me looking for creators, that goes out here first. The free guide arrives the moment you sign up.
One email a week. Unsubscribe from any of them.