she's right that creators are replacing traditional media for launches. but "creator marketing" still gets treated like one thing when it's actually 4 very different bets
here's how to think about each one:
1. influencer marketing
you're borrowing someone else's loyal audience
pros: high trust, real credibility, better retention because the audience already believes in the person recommending your app
cons: expensive. and if you're optimizing for $1-3 cost per install, this probably isn't your highest ROI lever
the long game here is community and brand. done right, you end up with a creator who genuinely believes in the product and becomes a long-term partner. not just a one-off deal
biggest bang for your buck: negotiate a bundle of content instead of one video. it's hit or miss like VC. you never know which post lands. more shots = better odds. and if a video performs, whitelist it and boost with paid ads to extract the most out of it
2. ambassador networks
this is what cluely, locket, status, partiful, and finch have done really well.
instead of one big creator, you sign 10 smaller creators who build brand-new accounts from scratch and post 30-60 times a month.
pros: pure volume play. most videos won't do anything. but 2-3 out of every 30-60 will go mega viral. and those winners cover everything
same VC logic: you're not picking one bet, you're building a portfolio and letting the outliers do the work
when you find a winner, whitelist it and boost with paid ads. that's where you get the real cost per acquisition numbers and start optimizing for both installs and retention
cons: operationally heavy. you need great strategists, tight content briefs, fast turnarounds, and creators who are actually reliable and consistent
3. UGC
you're taking a creator's video and running it as a paid ad or on your brand page
you own the asset. you control the distribution. you scale the winners
best starting point for most early-stage apps. lower cost, faster iteration, and a direct feedback loop from your ads data. test hooks, test formats, find what converts, then double down
4. founder content
still the most slept on
the former hinge COO built a google form waitlist and got 500k views in 3 weeks just by saying "i built hinge" on repeat. selfie cam, zero editing
credibility beats production value. if you're a founder, you have a story and you have authority. use it.
all four have different unit economics, different timelines, different operational costs
the mistake isn't picking the wrong one. it's picking one and thinking that's your whole strategy
the best consumer apps are running all four simultaneously and they know exactly what each lever is for
Creators are a critical distribution channel for most AI startups.
But many don't know how to work with them effectively.
I spoke with dozens of the top creators at Google i/o - some lessons learned and tips for startups 👇
1. It’s increasingly creators vs. traditional media for launch distribution.
Last year, Google apparently invited ~25 creators and hundreds of press. This year, it was basically flipped: hundreds of creators, very little traditional press.
Why? Creators are driving more impressions and more conversion to product launches.
Traditional media can still matter for credibility, but a lot of launch coverage now turns into paywalled articles saying roughly the same thing as everyone else. Creators are often much better at making people actually care, click, try, and share.
2. Instagram is weirdly under-discussed for AI distribution.
Almost every creator I met - regardless of whether they started on YouTube, X, or TikTok - was heavily investing in Instagram. And a few said they’re now posting AI content there first.
The reason: it monetizes well, reaches a broad audience, and seems to drive more product curiosity with less reflexive hate than some other platforms. Also the cringey "comment ___ to get the link" format really works.
I’ve seen this myself: a lot of AI product content ends up reaching a much wider mainstream audience on IG. For startups, especially consumer or prosumer AI companies, I’d take Instagram much more seriously than the tech world usually does.
3. Creators are flooded with identical-sounding AI startup pitches.
Once creators found out I was an investor, one of the most common questions was: “How do you tell the difference between all these AI startups pitching the same agent / personal assistant / image generator?”
That’s probably the biggest missed opportunity.
Most creator outreach seems to be written as if the creator is just a distribution slot. But the good creators actually care about the product and need to understand what makes it different.
For startups, it may be better to work with fewer creators who genuinely understand your wedge than to spray a generic campaign across a huge list.
4. Technical creators want to hear directly from the team.
I talked to several creators with large YouTube channels focused on more technical topics, and many were tired of getting outreach from agencies that couldn’t explain what the product actually does.
For the “big hitter” technical creators, founder / engineer / product lead outreach can matter a lot.
It doesn’t scale, but that’s partly the point. If someone is going to explain your product to a highly technical audience, they need more than a one-page brief and a promo code.
5. Startups need to get smarter about creator metrics.
I also heard a lot about how easy it is to manipulate the top-line numbers on your channel or account.
Views and comments can look impressive while driving very little real engagement or conversion.
A few metrics startups should probably ask for before paying meaningful dollars: % of viewers in the US / Canada, average view duration, link clicks, audience demographics, and examples of past campaigns that actually drove usage or signups.