Influencer Collaboration Deck

About this template

Eight slides judged in thirty seconds

Cover, agenda, one divider, one body slide, a comparison slide, four metric cards, a trend slide, closing – eight in all. That is the right size for approaching a creator or their agency. They receive several of these a day and skim for terms, so pull the terms forward instead of expanding the brand introduction. The agenda lists four items – “Creator shortlist”, “Media ads and influencer collaboration”, “Key metrics”, “Trend analysis” – and the last three are carried one slide each by slides 5, 6 and 7. Only the first line owns a divider-and-body pair, so only one body slide exists; to spell out content plan, publishing dates, fee or settlement item by item, duplicate the 3-4 pair and add the matching agenda lines. It is too short to double as a post-campaign report.

What to change across the eight slides

• Slide 4 is titled “Creator shortlist” with three lines: “Beauty channels with 120K+ subscribers”, “68% female viewers aged 25-34”, “Ad rates for the last 3 months disclosed”. Those are your own selection criteria – internal review language. In a deck you send out, retitle it as the offer and use the three lines for content format, volume and dates, and how payment works.
• The lead sentence on that slide, “We shortlist creators who fit the brand.”, describes your filtering rather than what the creator gets. Rewrite it as the offer itself, for example “One review video and three shorts for the March launch, filming in week two.”
• Spending slide 5 arguing that “Influencer collaboration” beats “Standard media ads”. The creator reading it already agrees; move fee, period and usage rights forward instead.
• Slide 6’s cards – “124K” subscribers, “68%” core target share, “8.4%” average engagement, “KRW 8.5m” rate per video – are already the creator’s numbers rather than yours, which is the right direction. Replace them with real channel data and change the “* Figures are sample values. Replace them with your own data.” footnote into a source line such as “three-month average from channel insights”.
• Slide 7’s bars read “Teaser” 28, “Review video” 96, “3 shorts” 142, “Repost” 57, captioned “Unit : index (base 100)”. If you enter real view counts, change that caption. The bars are shapes, so lengths need manual resizing.

Terms written as numbers

1. Content: one review video, three shorts, one teaser; filming in the second week of March, publishing from the twentieth.
2. Fee: KRW 8.5m fixed plus KRW 4,000 per attributed sale, settled on the tenth of the following month against a thirty-day measurement window.
3. Usage: ninety days of organic reposting on brand channels at no cost; paid media use priced separately at KRW 800,000 for ninety days.
4. Guarantees: posts stay live for thirty days; no obligation to produce extra content if results miss.

Why the proposal gets no reply

• Quoting a fee without stating usage rights, which forces a renegotiation the moment you want to run the asset as an ad.
• Selecting on subscriber count when engagement rate, the “8.4%” card, tracks purchase behaviour more closely.
• Spending three of eight slides on the brand, which pushes the terms out of sight in a deck with one body slide.
• Quoting a fee but never stating the payment date or invoicing point – neither the agenda nor any slide covers settlement, so put it in a footnote under the slide 6 cards, or on the closing slide if nowhere else.