Influencers

We work with creators our ICP already trusts to make content about Intempt and carry sponsored placements that drive awareness and signups. We are always open to inbound. If you want to collaborate, email hey@intempt.com with the idea.

Who our ICP is, and therefore whose audience we want in front of, is in who-we-build-for.

The model

Decided after benchmarking six programs. The market runs 25-30% rev-share for 12 months on a managed platform, with a flat sponsorship lane alongside it and a discount for the creator's audience; PostHog is the outlier (owned deep content, no affiliate).

Two levers HubSpot and Higgsfield add on top of the base model: tiering (a base rate for everyone, a bonus for high-volume creators, a custom rate for the top few) and an ambassador perks bundle (a free plan, extra credits, early access to new agents, a private community) that costs Intempt little and makes promotion easy. Both are cheap growth and we already have the pieces (the free plan, the credit wallet, Blu). Also note the market cookie is trending to 180 days (HubSpot); our 90 is short.

1. Rev-share: 30% for 12 months on seats and AI Pass. Keep it (matches Claap, beats Wispr's 25%; the Share track).
2. Audience benefit: the creator's link or code carries a Launch-offer credit, so their audience gets something, the way Claap and Parakeet discount the referred user.
3. Per-creator codes for vetted creators only. The ?via handle link is the default for everyone; a unique code (Parakeet's pattern) is issued only to vetted creators, for the leak reasons below.
4. A flat sponsorship lane, separate from rev-share. Per-placement fee, net 30, for high-value creators (Claap pays up to ~$500 a post; PostHog pays flat invoices). A creator can take a placement fee and still earn rev-share on the same video.
5. Recipe royalty, 20%. The third leg no competitor has. It is the differentiator; lead with it when pitching creators who publish plays.
6. Rails: adopt Dub for links, per-creator codes, and payouts; keep recipe royalty on Intempt's own ledger. Dub is Stripe-native and is exactly what Wispr Flow runs; adopting it buys the per-creator-code-to-creator attribution that is otherwise custom work (see the per-creator-codes section). No managed platform does recipe royalties, so that leg stays native. The one open choice is Dub versus continuing to build own rails; the recommendation is the Dub-plus-own-ledger hybrid.
7. Tiering (from HubSpot and Higgsfield): everyone starts at the base 30%; high-volume creators earn a bonus; the top few get a custom deal. One lever, almost free, and it is what turns a one-off into a compounding relationship.
8. An ambassador perks bundle (from Higgsfield): a free plan, extra credits, early access to new Blu agents, and a private community. We already have every piece. It costs little and makes a creator want to keep showing up, which beats any single ad read.
9. Extend the cookie to 180 days (HubSpot's window, double ours). Our 90-day attribution window is short against the market; 180 captures the considered B2B buying cycle.

The taxonomy: link vs code vs ambassador vs recipe

These get conflated. They are not the same thing.

So: an affiliate link only attributes; a per-creator coupon code both discounts and attributes (and is vetted-only because codes leak); a shared offer code discounts but credits nobody; a recipe earns a royalty on usage; a brand ambassador is the relationship tier that stacks a sponsorship fee, rev-share, a per-creator code, and recipe royalties onto one recurring creator. A regular creator starts on the affiliate link; a brand ambassador is a vetted creator we invest in across all four.

Three ways a creator earns, and the two contracts

A creator can make money with Intempt three ways. Two are live under one contract; the third is the gap we are closing.

So the creator contract is two documents: the Collective Terms (revenue + recipes, already live) plus the Creator Sponsorship Agreement for impressions (an internal draft, pending legal review). The agency contract is separate: agencies earn on client platform usage under the Run track at /agency-terms, not the creator terms. A person may hold both, computed independently.

One creator can earn on all three at once: a flat fee for the placement, rev-share on the customers it brings, and a royalty on any recipe they publish. Nothing about taking a sponsorship fee stops the same creator earning rev-share on the same video.

Per-creator codes, Lenny-style

Today a creator is tracked by a ?via=<handle> link, and the coupon codes (LAUNCH100, etc.) are shared and do not credit anyone. The model we want is a unique code per creator, the way a marquee partner like Lenny gets their own: a memorable code (for example ALEX) that both gives the creator's audience an offer and credits that creator for the signup and its revenue. This is standard, and it fits our rails: in Stripe one coupon carries a separate promotion code per creator, so each redemption attributes to the right person. Codes are preferred over links because they follow the customer to checkout even when the click and the purchase are days apart.

That needs a product change, not just copy: a redeemed per-creator code must stamp the creator's attribution on the new customer, the same attribution the ?via handle link writes today. Right now only the handle link does that; shared codes credit no one. So the work is to mint per-creator promotion codes and attribute their redemptions.

It also reverses a deliberate rule. The member handle is the only link, with no aliases, specifically for anti-hijack reasons. A per-creator code is an alias, so adding one carves an exception into a rule that exists to stop attribution theft. It should be a deliberate exception, scoped to vetted creators, which is the same gate the leak risk below points to.

When a creator has both a code and a link, attribution needs one rule, or the same signup gets double-counted. The rule: a per-creator code entered at checkout wins (it is the strongest signal and follows the customer); otherwise fall back to the ?via 90-day first-click cookie. Each referred customer is still attributed to one creator, once.

Do not make vanity codes the default. A memorable reusable code is the most leak-prone thing in affiliate marketing: it ends up on coupon and deal sites (scraped, or posted by the creator themselves), which pays commission on sales the creator never drove and discounts buyers who would have paid full price. The ?via link has no discount to redistribute, so it does not leak this way. So the recommendation, against the raw "code per creator" idea: keep ?via the default for everyone, and issue a per-creator code only to vetted creators, prefer a lower-value or single-use code over a big standing discount, and rely on the deal-site ban and clawback already in the Collective Terms (2.7d, 5.2). The Lenny-style deal works precisely because it is one vetted marquee partner with a gated audience (Product Pass subscribers), not a discount sprayed by every creator. Treat a universal per-creator vanity code as a margin leak, not a feature.

Our approach

Influencer marketing here is relationship building, not a buy. We look for long-term partnerships with people our ICP listens to, and the best creators are users first. We would rather work with someone who genuinely runs their GTM on Intempt than someone with a bigger audience and no connection to the product. We optimize for recurring collaborations over one-off reads: when a creator works with us across several launches, Intempt becomes part of their story, which beats any single placement.

Who the audience should be

Our ICP is the growth team at an SMB, and the seats inside it. So we want creators whose audience is:

• Founders and heads of growth doing GTM themselves at seed to Series B.
• Operators in the role seats: outbound, lifecycle, performance marketing, analytics, data pipeline. These map to the nine Blu agents.
• Technical and product builders at small teams who feel the tool-sprawl pain.

Avoid audiences far from the customer-data and revenue motion (pure finance, ops, recruitment, career-prep content). They are our anti-persona.

Sourcing and evaluating creators

Where to find them

Warmest first:

• Existing Intempt Collective share-track applicants. People already apply at /partner to recommend us. They like the product or already use it, which is exactly the creator we want. Start here before cold sourcing.
• Creators our own team and network already follow. Ask the growth team who they read and watch on GTM, lifecycle, and founder-led growth.
• Recommendations from creators we have already worked with. The GTM creator world is small; a good reputation compounds, so a warm intro beats a cold find.
• Inbound. hey@intempt.com. We are open to proposals and say so on the page.
• Search for creators making GTM, growth, lifecycle, outbound, analytics, or founder-building content on LinkedIn, YouTube, and podcasts.
• Founders building interesting GTM, DTC, or SaaS products who post what they ship, and operators actively sharing what they built with Intempt.
• Not only solo creators. Agencies (our Collective run track is a source), operator communities, and GTM/SaaS/ecommerce events and conferences.

Honest note: we do not run a paid influencer-discovery tool today (no Kuli-style tool). Sourcing is the Collective applicant pool plus manual search. If we adopt one later, write it here.

Evaluating a specific creator

• Audience fit comes first. It has to skew to our ICP in who-we-build-for: founders doing GTM, heads of growth and marketing, and the people in the outbound, lifecycle, performance, analytics, and data seats, at 5-100 person SMBs, plus DTC and indie SaaS builders.
• Categories to avoid: pure low-level engineering or coding content, career and interview prep, and generic business-guru or get-rich content. The audience is there to learn to code or to get hired, not to run growth. Prefer creators whose audience actually operates a GTM stack.
• Growing channel. Subscriber and view growth trending up. Social Blade shows this for YouTube.
• Engaged audience over raw size. Real comments from named operators at ICP-fit companies, reshares, and the creator replying in their own thread beat a big follower count with dead comments. On LinkedIn, operator density in the comments matters more than follower total.
• A rough view floor of about 5k views per video on YouTube to be worth the time. No upper limit on size; larger creators cost more but are often more efficient.
• Engagement ratio ladder (external YouTube heuristic, not yet an Intempt benchmark): weak 0.001 comment / 0.02 like per view, average 0.001-0.002 / 0.02-0.03, good 0.002-0.005 / 0.03-0.05, excellent 0.005+ / 0.05+. Treat these as a starting reference and replace them with our own numbers once we have per-creator signup data.

Formats and channels, honestly

We have the Intempt company channels (LinkedIn Page, X, YouTube community) and the founder's LinkedIn. We do not yet have proven per-format acquisition data, so do not claim a strongest channel. The working expectation: long-form and founder-to-founder content drive the most considered signups, while short-form and podcasts do more for awareness and reaching audiences we would not otherwise get in front of. Measure it per creator and put a source and a date beside every number.

Negotiating

Two ways a creator can be paid, and only one exists today. The standing program is the Share-track affiliate rev-share (30% for 12 months, see Attribution and payout). That is the default ask for most creators: carry the ?via link, earn on who they bring. A flat sponsorship fee (pay a creator up front for a placement, PostHog's model) is a separate motion Intempt has not formally set up; it is in the undecided list below. Only negotiate a flat fee when the affiliate rev-share clearly will not fit the deal, and treat the terms below as the working defaults for that case.

• Know the slot. Pre-roll, mid-roll, end-roll, or a full integration. An integration where the creator actually uses Intempt on screen is worth far more than a 20-second pre-roll read, and it should be priced that way.
• Ask for examples of other paid reads they have run, so you can judge how a sponsor lands in their voice before you commit.
• The first quote is usually negotiable for a creator we have not worked with. Understand the value of the placement (audience fit, format, where the link sits, whether it rides a launch) before agreeing a price. Do not treat the first number as fixed.
• We have no creator pricing model yet (it is in the undecided list below). Until we do, price off CPM and comparable reads, write down what we paid and what it returned, and build the model from real placements rather than guessing a rate.
• Link placement is part of the deal. The referral link goes in the top three lines of the description, not buried below the fold.
• Invoices: net 30 is the working default (we pay 30 days after the creator sends the invoice). Confirm payment terms with the team before you put a term in writing.

Working with the team on a launch

Creator work lands best when marketing is in early. When a launch, a product push, or a pricing change has dates, tell the team about a month ahead, or as soon as you know. That buys time to line up creators, fit their schedules, and build a story that works the new thing into their content naturally instead of bolting an ad read onto it.

For a launch, a creator needs:

• Product context - what shipped and why it matters to their audience.
• The messaging - from our positioning and the launch brief, not improvised on the call.
• Demo access - the free plan to record against, plus a seeded demo project so the product looks alive on screen. The free plan with no time limit and the experience-seeder make this real, not a sales demo.
• Visuals - on brand.
• The launch timeline and the embargo, if there is one.
• Someone who can answer technical and product questions fast - product, or the founder.

A placement should ride something in flight: a launch, a product deep-dive, or a pricing change. A read tied to nothing converts worse and is harder to measure.

What the placement should say

Let creators write the read in their own voice; they know their audience. Give them the frame, not a script. The points to get right:

• The category is Agentic GTM. Not "an analytics tool", not "an email tool", not "a CRM". One platform across the GTM motion.
• The operating model: you set the strategy, agents run the plays. Human holds direction, Blu and the role agents execute. Not autonomous, not a replacement.
• The proof pillars, pick what fits the creator: guardrails not autonomy (nothing sends, publishes, or writes to the CRM without a rule or an approval); no consultant required (runs on the data connected day one, first value under 5 minutes); clean deliverability (warm-up, ramp caps, reply handoff built in); unified across the stack (replaces the Klaviyo plus Mixpanel gap, or the Gong plus Calendly plus HubSpot gap).
• Be specific, not benefits-y. Operators can smell marketing fluff. "It records the call and writes the CRM" beats "it empowers you to do more".
• There is a free plan with no time limit. They can sign up and run it free, today.

Nomenclature: it is Intempt and Blu Agent. Never "GrowthOS" or "Intempt AI". Never an em-dash in anything we hand a creator. Do not claim a number of agents in a headline; we rename and add them.

The link. The placement link is the Collective referral link, intempt.com/?via=<handle>&code=LAUNCH100, with utm_source set to the creator and utm_campaign to the campaign. Reuse one ?via handle across a creator's videos so their attribution stays in one place, and vary utm_campaign per video so the videos can be told apart. It goes in the top three lines of the description. Full attribution mechanics are in the next section.

Assets. We do not have a creator asset library yet. Today a creator gets the website, the free plan to record against, a seeded demo project, and a product person to answer questions. Point them at the live product and the site as the best sources, and build a small clip-and-visual library as we run more placements.

Attribution and payout

Creator, influencer, and affiliate are the same thing here: the Share track of the Intempt Collective. Consultants, creators, and customers who refer peers all earn on it, under one governing document, the Intempt Collective Terms at /affiliate-terms. That page is authoritative; this section summarizes it.

Two things connect a placement to a result:

• A referral link of the form intempt.com/?via=<handle>. ?via tags the creator. If a creator also wants to hand their audience the public Launch offer credit, add &code=LAUNCH100 (only the codes on /offers work; PARTNER250 and FOUNDER500 are portfolio-only). When the visitor accepts marketing cookies, the handle is stored in a first-party cookie for 90 days; if they decline, it carries to signup for that visit only. The first creator link clicked wins, each referred person is attributed once, and self-referrals are excluded.
• Mention on signup. Ask the creator to tell their audience to say they heard about Intempt from them, as a backstop when the link is not clicked.
• Disclosure. The creator must put an FTC disclosure next to the link ("I get a commission for purchases made through this link").

What they earn (Share track, per the Collective Terms): 30% of what a qualifying referred customer pays for seat subscriptions (Professional, Organization, self-serve Enterprise seats) and AI Pass, calculated after discounts and before tax, for 12 months from that customer's first paid invoice, with no per-customer cap. A qualifying customer is a new self-serve organization created by someone with no prior Intempt org membership. It does not earn on existing customers, people joining an existing org, sales-led or Order Form deals, Shopify-billed plans, metered usage (events, sends, impressions, CRM storage), or credit top-ups.

Payout (Collective Terms 4): every commission is held 30 days and netted against refunds, reviewed monthly, and paid once the payable balance reaches $50. Methods are Intempt credits (the default, paid at 1.2x list value), or PayPal, Wise, or Revolut for cash; cash needs a W-9 or W-8BEN on file first. Creators join and pick a payout method in their Intempt profile, and the program is linked from /partner.

A creator who also publishes a recipe additionally earns on the Build track (20% of credits their published recipe consumes in other orgs), computed separately. The affiliate and recipe terms: a 90-day consent-gated attribution window, new self-serve orgs only, first click, 30-day hold, $50 minimum, credits at 1.2x or PayPal, Wise, or Revolut. Confirm the current payout status with the team before you promise a creator a pay date.

Measuring impact

Per placement, look at: sessions and signups from the ?via link, signups that named the creator at signup, and cost per thousand views for paid reads. Put a source and a pull date beside every number (marketing's numbers live in dashboards this repo cannot read, so a command is not available; a source and date is the rule instead).

Because we are the product, we measure this in Intempt itself. The ?via handle is stored on the customer record at signup, so creator-attributed signups are queryable in our own analytics. We do not have a HogWatch-style dashboard that joins view counts to signups; until we have one, the per-creator view is the ?via breakdown in our analytics plus the marketing spend sheet, each number carrying its source and date.

Attributed signups are not the whole picture. Some partnerships are worth it because they reach a new audience, build long-term affinity, produce clips we reuse, or lead to the next collaboration. Name that when you justify one.

Relationship management

Treat creators as people, not inventory. Reply quickly, give real feedback, celebrate good work, stay in touch between campaigns. The aim is for a creator to think of Intempt first when they have a new idea, and to feel fine bringing us the weird ones.

What we have not decided yet

• Whether to work through agencies to scale sourcing. Not set up today.
• A content-asset kit (demo access, visuals, B-roll) for creators. We should build one; right now a creator gets the website, the free plan, and a founder to answer questions.
• A flat-fee sponsorship program (paying creators up front, PostHog's model) alongside the affiliate rev-share. Not set up today. If we add it, it needs its own terms and a per-placement pricing reference.
• A flagship-creator budget and a per-placement pricing reference. Unset. Do not invent one.

Related: who-we-build-for · campaigns-and-coupons · startup-programs.