Twenty slots a month
Five weekdays, four weeks, twenty days. That is the entire inventory, and it does not grow when demand does.
The comparison we use internally is an airline. A given day is a flight, the seats are finite, and once it has gone it has gone.
Long-term partners hold recurring days, which is most of the month accounted for before any new conversation starts. What remains is what we can actually sell.
Most agencies in this space have no equivalent constraint, because most are matching a brief to whichever creators reply. Running a concentrated window across a large number of accounts is a different operation, and it is the part that does not scale by adding clients.
What happens when two launch together
Put two clients on the same morning and they compete for the same creators and the same few hours of feed. Both cannot win that, and the one with the larger budget takes it.
The smaller client then pays full price for a launch running into a headwind that we created. That is the outcome worth avoiding, and no amount of careful scheduling inside the day fully removes it. Where two launches genuinely have to share a date, we separate them by several hours and tell both parties.
The mechanism underneath is the same one that governs everything else here. Ranking systems weight how a post performs in its first stretch of life, so two launches inside the same window are competing for the same finite pool of attention from the same accounts. The algorithm page covers why that window matters so much.
Why the date decides the price
Because the inventory is fixed, a specific date is worth what the demand for it is worth. A Tuesday nobody else wants and a Tuesday three companies are asking for are not the same product, and pricing them identically would be pretending otherwise.
The practical consequence for you is simple. Notice is the cheapest lever you have. A date reserved weeks out costs less than the same date claimed at short notice against competing demand, and it also buys the time to build the brief properly rather than assembling something in forty-eight hours.
We can turn a launch around quickly when a date is fixed by something outside your control, a conference or an embargo. It is a worse way to run one, and we would rather tell you that than take the money quietly.
Creators opt in, and sometimes decline
We do not own these accounts. Every creator decides, launch by launch, whether to carry something to the audience they spent years building, and a meaningful number say no to any given campaign.
That has a consequence worth setting expectations around. A company the network has never heard of typically sees a lower opt-in rate on its first launch than on its third. Creators are being asked to spend credibility on a name that means nothing to them yet.
As a company becomes known inside the network, and as creators see the earlier launches perform, participation rises.
So the first launch is a poor sole basis for judging the channel. It is the one carrying the least accumulated context, and it is the one where the fewest creators know what they are looking at.
The alternative model, a network that guarantees every account posts every time, is one where the accounts are controlled rather than persuaded. Those audiences behave accordingly, and so does the engagement.
Your right to remove anyone
Before a launch runs, you see the creators. If one of them is wrong for you, for any reason or none, they come off and someone else goes on.
You should use it. Nobody knows your buyer, your competitors or your reputational constraints better than you do, and a creator who is technically strong can still be a poor fit for a specific company on a specific week.
We would rather rebuild the roster three times before a launch than run one you are uneasy about.
The same right applies over a long engagement. If the same names keep appearing and you want the mix refreshed, that is a request rather than a negotiation. More on the selection criteria in creator amplification, and on what to ask any agency in how to diligence a marketing agency.
Who writes the post
Creators write their own copy. What they get from us is a brief built from what you gave us: the angle, the claim, the specifics only your team knows.
The words belong to the creator. The facts come from you. That division is the entire reason to use a creator instead of buying an ad.
Their audience subscribed to that person's judgment and the way they say things, and a post that reads like it came out of your marketing team spends exactly the credibility you were paying for.
So the angle is theirs. What they choose to focus on is theirs, and so is the freedom to be lukewarm about the parts they are lukewarm about, which is usually the difference between a post people believe and one they scroll past.
There are guardrails and they are short: legal constraints, claims that cannot be supported, comparisons you would rather not invite. Those get flagged once, at the start, and then we stay out of the writing.
Handing several accounts the same supplied paragraph produces posts that read as a campaign to anyone paying attention, and their audiences punish it immediately. It also wastes the reason for using a creator at all.
Every paid post carries X's paid partnership label. Creators who will not tag do not run in our launches, and that is not negotiable at any budget.
Questions we get asked
Why can you only amplify one company a day?
Two launches on the same day compete for the same creators and the same few hours of timeline. The larger budget wins that contest, and the smaller client pays full price for a launch running into a headwind we created. Holding one company a day means every client gets the day rather than a share of it.
What happens if creators decline to carry our launch?
Creators opt in to each launch, because we do not own their accounts and would not want to. A company nobody in the network has heard of usually sees a lower opt-in rate on its first launch than on its third. That warming period is real, and it is why the first launch is a poor sole basis for judging the channel.
Do you write the creators' posts for them?
No. Creators write their own copy from a brief carrying the angle, the claim and the specifics only your team knows. The words are theirs, including the freedom to be lukewarm about the parts they are lukewarm about.
The guardrails are short and practical: legal constraints, claims that cannot be supported, comparisons you would rather not invite. Identical supplied copy across several accounts is identified as a campaign within seconds and performs accordingly.