Imagine Sisyphus posting: The absurd economics of India’s creator boom

The creator economy is the business built around people making digital content and attracting audiences. Their work includes filming, editing, posting, building engagement and promoting products or services. It matters because creators connect brands with consumers, often across languages and regions that traditional advertising may not reach as cheaply.

A creator might produce a short video for a brand partnership, recommend a product or publish regular content that keeps followers engaged. Payment can come through collaborations, while some creators may receive products or services instead of money. The wider ecosystem also includes platforms and agencies that help distribute, market or arrange campaigns.

India’s market is growing, but participation does not guarantee income. BCG estimates that creators influenced $350–400 billion in consumer spending in FY24, while the broader creator economy generated $20–25 billion for platforms and creators. Only 8–10% monetise effectively, showing how unequal the business can be.

India’s creator economy is large and expanding quickly, but the article gives different counts because the studies use different definitions. BCG reported 2 million to 2.5 million active digital creators in 2025. An Indian School of Business study with Hashfame counted the creator base at 41.2 lakh, or 4.12 million, in the same year.

Participation also reaches beyond people earning money. A 2024 YouTube Culture and Trends survey found that 83% of surveyed Indians aged 14–24 identified themselves as creators. That figure measures identity among respondents, not the number of full-time or paid creators.

The broader trend is clear: more people are entering the field than before. The ISB-Hashfame count rose from 9.6 lakh in 2020 to 41.2 lakh in 2025. However, campaign opportunities have not expanded at the same pace, especially for non-metro creators.

BCG estimates that Indian creators influenced $350–400 billion in consumer spending during FY24. This is the value of purchases affected by creator influence, not money paid directly to creators. It shows how powerful creator recommendations and audiences can be in the wider consumer market.

The creator economy itself generated $20–25 billion for participants, including platforms and creators. For example, a creator may help persuade followers to buy a product worth millions, while the creator and surrounding ecosystem receive only a smaller amount through a campaign, platform income or related arrangement.

The figures are not directly comparable measures of money moving between the same parties. Still, they underline a major economic divide. Creators can influence enormous spending without receiving an equivalent share, and the expanding market does not automatically create enough paid opportunities for every participant.

Views and followers measure attention, not guaranteed income. A creator still needs a paying brand, a suitable campaign, reliable platform revenue or another monetisation route. As more creators compete for limited advertising budgets, brands can choose among many accounts and push prices downward.

Micro- and nano-influencers show the problem clearly. Brands value their targeted engagement and lower rates, but agencies may negotiate collaborations that provide little or no cash. A creator might receive products or services instead of payment, or wait so long for remuneration that pursuing it no longer seems worthwhile.

The result is a gap between visibility and financial security. BCG estimates that only 8–10% of Indian creators monetise effectively, with average income close to Rs 18,000 a month. High reach can therefore coexist with unstable work, unpaid labour and income below what a creator needs to live on.

The clearest answer is numerical rather than demographic: BCG estimates that only 8–10% of India’s influencer pool monetises content effectively. The article does not say that a particular age group, language group, location or creator size is most likely to earn a living.

It does show that micro- and nano-influencers attract brands because they offer targeted engagement at lower rates. That makes them commercially useful, but it does not mean they are financially secure. Deals may be paid late, paid poorly or replaced with products and services.

The typical outcome remains limited. BCG puts the average income for effectively monetising creators at close to Rs 18,000 a month. Meanwhile, the creator base is expanding faster than campaign opportunities, particularly outside metros. The people most likely to earn are therefore those who secure effective monetisation, but they represent only a small share of participants.

Agencies connect brands with creators and can influence the price, terms and timing of a collaboration. This matters because creators may depend on agencies to access campaigns, while agencies control negotiations with brands. The creator’s reach can therefore be valuable even when the creator has limited bargaining power.

Micro- and nano-influencers are attractive because they offer targeted engagement at lower rates than larger creators. But an agency may arrange a barter collaboration instead of a paid one. The creator receives products or services, produces promotional content and gives the brand access to an audience without receiving cash. Other creators wait so long for payment that they eventually stop pursuing it.

These arrangements shift value toward brands and intermediaries. The article describes a market where creators’ labour and reach can be used without adequate compensation. Greater marketing spending, including large influencer allocations, has not automatically produced fair or timely payment for individual creators.

A rapidly growing creator supply creates competition because audience attention, brand partnerships and advertising budgets are limited. When more creators seek the same campaigns, each creator has less certainty of being selected. Brands and agencies can compare many accounts, making it harder for individual creators to demand higher fees or better payment terms.

The non-metro campaign-to-creator ratio illustrates the mechanism. It fell from about 0.37 in 2020 to 0.10 in 2025. In practical terms, creator numbers grew much faster than campaign opportunities. A larger pool did not produce a matching rise in collaborations.

This weakens bargaining power and can push creators toward lower rates, barter deals or unpaid work. The market may continue expanding: EY projected influencer marketing would reach Rs 3,375 crore by 2026. But unless opportunities and payments grow alongside participation, competition will continue to dilute individual earning power.