Nano influencer marketing at 746 followers, with the arithmetic shown

What nano means, and where this account sits

Every tier table draws nano the same way. 1,000 to 10,000 followers. The account documented on this site sits just under the line at 746 TikTok followers and 404 on Instagram, so everything on this page is written from the inside of the tier rather than about it. Its 222 video export has a median of 583 views, which is the number a brand should price against, not the follower count.

That gap is the whole nano story. A nano account's median views can exceed its follower count because short form distribution is interest based, not follower based. Here the median video reaches 0.78 times the follower count. The follower number tells you the community; the median tells you the delivery.

What the published rate tables say a nano post is worth

The rate card page lists 11 sources that quote a nano band. Their TikTok bands, as published

The spread across those bands is wider than the bands themselves, which is the finding that matters. Published nano pricing disagrees with published nano pricing by an order of magnitude, and most of the sources do not state where the band came from. The tier table spread across platforms on this site runs 1.6 to 15.0 times between the cheapest and dearest tier at the low end of each column, and that is within single sources.

What this nano account actually does

From the 222 video export, 4 September 2026

Two videos carry 61.2 percent of all views on the account. The distribution. 70 of the 222 videos cleared 1,000 views, 7 cleared 5,000, and the best video reached 286,400, which is typical at this size and is exactly why pricing on the median rather than the mean protects both sides.

A worked brand deal at nano scale

The rate card tool prices a full brief, but the short version for a nano TikTok deal is one line of arithmetic. The account's published base is USD 80 for one TikTok Spotlight video, the rate card's own base converted from PHP 4,500 at PHP 57 to the dollar. Against the published nano band of 75 to 250 dollars a post, that base sits inside the band, and it is derived rather than asserted, converted from the peso base the media kit publishes.

What the brand gets for it, from the same table, a median of 583 views puts the cost per thousand organic views at USD 137.22. At the micro tier that figure falls, and the honest nano pitch is not cheap reach. It is rate transparency, an engaged small audience at 2.77 percent median engagement, and footage hours that a UGC-only creator charges for separately.

Why brands hire nano, stated plainly

• Engagement rates run higher at small size. The account's median engagement per view is 2.77 percent and its engagement per follower 2.14 percent. Aggregate industry figures for the same metric at this tier are published anywhere from under 1 percent to over 10, which is another way of saying nobody has a real number. This page publishes a real one.
• Several nano deals cost one macro deal. At the published bands above, ten nano posts cost about what one mid tier post does. The trade is reach for authenticity and volume of content.
• Nano creators say yes to small briefs. A one video test with usage for a month is a real project at this tier and a rounding error at the top.
• The audit surface is small. A brand can check a nano account in ten minutes, the whole table is public, the engagement arithmetic is on the page, and there is no agency layer between the brief and the person filming.

Methodology

How the performance numbers were measured. The public TikTok channel was exported with yt-dlp on 4 September 2026, giving one row per video with a publish date, view count, like count, comment count, repost count, save count and duration. 222 of the 224 videos the channel reports came back, and the export does not say why the other two were absent, so no reason is claimed for them. Every per video figure divides by 222.

The table is published at /data/creator-dataset.json and the site recomputes from it at build time, so a page and its data cannot drift. Figures were last recomputed on 7 September 2026.

What is a measurement and what is a decision. Prices are a commercial decision and are labelled that way everywhere they appear. Nothing on this page claims a rate was derived from data. The cost per thousand views is the one bridge between the two, and it divides a chosen price by a measured median.

Where the eleven comparison sources came from. Each page was fetched on 7 September 2026 and its figure, its tier definition and its own statement about sourcing were read off the page. Two of the thirteen attempted could not be fetched and are excluded rather than summarised from a snippet. The sourcing column is deliberately verbatim, because what a page says about where its number came from turned out to be more informative than the number.

What the calculator will not do. It reads one export of one account, so a percentile here describes this account's history, not a platform wide distribution. It rounds no ladders and substitutes no averages. If a video is missing from the export, the ladder simply does not know about it, which is why the export date sits above the tool rather than in a footnote.

Limits. 222 videos is a real sample but a small one. Ranks near the top of the ladder move with every new upload, and the spread between the 90th and 95th rung is narrow enough that a single viral video can move a video several rungs. The ladder is honest about that instability rather than smoothing it.

Questions