---
title: UGC program pay structures — retainers, non-stacked bonuses and "free views"
slug: ugc-pay-structures-and-free-views
summary: SideShift's 2026 data on what top UGC programs pay ($800/month for 60 cross-posted videos, non-stacked bonuses capped at 1M views, pay only the best platform), realistic CPMs over the first 90 days, and why pure performance deals rarely keep creators.
domain: mobile-apps
tags: [organic-growth, ugc, creator-pay, cpm, sideshift]
related: [ugc-creator-recruiting-and-pay, influencer-deal-pricing-rpm-and-flat-rates, ugc-program-management-and-coaching, boosting-organic-winners-spark-and-partnership-ads]
sources: [yt:qnDdabj8Fok, yt:22wFjjVyXUI]
updated: 2026-10-24
---

# UGC pay structures — retainers, non-stacked bonuses and free views

## TL;DR
- Early 2026's popular deal was **$400 base + $2 CPM**; by mid-2026 the best SideShift programs paid **~$800/month for 60 videos** (2 unique a day, each cross-posted to 4 platforms) plus **non-stacked** view bonuses.[^1][^2]
- **Non-stacked**: at 1M views the creator gets the 1M bonus *instead of* the 100K one. **Cap bonuses at ~1M views**; anything after is a **"free view"**.[^1][^3]
- **Pay only the best-performing platform** of the 4 cross-posts (Clue and others did this).[^4]
- New creators: ~$200–300 for the same package.[^2]
- Expect **$5–8 CPM in month 1**, **sub-$2–3 by month 3**, then sub-$1. Programs spending >$100K/month on SideShift run at **$0.80–0.90**.[^2][^5]
- Never use a monthly cap that cuts off a breakout: one creator owed ~$75K got $4K and walked out.[^3]

## Details
**From [[people/drew-levin]] (SideShift, Jun 2026).**

*Free views.* Large programs (>$30–50K/month) optimise for views that arrive after a creator's bonus window or view cap. Cap by *views* (e.g. last bonus at 1M, $500–800), not by time — brands that time-cap but don't view-cap risk the blow-up below.[^1][^3]

*The cap disaster.* A creator got ~180M views on one Instagram account in two weeks, including a 45M-view video, but his monthly CPM payout was capped at ~$4K versus ~$75K uncapped. He was furious, and the startup lost him even though it owed nothing. Drew: payment structure is "the alpha".[^3]

*Retainers vs performance-only.* Paying only a share of ad spend or sales puts all the risk on the creator — one made 35 videos for an e-com brand before earning a dollar. Brands should take that deal if they can get it; Drew advises creators never to. Most creators need money up front, so do retainer + view bonuses and maybe profit share later.[^6][^7]

*Outliers.* Never price above market, but a proven "LeBron" creator with sub-$2 CPM on every campaign is worth a $10K retainer in month one; Drew has seen it pay off.[^8]

*Spark views.* If you put ad spend behind a creator's post, don't let paid views count towards their view bonus — see [[boosting-organic-winners-spark-and-partnership-ads]].[^9]

## Disagreements / caveats
- Compared with Nicole Cheung ([[ugc-creator-recruiting-and-pay]]): her $10–30/post base with bonuses on a falling CPM curve is about the same economics as $800/60 videos (~$13/video). Drew adds non-stacking, view caps and best-platform-only payment.
- [[people/jake-castillo]] calls Tribe (creators paid a % of ad spend on their creative) a "game changer" for paid ads — the model Drew warns creators against. Their deals differ: Jake's is for sourcing paid ad creative, not organic UGC.[^10]
- Payout fashions change every few months; these are SideShift's mid-2026 numbers.

## See also
- [[influencer-deal-pricing-rpm-and-flat-rates]] — flat-rate influencer deals
- [[ugc-program-management-and-coaching]]

[^1]: yt:qnDdabj8Fok @ 43:11 — Drew Levin
[^2]: yt:qnDdabj8Fok @ 45:17 — Drew Levin
[^3]: yt:qnDdabj8Fok @ 44:22 — Drew Levin
[^4]: yt:qnDdabj8Fok @ 38:31 — Drew Levin
[^5]: yt:qnDdabj8Fok @ 46:51 — Drew Levin
[^6]: yt:qnDdabj8Fok @ 41:07 — Drew Levin
[^7]: yt:qnDdabj8Fok @ 42:18 — Drew Levin
[^8]: yt:qnDdabj8Fok @ 48:23 — Drew Levin
[^9]: yt:qnDdabj8Fok @ 29:39 — Drew Levin
[^10]: yt:22wFjjVyXUI @ 1:04:20 — Jake Castillo