Is creator marketing only suitable for large brands with large budgets?

On the contrary. The Unilever model of 300,000 creators only makes sense at global scale — for a brand selling in 190 countries with 30 power brands to serve. For most brands, creator marketing actually works better at smaller scale, with a fraction of that budget.

Do the math on the Unilever number. 300,000 creators divided across 190 countries and 30 power brands works out to roughly 50 creators per brand per country. For Belgium and the Netherlands, that means: a handful of creators per brand. A Dove influencer here, a Knorr creator there. Spread across the entire Benelux and all language regions.

That's broadly spread, but deep nowhere. And for most brands, depth matters more than breadth. A Belgian running brand doesn't need to reach half of Flanders — it needs to be visible and credible inside the Flemish running community. A new cycling brand wants cyclists to see it. Not everyone.

Creator marketing delivers that in three ways, and none of them requires a large budget:

• Concentration over spread. A squad of 25 runners who follow each other and post simultaneously in the same community does more inside that niche than five random nano-creators spread across the country.
• Fit over fame. Curation lets you pick creators who actually live the sport. Someone with 3,000 followers posting weekly training content matters more to a running brand than a celebrity with 200,000 lifestyle followers.
• Scalable starting point. A first collab can stay limited to one discipline or region. If it works, you scale. If it doesn't, you've lost little.

Sunday Squad pilots typically start with one squad — no yearly contract, no retainer. For large brands, the Unilever model is an adapted version of what smaller brands have been discovering for years: concentration within a community is more valuable than spreading across it.