A flat fee is the simplest deal: this much for this work. The creator knows what they will be paid before filming. The brand knows its cost before the video runs. Nobody has to count views, clicks or orders. Per-video pricing and hourly rates are both flat fees; so is a fixed usage fee for running a video as an ad.
The flat fee’s weakness is the same as its strength: it is blind to results. A video that sells thousands of units and a video that sells none cost the brand the same, and pay the creator the same.
Example. A brand pays $150 per approved video to five creators, $750 in total. One video drives $9,000 of sales as an ad; three do little; one is declined and costs nothing. The brand’s cost for the winner was $150. The creator who made it was paid $150. Under a share of ad spend instead, that creator would have been paid on every dollar the brand put behind it. Example numbers.
When brands use it. The pain this answers: “We paid $300 a video and nine out of ten never beat our control.” That is the flat fee’s bill. Flat fees fit when the brand cannot track results (sales mostly in stores), when it needs content for its own channels rather than the creator’s audience, and when it is testing creators it does not know. HourlyUGC‘s guidance on per-video campaigns describes paying only for what the brand approves, with the first video as the audition (HourlyUGC).
The creator’s view. A flat fee is safe income. The trade is that the creator does not share in the upside of a video that works. Many creators now take a smaller flat fee plus a share, which keeps the floor and adds the upside. A flat fee should state what it covers: the video, a set number of changes, and which usage. Paid usage beyond that is a separate line.
On HourlyUGC. A per-video or hourly base can carry commission on top in the same campaign, or the campaign can be commission only with no base pay.