UGC started as a literal description: photos, reviews and videos that customers made on their own and brands reposted. In the short-video era the term shifted. Today “UGC” in a brand’s budget usually means videos a brand pays a creator to make in the style of a customer: phone-shot, first person, talking to camera, product in hand. The video often never appears on the creator’s own account. The brand runs it as an ad or posts it on its own channels.
That shift matters because it changes what the brand is buying. With real customer content the brand buys permission. With commissioned UGC the brand buys production, and it decides how to pay for it: by the hour, per video, per 1,000 views, with product, with a share of sales or ad spend, or a mix.
Example. A kitchen brand briefs four creators for one video each. Two videos are posted to the creators’ accounts with codes; two are delivered as files for the brand’s ads. The brand pays $120 per approved video, plus 10 % of the ad spend on the two that run as ads. Example numbers.
When brands use it. The pain this answers: “Our ads are fatigued and we can’t make new creative fast enough.” UGC-style video is the default creative for Meta and TikTok ads because it looks like the feed it runs in. Brands use it to test many angles cheaply, then scale the ones that convert.
The creator’s view. A UGC creator is a small production company, not an influencer. Follower count matters less than the ability to deliver usable footage on brief. When the video is posted on the creator’s own account for money or free product, the FTC’s disclosure rules apply like any other endorsement (FTC). When it is delivered only to the brand, the brand’s ad carries the disclosure burden.
On HourlyUGC. Every way to pay creators. One platform. Hourly, per video, commission (a share of sales or of ad spend), CPM and samples, combinable in the same campaign.