Three examples below, composites built from common patterns rather than any single real channel's private data, at different sizes and in different niches. Each one shows what earned a reply, what a brand skimmed past, and what the creator would have priced next once that reply came in.
Real numbers are used throughout for clarity, but no example below corresponds to one specific real creator's private account. Treat the patterns as a guide for what to include, not a benchmark to hit exactly.
The point of looking at three sizes side by side is that the sections which do the most convincing shift as a channel grows. What earns a reply at 12,000 followers is not the same section that earns one at 145,000, even though the media kit's structure looks identical at every size.
A Micro Creator: Coffee and Beverages
What earned the reply here was the engagement rate, not the follower count. A brand skimming a 12,000 follower account expects to skip past it quickly, and a 6.2% engagement rate is the number that stopped the skim. The honest "available on request" note in place of an empty or padded collaborations section read as a small size being upfront about it, not as a red flag.
Had this account instead listed a vague niche label like "lifestyle" rather than naming pour-over technique, bean sourcing, and home espresso setups specifically, the same engagement rate would likely have earned less attention, since a brand cannot tell from "lifestyle" whether the content actually overlaps with a coffee equipment launch. Specificity did more work here than size did.
A Mid-Size Creator: Competitive Gaming
The gap between followers and average views was the section that needed the most explanation, and a one line note addressing it directly, "views regularly exceed follower count due to TikTok's discovery algorithm," turned a number that could have looked like an error into a strength. SponsorCraft prices against 19 creator niches and 111 sub-niches, so this competitive gaming account and a horror and indie gaming account of the same size are not priced as the same gaming audience, which is exactly the distinction a generic gaming rate card would have missed once pricing came up.
The rate card that followed the tech example's media kit once a brand replied.
An Established Creator: Tech Reviews
Listing actual recent video titles instead of a general content description let a brand preview the exact tone and production quality in one click, without waiting for a reply to ask for samples. At this size, the past collaborations section did the most work: three recognisable electronics brands signalled to a new brand that this channel had already passed another advertiser's vetting, which shortened the reply time considerably compared to the micro example above.
This is also the size where a brand is most likely to compare the media kit against several other established channels at once, rather than deciding whether to take a chance on a single unproven creator. Specific, checkable details, real titles instead of descriptions, named brands instead of "worked with several major companies", win that side by side comparison in a way that vaguer language cannot.
What Changes as a Channel Grows
The core sections stay the same at every size. What shifts is which section does the most convincing. At the micro end, engagement rate and an honest, unpadded collaborations section carry the weight. At the established end, named past brands and specific content samples take over as the primary trust signal, since a brand this size is comparing against several other established channels rather than deciding whether to take a chance on an unproven one.
None of these three needed a different app, a different template, or a different method to get from stats to a reply. The structure held at every size; only the emphasis moved.
The same is true moving from media kit to rate card. A 12,000 follower coffee account, a 210,000 follower gaming account, and a 145,000 subscriber tech channel all ran through the identical five-factor engine above, and each landed at a different, defensible number because the inputs were different, not because any of them needed a separate process built specifically for their size.
These patterns sit inside the broader sponsorship pricing guide. Once a media kit earns a reply, what to include on a creator rate card and the rate card generator cover the document that follows it.
There is no renewal, no licence check, and no lockout. Every rate card and document you have generated stays yours, and the app keeps working offline indefinitely, at any of these three sizes, since the pricing method does not change based on how established a channel already is.
SponsorCraft prices the deal once a media kit's stats already exist; it does not write the media kit itself or verify past collaborations for a creator. Those sections above are worth building honestly, since the pricing engine downstream only works from what is actually true.
What Each Would Price for the Same Deliverable
Run all three examples through the same mid-roll integration package and the outputs land in a very different range, not because the method changes but because the five inputs genuinely differ. The micro coffee account prices lowest, reflecting its audience size. The mid-size gaming account and the established tech channel both price well above it, with the gap between those two coming down to niche and average views rather than raw follower count, since the tech channel's 145,000 subscribers and 72,000 average views sit closer to the gaming account's reach than the follower counts alone would suggest.
Price your own numbers next.
From a 12,000 follower account to an established channel, the same five-factor engine prices the deal once your media kit earns the reply.