IAB Spain's 2025 Annual Influencer Marketing Study confirms what the market already suspected: investment in sponsored and branded content on creator platforms keeps growing at double-digit rates. The value of sponsored content has doubled on Instagram and TikTok compared to the previous year. The community of active influencers has grown 21%, reaching 207,000 creators in Spain, of whom 57,000 have mentioned brands and 10,000 have published sponsored content.

These numbers are useful if you read them from a mass-consumer advertiser's perspective. The interesting question is what this data says for a public or complex organization that doesn't operate under that market logic.

What the study says and what it doesn't say

The study measures well what it sets out to measure: investment volume, leading sectors (Beauty, Fashion, Food & Beverages on Instagram; Beauty with 63% of EMV on TikTok), community behavior, market evolution. This is useful for understanding where the sector is headed and for making advertising investment decisions in mass-consumer goods.

What it doesn't say (and has no reason to say) is:

  1. What returns influencer marketing generates in non-commercial categories (public services, public health, sustainability, social cohesion).
  2. How the format behaves when the goal isn't a sale but behavior change, institutional perception or building public trust.
  3. What reputational risks an institution takes on when it partners with a creator whose editorial line it doesn't control.

These are exactly the questions that matter to a communications lead at a public body, a mutual insurance society, a general-interest foundation or a company with a regulated mission. And the answer isn't in the study: it has to be built.

The mirage of aggregate figures

When an industry study shows 40% growth in investment, the organizational temptation is to assume "we need to be there." It's FOMO logic transplanted into institutional communication. And it usually ends the same way: poorly conceived campaigns with creators who don't fit, forced alignments and, sometimes, reputational crises over content the organization didn't approve but did sign off on.

An aggregate market figure is only useful if it helps you make a concrete decision about your own case. If it only confirms that "the sector is growing," it doesn't inform you: it pushes you.

Three readings that do change the decision in the public sector

There are three readings of the study that are relevant to a public or complex organization, even though they aren't the ones the study itself highlights:

1. Sector professionalization makes quality control easier

The growth in the number of active creators (207,000) also means more professionalization: intermediary agencies, standardized contracts, auditable metrics. For a public organization, this lowers the cost of working with creators: there's someone to negotiate formal contracts with, compliance guarantees exist, and auditing is possible.

2. Concentration in a few sectors points to open ground

If Beauty, Fashion and Food account for most of the investment, the thematic spaces relevant to the public sector (health, sustainability, culture, science, citizenship) are less saturated. This can be an opportunity to build medium-term relationships with specialized creators who value taking part in non-commercial projects.

3. EMV growth forces a redefinition of your own metrics

Estimated Media Value is an advertising-return metric designed for advertisers. It's no use to a public organization. What is useful are metrics tied to the institutional objective itself: attitude change, message recall, subsequent behavior. Importing EMV into a public context means importing the problem of measuring what doesn't matter.

When it makes sense for a public organization to work with creators

In our experience, creator collaborations that have worked in institutional settings have met three conditions:

  1. Real thematic alignment, not opportunistic. The creator was already talking about the organization's topics before the collaboration. The partnership looks natural and, more importantly, is natural.
  2. A contract with clear editorial clauses. You don't control what the creator says, but you do agree on what won't be done. These clauses prevent reputational crises that no legal department should have to manage after the fact.
  3. A metric tied to the institutional objective. Not raw reach, not engagement: measurable behavior from the target audience (visits to a procedure, resource downloads, participation in a consultation).

The risk the study doesn't mention

A growing risk, particularly serious in the public sector, is the opacity of a creator's editorial line. An influencer can have a clean track record and, after the collaboration, publish content that damages the partnership. The organization remains linked by the earlier association, not by what came afterward.

This requires a more rigorous vetting process than a private advertiser's: a thorough review of the creator's history, planned exit scenarios, a specific crisis-communication plan. This is work the study doesn't mention because it isn't its focus, but any institution considering working with creators should have it settled before signing the first contract.

If your organization is weighing whether to work with creators and wants a reading of the market adapted to your case (not to a mass-consumer advertiser), that's the kind of analysis we do.

Let's talk

No commitment. Reply within 48h.

Conclusion

The 2025 Annual Influencer Marketing Study confirms a market that is accelerating and professionalizing. The figures are useful for understanding where the sector is headed, not for making automatic decisions in institutional contexts.

For a public or complex organization, working with creators can make sense under very specific conditions: real thematic alignment, a contract with editorial clauses and a metric tied to the institutional objective. Without those conditions, the reputational risk outweighs the potential communication return.