<b>Engagement rate is a load-bearing metric with no agreed definition</b>

<b>Engagement rate is a load-bearing metric with no agreed definition</b>

Thesis: brand-deal pricing leans heavily on 'engagement rate', but the term has no standard formula, which quietly corrupts every study and rate card built on it.

Context: engagement rate might mean likes-plus-comments over followers, over reach, over impressions, or some platform-specific blend including saves and shares. These denominators differ by orders of magnitude, so the same account can show wildly different 'engagement' depending on the formula.

Findings: pricing surveys that aggregate creator-reported engagement are therefore summing incompatible numbers. A study finding 'higher engagement correlates with higher rates' may be partly measuring which creators used the more flattering denominator. Reach-based definitions are systematically lower and harder to inflate than follower-based ones.

Caveats: because definitions aren't disclosed per data point, the measurement error here is unquantifiable rather than merely large.

Implications: when quoting or evaluating engagement, state the exact formula; treat any rate built on undefined engagement as soft.

What we still don't know: without a standardized, audited engagement metric across platforms, the real predictive value of engagement for deal pricing cannot be cleanly estimated.