Nano vs Micro Influencer: Which Type Wins for Your Brand?

Choosing between nano and micro influencers based on follower count is not due diligence. It is the reason most flat-fee campaigns quietly fail.

Most DTC brand owners treat the nano vs. micro decision as a reach-optimization problem: sort creators by follower count, draw a line, pay the rate card. It feels rigorous. It isn't. Follower count tells you how many people could see a post, nothing about whether the creator has any reason to make sure they actually do. The real variable underneath every underperforming campaign isn't the tier. It's the deal structure. See our influencer marketing platform for how this works in practice.

The metric that feels like due diligence predicts the least. "50,000 followers" sounds like evidence to a founder or finance lead, so brands keep selecting on it. But a nano creator on a flat fee and a micro creator on a flat fee share the same flaw: neither loses anything if the content underperforms. Multiple 2025 market studies consistently find that commission-based structures correlate with higher reported ROI than flat-fee counterparts across both tiers. The tier didn't determine the outcome. The compensation model did.

2.53% Nano creator average engagement rate

Key takeaways

• Follower count is the least predictive variable in any nano or micro influencer decision, two creators in the same tier, paid the same rate, can produce results orders of magnitude apart.
• The tier label (nano, micro, macro) was never designed to predict performance; it was designed to describe audience size, and brands keep confusing the two.
• Flat-fee deals break accountability at the contract level, a creator paid upfront has no financial reason to care whether the post performs after it goes live.
• Engagement rate hides more than it reveals: a strong percentage on a small account can still produce zero meaningful traffic if the deal structure removes the creator's incentive to push the content.
• A nano creator on a pay-per-view deal will outwork a micro creator on a flat fee every time, because skin in the game changes posting behavior, not tier status.
• The brands generating the lowest CPMs right now aren't winning on tier selection, they're winning on contract structure.
• Content Rewards closes that loop by paying creators only for the real views they earn on TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube, so every dollar spent ties directly to verified organic reach instead of a follower count and a hope.

All Influencer Tiers Defined: and Where Nano and Micro Actually Sit

Spend enough time auditing influencer campaign results and a pattern surfaces fast: two creators in the same tier, paid the same flat fee, posting to similar audience sizes, can produce results that are orders of magnitude apart. The tier label did not cause that gap. The tier label never could, because it was never designed to predict performance.

The industry has settled on four standard follower-count bands: nano (1K to 10K followers), micro (10K to 100K), macro (100K to 1M), and mega or celebrity (1M and above). These ranges are consistent across major industry sources, which makes them a defensible starting point for budget conversations. The critical word there is "starting."

The bands tell you how many people a creator can theoretically reach. They say nothing about whether those people will act. The practical differences between tiers go beyond raw numbers.

Nano creators typically operate inside tight, specific communities: a 6K-follower camping gear reviewer whose audience is almost entirely outdoor enthusiasts, not casual scrollers. Macro and mega creators reach broad, diverse audiences where any single post competes with a much noisier feed. Audience relevance shrinks as follower count grows, which is why engagement rates tend to drop as you move up the tier ladder.

47% of marketers already rank engagement rate as their most important evaluation metric, ahead of reach. Nano and micro are often treated as interchangeable "small creator" options, but the gap between them is real. Industry data shows nano influencers averaging around 2.53% engagement, while micro influencers sit lower as audience size scales.

A nano creator with 8K followers in a niche like zero-waste skincare will often know their audience personally, respond to comments individually, and post with a level of community investment that a 60K general lifestyle micro creator structurally cannot replicate. That intimacy evaporates as follower counts climb. The trade-off is reach: micro creators cover more ground, which matters when geographic distribution or category authority is the campaign goal.

Here is the structural problem with stopping at tier selection. Tier labels are a reach proxy, not a performance guarantee. Brands we work with at Content Rewards arrive having experienced exactly this frustration firsthand, they've run flat-fee deals where the payment went out before a single verified view came in, and the post underdelivered with no financial consequence for the creator.

The uncertainty compounds when reporting is opaque: without transparent, consistent performance data tied directly to payouts, the back-and-forth between brand and creator becomes its own time cost on top of the wasted spend. That structural misalignment is what a performance-based UGC marketplace is designed to fix. On Content Rewards, creators only earn once real, verified performance is recorded, so the financial incentive to refine the hook, push the content, and genuinely engage the audience stays active from the moment of posting, not before it.

For brands that want organic social scale without large guaranteed influencer budgets, or that want to launch or scale a UGC content strategy without paying flat fees regardless of results, this model removes the core exposure of the flat-fee arrangement: you are no longer buying a post and hoping for the best. Payouts are tied to transparent performance data, which also eliminates the unclear reporting that makes flat-fee deals difficult to evaluate after the fact. Two nano creators with identical follower counts can still produce wildly different ROI, but under a verified-performance model, the brand's financial exposure is bounded by what actually delivered, not by what was promised at the point of booking.

Related Reading

• How to Become a UGC Creator
• How Do Digital Creators Make Money
• How to Make Money as an Influencer
• Best Social Media Platforms to Make Money
• How to Get Brand Deals on Instagram
• UGC Creator vs Influencer
• How to Make Money on TikTok Without Followers
• How to Monetize TikTok Views
• Nano vs Micro Influencer
• Digital Creator vs Influencer

Engagement Rates Compared - What Nano and Micro Influencers Actually Deliver

Engagement rate is the first number every DTC brand owner checks when evaluating a creator, and for good reason: it signals how actively an audience responds to content. But treating that percentage as a buying decision on its own is where campaigns quietly go wrong, because the number hides more than it reveals. One of the most consistent struggles brands face at the start of an influencer strategy is that publicly available posts and creator profiles almost never surface real engagement rate data, leaving decision-makers to guess rather than benchmark. That transparency gap is exactly the problem that a performance-based UGC marketplace like Content Rewards is built to close, because creators earn by posting results, not by promising them upfront.

The Benchmark Numbers - Nano's 4 to 8 Percent vs. Micro's 1 to 4 Percent, and Why Platform and Niche Warp Both Figures

"Neither the discussion nor the original post covers actual engagement rate data or performance benchmarks for nano/micro influencers, revealing a gap in transparency around what these creators actually deliver."

According to ShortsIntel's social media benchmarks, nano influencers (under 10K followers) typically see engagement rates of 4 to 8 percent or higher, while micro influencers (10K to 100K followers) average closer to 1 to 4 percent, with rates softening further as follower counts climb toward the 100K ceiling. Those ranges shift considerably by platform and niche. A nano creator in a tight fitness community on TikTok can clear 10 percent; a micro creator in a broad lifestyle niche on Instagram may sit below 2 percent, as IQfluence's social media benchmark data similarly confirms.

The benchmark is a starting point, not a verdict. For brands that want organic social scale without committing to large guaranteed influencer budgets, these ranges matter because they set realistic expectations before a dollar is spent. Content Rewards is most beneficial precisely in this scenario: when a brand needs to distribute content across nano and micro creators at scale without paying flat fees regardless of whether those creators actually perform.

The Personal-Community Effect Behind Nano Creators' Higher Engagement

The reason nano creators outperform on percentage is structural, not accidental. At sub-10K followings, many creators genuinely know their audience: they reply to comments by name, share personal updates, and feel more like a trusted contact than a broadcast channel. As follower counts grow into micro territory, that personal-community dynamic dilutes.

The creator becomes a publisher. Audiences still follow, but the reflexive "I trust what they say" response fades, and with it, the engagement rate. This dynamic is why Content Rewards' creator monetization model, where creators with active, consistently posting social presences earn through brand partnerships by posting, naturally surfaces the nano and micro accounts that are still in that high-trust zone.

A creator who is actively earning by posting is, by definition, an active poster with a live audience relationship, not a dormant account inflating a follower count.

Absolute Reach vs. Percentage Engagement - The Math That Exposes the Nano Rate Illusion

Here is where the percentage metric gets genuinely misleading. A nano creator at 6 percent engagement on 7,000 followers generates roughly 420 interactions per post. A micro creator at 2 percent on 80,000 followers generates around 1,600.

The nano's rate looks superior; the micro's absolute interaction count is nearly four times larger. A high percentage applied to a small base is still a small number. This is the core argument for organic reach scaling as a continuous channel strategy rather than a one-off creator bet.

By distributing content across many nano and micro creators simultaneously, and paying on performance rather than flat guarantees, a brand accumulates absolute interactions across a portfolio of posts rather than gambling on whether one creator's engagement rate translates to real volume. Content Rewards' ShortsIntel-benchmarked positioning as a performance-based UGC marketplace is built around exactly this arithmetic: many active, monetization-motivated creators posting concurrently produce aggregate reach that no single nano rate percentage can match on its own.

Vanity Engagement vs. Purchase-Intent Signals - What the Percentage Isn't Telling You

The deeper problem is what "engagement" actually counts. Published engagement rates are dominated by likes and surface-level comments, which are low-friction actions that cost the viewer nothing and commit them to nothing. A like is not a click.

A comment is not a purchase intent signal. Brands optimizing for engagement rate without separating surface interactions from purchase-proximate behaviors, saves, link taps, story swipes to a product page, are measuring activity, not momentum. This is compounded by the fact that most creator profiles and public posts, as ShortsIntel's benchmark research illustrates through aggregate data rather than individual disclosure, do not break down what share of their engagement is high-intent versus passive.

Brands entering an influencer strategy without that visibility are flying blind. The structural answer is a marketplace model where creators earn by posting results, not by presenting a vanity engagement rate in a pitch deck, so that the incentives of the creator and the performance needs of the brand are aligned from the first post, not negotiated after the flat fee has already been paid.

Cost Effectiveness of Nano vs Micro Influencers: and the Fee Structure That Changes Everything

The fee model underneath the price tag is where nano and micro influencer campaigns are most frequently misread. Most brands enter these deals assuming that a lower follower count automatically translates to a lower risk spend, and that the modest rate card is itself a form of protection against wasted budget. It is not. A flat fee paid to a creator with eighty thousand followers carries the same structural flaw as one paid to a creator with eight hundred thousand: the brand absorbs all the downside if the content underperforms, while the creator has already been made whole regardless of outcome.

The rate card reality most DTC brands discover too late is simpler than the tier debate suggests: the tier you choose is far less consequential than the contract you sign. Whether you're paying $150 to a nano creator or $1,800 to a micro influencer, the standard flat-fee deal structure hands over your budget before a single verified view exists. That structural flaw, not the follower band, is where campaigns quietly bleed out.

The Realistic Rate Card - What Nano and Micro Influencers Actually Charge

The tier you choose is far less consequential than the contract you sign.

Nano influencers (1K to 10K followers) typically charge between $10 and $100 per post on Instagram, according to Impact.com's 2024 benchmarks, though e-commerce-focused nano deals can reach $250 when product gifting is included. What many solo app developers and small business owners run into in practice is steeper still: nano influencers in e-commerce contexts can command significantly higher rates per video depending on platform and format, as broader market trends consistently show, a real price of entry for creators who may still deliver only modest views, and an amount that feels impossible to justify before a single sale has been tracked. Micro influencers (10K to 100K followers) command $100 to $500 per post at the lower end, per Impact.com's 2024 benchmarks, with rates rising considerably for creators with strong niche authority and consistent engagement.

The spread looks meaningful on a spreadsheet. In practice, both ranges describe the same payment logic: pay upfront, receive a post, hope something happens.

The Flat-Fee Math Every DTC Budget Owner Should Run Before Signing

Picture this scenario: a brand pays a substantial flat fee to a micro influencer with tens of thousands of followers. The post goes live on a Tuesday, collects 900 likes, generates zero tracked conversions, and the creator stops responding by Thursday. The tier wasn't the problem.

The deal structure was. The creator's bank account doesn't care whether 200 people saw the post or 200,000. Neither number changes what they were paid.

This is precisely why Content Rewards is built around a performance-based UGC marketplace rather than a flat-fee creator roster. Instead of committing budget before a single verified view exists, brands scale organic social reach through performance-based UGC, paying for results, not promises. For brands that don't want to carry the full downside of an underperforming post and can't absorb a $500 nano-influencer fee that delivers 2K views, that structural shift removes the core risk the standard market refuses to price correctly.

Cost-Per-Real-Interaction - Why the Cheaper Tier Isn't Always the Cheaper Deal

Run the math on a typical nano post at a higher engagement rate and you get a favorable cost-per-engagement on paper. A comparable micro post at a lower engagement rate across a larger audience can yield a higher absolute interaction count but at a much steeper cost per interaction. The nano deal wins on paper.

But both figures are estimates built on assumed rates, not verified delivery. The cheaper tier can still be the more expensive mistake if the post underperforms its assumed engagement rate, and there is no mechanism in a flat-fee contract to account for that. Content Rewards is most beneficial precisely in this gap, when a brand wants organic social scale without large guaranteed influencer budgets.

Rather than betting on assumed engagement rates, brands can build a steady pipeline of authentic UGC distributed across TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube, sourced from creators who earn by posting, and structured so that the brand isn't paying flat fees to creators regardless of results. For brands with existing video assets, the Clipping Marketplace extends that logic further: existing content gets redistributed as short-form clips at scale, without a new upfront creator commitment for every piece.

Why Comparing Nano vs Micro Costs Is the Wrong Calculation Entirely

What most teams report across the market holds true at both tiers: standard influencer deals at nano and micro levels default to flat-fee arrangements in the majority of cases, meaning brands bear full performance risk with no contractual recourse if reach or conversion targets are missed. The tier comparison, nano versus micro, $150 versus $1,800, is ultimately a distraction from the only question that protects budget: who carries the performance risk when the post falls flat? In a standard flat-fee contract, that answer is always the brand. A performance-based model, by design, changes that answer, which is the only structural fix the tier debate never gets around to offering.

How to Choose Between Nano and Micro Influencers: the Framework That Actually Works

Three axes determine whether a nano or micro creator campaign actually pays off, and none of them appear on a profile page. Follower count is the variable brands fixate on first; it is also the least predictive input in the decision. What moves the needle is how precisely your campaign goal, budget structure, and content volume needs align with the creator tier you choose, and then, critically, how the deal is structured to enforce that alignment.

One of the most common frustrations solo founders and small business owners bring to Content Rewards is exactly this: they've been quoted $500 per video for a creator with 2,000–5,000 followers and have no reliable way to evaluate whether that's fair or catastrophically mispriced. The absence of a clear decision-making framework doesn't just create anxiety, it creates bad deals. The three axes below are that framework.

Axis 1 - Campaign Goal, Awareness vs. Conversion

If your goal is brand awareness, micro creators offer genuine category authority and geographic spread. But if your goal is conversion, nano creators in tight niches consistently outperform on purchase intent. Industry benchmarks show nano-influencer engagement rates in the DTC space routinely outpacing micro-tier averages, and their peer-level authenticity is consistently linked to stronger purchase-intent signals in niche categories, an advantage that broad-reach posts rarely match at the same cost point.

The goal has to be specific before the tier decision means anything. Content Rewards is built around the organic reach scaling use case: brands that want views that compound over time, not a single spike they can't afford to repeat. If your goal is ongoing social visibility, not a one-time campaign burst, the tier and deal structure you choose need to support that continuous cadence from the start.

Axis 2 - Budget Accountability and Flat-Fee Risk

The familiar approach is to pay a flat fee, receive the post, and hope the views follow. The hidden cost is structural: once a creator is paid upfront, there is no incentive to push the content harder, iterate the caption, or repost at peak hours. Industry data consistently shows flat-fee influencer posts underdeliver on projected reach with no recourse for the brand, a pattern documented in Modash's 2023 creator economy benchmarks, which found median post reach at approximately 50% of projected figures for flat-fee campaigns.

A nano creator paid a flat fee for a post that gets 400 views is a worse deal than that same creator on a per-view structure who earns only when real people watch. The accountability layer is what makes the tier choice hold. This is precisely the friction Content Rewards is designed to remove.

Marcel's team, like many brand-side operators, found that proving creator payouts were fair required over-explaining every campaign, which created disputes, slow approvals, and eroded trust between brand and creator. Content Rewards' performance-based UGC marketplace addresses this directly: creators earn by posting, payouts are tied to results, and the transparency of that structure eliminates the negotiation overhead that flat-fee arrangements routinely generate. For solo founders without a dedicated influencer-relations team, that structural clarity is not a nice-to-have, it's what makes the model operable at all.

For context on what fair nano-influencer rates actually look like in e-commerce, LaunchPoint's rate guide for ecommerce nano influencers provides a practical reference point for benchmarking quotes before you commit to any deal structure.

Axis 3 - Content Volume and Pipeline Depth

One-off posts do not compound. A single micro influencer post creates a reach spike; a pipeline of nano creators posting weekly creates an always-on content presence that grows over time. Nano creators, given their lower per-post cost, allow brands to activate more creators simultaneously.

The trade-off is coordination overhead: managing ten nano creators requires more briefing and tracking than managing two micro creators, which matters if your team is already stretched thin. Content Rewards addresses both sides of this trade-off. Its performance-based UGC marketplace is most beneficial precisely when a brand wants to launch or scale a UGC content strategy without paying flat fees regardless of results, activating volume without the coordination burden falling entirely on the brand team.

For brands that already have existing video assets, the Clipping Marketplace extends this further: existing video content gets redistributed as short-form clips across social platforms at scale, turning a single piece of creative into a compounding content pipeline without requiring new creator briefs for every post.

When Nano Wins

Nano creators win when niche alignment is tight and trust is the primary conversion driver. A clean beauty brand on a modest monthly budget typically gets more authentic UGC volume from several nano creators in the skincare community than from a single micro influencer post. The "is it worth it?" review format that nano creators naturally produce addresses consumer skepticism before it forms. On a performance-based structure, where creators earn by posting and payouts scale with views, that $3,000 stretches further and carries built-in accountability that a flat-fee arrangement cannot provide.

When Micro Wins

Micro creators win when credibility signals matter more than intimacy. Industry research has found that mid-tier (micro) creators lifted brand credibility perception scores by a measurable margin in category-authority campaigns compared to nano creators operating outside their core niche. If a brand is entering a competitive category and needs third-party validation from a creator audiences already perceive as an expert, a micro creator with a defined content niche, fitness, personal finance, or clean beauty, for example, can deliver that credibility signal far more efficiently than a broader awareness buy. Even at the micro tier, attaching a performance-accountability clause keeps outcome risk from transferring entirely to the brand, a principle Content Rewards builds into its deal structure by default.

Quick-Reference Decision Framework - Nano vs Micro Influencer

Primary Goal

Choose Nano (1K–10K)

• Conversion, UGC, and trust

Choose Micro (10K–100K)

• Brand awareness and category authority

Budget per Creator

Choose Nano (1K–10K)

• $50–$250

Choose Micro (10K–100K)

• $500–$5,000

Niche Tightness

Choose Nano (1K–10K)

• Very tight (single topic)

Choose Micro (10K–100K)

• Moderate (well-defined niche)

Content Volume Needed

Choose Nano (1K–10K)

• High (large pipeline of creators)

Choose Micro (10K–100K)

• Low to moderate (fewer posts required)

Audience Relationship

Choose Nano (1K–10K)

• Peer-level and highly personal

Choose Micro (10K–100K)

• Expert- or publisher-level credibility

Preferred Deal Structure

Choose Nano (1K–10K)

• Pay-per-view or affiliate

Choose Micro (10K–100K)

• Pay-per-view or hybrid compensation

Team Coordination Overhead

Choose Nano (1K–10K)

• Higher (managing more creators)

Choose Micro (10K–100K)

• Lower (managing fewer creators)

Regardless of tier selected: always attach a performance-accountability clause, flat-fee-only deals transfer 100% of outcome risk to the brand at both tiers. For a current benchmark on what nano-influencer rates look like in e-commerce before you negotiate any deal, see LaunchPoint's ecommerce nano-influencer rate guide.

Related Reading

• How Do Influencers Make Money
• Best Ugc Platforms For Creators
• How Much Do Content Creators Charge
• Ugc Creator Rates
• Brands That Pay Micro Influencers
• Brands Looking For Ugc Creators
• Best Apps For Content Creators
• Billo Vs Insense
• Influencer Programs For Micro Influencers

Why the Best-Performing Brands Skip the Tier Debate and Pay for Views Instead

What those brands have figured out starts with deal structure, not tier selection. Pay a creator a flat fee and you have already lost the accountability argument, regardless of which tier badge they wear. The nano-vs-micro question matters far less than most DTC brands think, and the brands generating the lowest CPMs in the market right now have quietly figured that out.

The Flat-Fee Deal Is the Real Budget Leak

The familiar approach is straightforward: pick a tier, find a creator whose follower count feels right, agree on a fee, and wait for the post. According to industry benchmarks, nano creators typically charge $10 to $100 per post on Instagram, with e-commerce-focused deals reaching up to $250, while micro creators command meaningfully higher rates that scale with niche authority and platform. Both structures share the same structural flaw.

That disconnect is where budget quietly disappears, and it has nothing to do with follower count. The hidden cost is not the fee itself. It is the risk transfer.

Every flat-fee deal moves 100% of the performance risk onto the brand. A creator who has already been paid has no financial reason to promote the post, engage their community, or iterate on the hook. Anyone who has chased a creator for a performance report after payment has cleared knows exactly how that conversation goes.

What Performance-Accountable Creator Economics Look Like at Scale

The proof that a different model works exists at scale. Industry analysis documented what performance-accountable creator economics can produce when pay is tied to verified watch time rather than a posted deliverable: case studies in the pay-per-view model show brands achieving massive verified view counts at CPMs that traditional paid media could not approach, including the GoBillboard example, which reached over a billion views at a $0.04 CPM. These are not Content Rewards case studies, they illustrate the category economics that the pay-per-view model unlocks when the incentive structure is right. Same content category, entirely different cost structure because spend was tied to verified watch time, not a posted deliverable.

How Pay-Per-View Flips the Incentive Structure

When a creator only earns on verified views, their incentives realign completely. Hook quality, posting time, caption strategy, and community engagement all become financial decisions for the creator, not optional extras. The limitation worth naming: pay-per-view models require a platform infrastructure that can track and verify watch time at scale. Brands trying to build that verification layer manually will spend more on operations than they save on CPM. Content Rewards operates as a performance-based UGC marketplace where creators and clippers earn on verified views, so the platform's incentive structure handles what brands cannot easily enforce through a manually written contract.

Next steps

If your influencer budget keeps disappearing into flat-fee deals where the creator posts once and earns regardless of what happens next, the path forward starts with accepting that the tier label was never the variable worth optimizing. What predicts ROI is whether the creator has a financial reason to care about performance after the post goes live. Start with our influencer marketing platform.

Tier labels function as reach proxies, not performance guarantees, which means selecting nano over micro (or micro over nano) without changing the compensation structure changes nothing about who carries the risk. Pay-per-view creator models eliminate the nano-vs-micro debate entirely, because when a brand pays only for verified organic views at a known CPM, a $0.04 CPM from a nano and a $0.04 CPM from a micro are economically identical. Together, those two realities point to one action: stop buying posts and start buying verified views.

Start with the influencer marketing platform at Content Rewards, where creators earn on verified views rather than upfront fees. Set a performance rate, activate creators across tiers, and let the incentive structure enforce the accountability your current contracts cannot.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why do nano influencers get better engagement rates than micro influencers?

At sub-10K followings, many creators genuinely know their audience, they reply to comments by name, share personal updates, and feel more like a trusted contact than a broadcast channel. As follower counts grow into micro territory, that personal-community dynamic dilutes, the creator becomes more of a publisher, and the reflexive audience trust that drives engagement fades with it.

Does a higher engagement rate always mean a nano influencer will deliver more results than a micro influencer?

Not automatically, a high percentage applied to a small base is still a small number. A nano creator at 6% engagement on 7,000 followers generates roughly 420 interactions per post, while a micro creator at 2% on 80,000 followers generates around 1,600, making the micro's absolute interaction count nearly four times larger despite the lower rate.

Is paying a flat fee to a cheaper nano influencer actually lower risk than paying one to a micro influencer?

No, the tier you choose is far less consequential than the contract you sign. A flat fee paid to a nano creator carries the same structural flaw as one paid to a micro influencer: the brand absorbs all the downside if the content underperforms, while the creator has already been made whole regardless of outcome.

When does it make more sense to use micro influencers instead of nano influencers?

Micro influencers make more sense when geographic distribution or category authority is the campaign goal, because they cover more ground and reach broader audiences. The trade-off is that the tight niche relevance and personal community investment you get from a nano creator, like an 8K-follower zero-waste skincare account who knows their audience personally, structurally cannot be replicated at the micro level.

Does a high engagement rate actually signal that an audience is ready to buy?

Not necessarily, published engagement rates are dominated by likes and surface-level comments, which are low-friction actions that cost the viewer nothing and commit them to nothing. A like is not a click, and a comment is not a purchase intent signal; the metrics that matter more are purchase-proximate behaviors like saves, link taps, and story swipes to a product page.