Influencer Marketing Statistics 2026
By Axis Intelligence Research
Co-author: Alex Rivera | Last updated: August 26, 2026 | License: CC BY 4.0
Regulators on two continents have now measured influencer advertising directly rather than surveying it. Axis Intelligence Research combined those measurements and finds that 11.25% of all Instagram content a UK user encounters is advertising that is not adequately disclosed — roughly one item in nine. On TikTok the figure is 6.67%, or one in fifteen.
Quick Answer
Influencer marketing has no official market size, but it has something better for anyone trying to understand it: two regulators who counted. Axis Intelligence Research finds an Undisclosed Ad Density (UAD) of 11.25% on Instagram and 6.67% on TikTok, derived from UK Advertising Standards Authority monitoring of 52,239 content items. Across the EU, 558 of 576 influencers checked by national consumer authorities posted commercial content and only 112 systematically disclosed it. In the United States, undisclosed material connections are a penalty offence carrying up to $53,088 per violation.
Key Findings
- Axis Intelligence Research finds the Undisclosed Ad Density (UAD) of Instagram reaches 11.25% — meaning about one in every nine pieces of content a UK user scrolls past is advertising that carries no adequate ad label.
- Axis Intelligence Research calculates UAD at 14.28% for Instagram in-feed posts specifically, the highest reading of any format measured, and 6.67% for TikTok.
- Of the 576 influencers screened by EU national consumer authorities, 558 posted commercial content and 112 systematically flagged it as advertising — a systematic-disclosure rate of 20.07% among those actually running commercial content, per European Commission counts.
- Axis Intelligence Research finds a trader-registration gap of 53.44% in the EU sweep: 451 influencers were exercising a commercial activity, but only 210 were registered as traders at national level.
- Axis Intelligence Research calculates a Statutory Penalty Exposure (SPE) of $53,088,000 for a US campaign carrying 1,000 undisclosed endorsements, using the civil penalty maximum currently codified at 16 CFR 1.98.
How Much of a Social Feed Is Actually Advertising?
Start with the denominator, because almost nobody publishing influencer statistics does.
The UK’s Advertising Standards Authority ran an AI-assisted monitoring exercise across Instagram and TikTok, capturing 52,239 individual pieces of content from 509 UK-based accounts belonging to 390 influencers, 119 of whom operated on both platforms. Content was captured from 2 July 2024, with the random-sample group tracked through 24 October 2024. The findings are set out in the regulator’s Influencer Ad Disclosure on Social Media report, published 9 May 2025.
One in every four pieces of Instagram content returned by that monitoring was categorised as likely advertising. On TikTok, one in six. Instagram in-feed posts carried the densest commercial load in the random sample at 34%.
| Platform / format | Share of content that is advertising | Share of ads adequately disclosed | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Instagram (all formats) | 25% | 55% | ASA, 2024 monitoring |
| TikTok (all formats) | 16.67% | 60% | ASA, 2024 monitoring |
| Instagram in-feed posts | 34% | 58% | ASA, 2024 monitoring |
| Instagram Reels | not separately published | 56% | ASA, 2024 monitoring |
| Instagram Stories | not separately published | 53% | ASA, 2024 monitoring |
| TikTok posts | not separately published | 60% | ASA, 2024 monitoring |
Two thirds of that table are published widely. The product of the two columns is not published anywhere, and it is the number that actually describes what a person sees.
The Undisclosed Ad Density index (UAD)
UAD — Undisclosed Ad Density measures the share of all content in a feed that is both advertising and not adequately disclosed as advertising. It answers a question the regulator’s own headline figures leave open: not “what share of ads are labelled” but “what share of everything I scroll past is a hidden ad”.
Formula:
UAD = AdShare × (1 − DisclosureRate)
where AdShare = share of all captured content categorised as likely advertising
DisclosureRate = share of likely-advertising content adequately disclosed
Readings as of 24 October 2024, with every input shown:
Instagram, all formats
UAD = 0.2500 × (1 − 0.55) = 0.2500 × 0.45 = 0.1125 → 11.25% → 1 in 8.9
TikTok, all formats
UAD = 0.1667 × (1 − 0.60) = 0.1667 × 0.40 = 0.0667 → 6.67% → 1 in 15.0
Instagram in-feed posts
UAD = 0.3400 × (1 − 0.58) = 0.3400 × 0.42 = 0.1428 → 14.28% → 1 in 7.0
| Platform / format | UAD reading | Frequency | Inputs |
|---|---|---|---|
| Instagram in-feed posts | 14.28% | 1 in 7.0 | 34% × 42% |
| Instagram, all formats | 11.25% | 1 in 8.9 | 25% × 45% |
| TikTok, all formats | 6.67% | 1 in 15.0 | 16.67% × 40% |
What the index is built on. Every input is a fact-table row traced to the ASA’s published monitoring figures, with URL and retrieval date in the downloadable dataset. No component is estimated, interpolated or carried over from another market.
Scope of the readings. UAD is a UK reading for Instagram and TikTok only, computed on 2024 monitoring data. The advertising-share input is drawn from all content the ASA captured and returned; the disclosure-rate input is drawn from its random-sample group, which the regulator itself identifies as the most representative of an ordinary feed. Those two bases are not identical, and combining them makes the reading a good estimate of feed composition rather than an exact count. The index also inherits the ASA’s classification rules — content the regulator could not confidently call an ad was treated as editorial, which pushes UAD down rather than up.
Alex Rivera: Here is why this number matters more than any market-size forecast. A media buyer briefing an agency asks about reach and attribution. A regulator asks about labelling. Neither of them asks the question the audience is living inside: how often am I being sold to without being told? At 11.25%, roughly every ninth thing on an Instagram feed is a commercial message wearing a normal outfit. That is not an ad load problem, it is a recognition problem, and recognition is what the entire trust premium of creator marketing is priced on. Brands pay more per impression here than on paid social precisely because the format reads as a recommendation. The moment audiences internalise the one-in-nine figure, that premium starts renegotiating itself.
What Share of Influencer Ads Are Properly Disclosed?
The ASA’s own headline is that roughly 57% of the influencer ads it analysed complied with the disclosure rules. The remaining 43% splits in a way that matters operationally: 34% of ads carried no disclosure at all, and 9% carried a label whose wording failed to make the commercial nature clear.
Inside the random sample, the counts are exact. Of 769 items judged likely to be advertising, 438 were adequately disclosed and 331 were not — a compliance rate of 56.96%.
Which labels do not count
The 9% band is where most well-intentioned campaigns fail. The ASA has ruled against “gifted”, “prtrip”, “affiliate” and “aff”, “brand ambassador”, “collab”, “partner”, a simple thank-you, and the use of a personalised discount code on its own. Across all three of the regulator’s sample groups, 82% of everything in the undisclosed category involved no attempt at a label whatsoever.
Which sectors disclose worst
More than half of influencer ads relating to the fashion and travel sectors were undisclosed or poorly disclosed. Travel showed the highest rate of non-disclosure of any sector, with the ASA noting a recurring pattern: a brand pays for a trip in exchange for content, several pieces run undisclosed, and a single later post confirms the arrangement.
How disclosure has moved since 2021
The ASA re-monitored the same 122 Instagram accounts it examined in 2021. Their adequate-disclosure rate rose from 35% to 49%, a 14-point improvement. The regulator flags that a methodology change between exercises makes the two figures an imperfect like-for-like.
Something else moved in that cohort. Those 122 accounts published 24,208 Instagram Stories during the 2021 monitoring window and 8,282 during the equivalent 2024 window — a decline of 65.79% in Stories volume from the same accounts.
Complaint volume ran the other way. The ASA received 1,969 complaints about influencer advertising in 2019, representing 6% of all complaints it handled. In 2024 that reached 3,566, or 10% of all complaints — an increase of 81.11%. Instagram accounted for 71% of those complaints and TikTok 19%.
Alex Rivera: The Stories collapse and the disclosure improvement in the same cohort are probably the same event. Stories were the format where labelling was hardest to do well and easiest to skip — ephemeral, stacked, often with the disclosure buried after a swipe. When those accounts moved output toward Reels and in-feed posts, they moved into formats with better-established labelling conventions. Read that as a warning rather than a win: the ad load did not fall, it relocated. The 34% advertising share on Instagram in-feed posts is where it went, and that is exactly the format with the worst UAD reading in the table above.
How Does Disclosure Compliance Compare Across the EU?
The European Commission and national consumer protection authorities from 22 member states, plus Norway and Iceland, screened the posts of 576 influencers as part of the 2023 CPC sweep, with results released 14 February 2024. The Commission published raw counts alongside its percentages, which is what makes the sweep usable as data rather than as a headline.
| Finding | Count | Share of 576 | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Published posts containing commercial content | 558 | 96.88% | European Commission |
| Systematically indicated that content as advertising | 112 | 19.44% | European Commission |
| Exercising a commercial activity | 451 | 78.30% | European Commission |
| Registered as traders at national level | 210 | 36.46% | European Commission |
| Provided no company details in posts | 173 | 30.03% | European Commission |
| Did not use platform disclosure labels | 216 | 37.50% | European Commission |
| Disclosure visible throughout the communication | 231 | 40.10% | European Commission |
| Disclosure immediately visible without extra steps | 199 | 34.55% | European Commission |
| Endorsed their own products or brands | 231 | 40.10% | European Commission |
| Operated their own website | 254 | 44.10% | European Commission |
| Earmarked for further investigation | 358 | 62.15% | European Commission |
Measured against the population that actually had something to disclose, the systematic-disclosure rate is 20.07% — 112 of the 558 influencers running commercial content. The inverse, 79.93%, is the share falling short of the standard somewhere in their commercial output.
The trader-registration gap
The sweep’s least-quoted finding is its most consequential for brands. Axis Intelligence Research calculates the trader-registration gap at 53.44%: of the 451 influencers assessed as exercising a commercial activity, 241 were not registered as traders in their own jurisdiction.
Trader-registration gap = (451 − 210) ÷ 451 × 100 = 53.44%
Among the 231 influencers promoting their own products or brands, 138 — 59.74% — did not consistently disclose that the content was advertising. Self-promotion turned out to be less disclosed than paid promotion for third parties.
Reading the UK and EU numbers together
These two datasets do not merge, and Axis Intelligence Research does not merge them. The ASA measured content: was this individual ad labelled? The Commission measured people: does this influencer disclose systematically across their output? A single influencer who labels four posts and skips the fifth counts as compliant four times in the UK measurement and as non-systematic once in the EU measurement. Averaging a content-level rate with a person-level rate would produce a number that means nothing, so both readings sit side by side in the dataset with their bases stated.
Alex Rivera: What survives the methodological gap is the direction. Two regulators, different countries, different units of analysis, different years, and both land on the same finding: a substantial minority of paid content is invisible as paid content. For anyone running creator campaigns, the practical read is on the trader-registration gap. If more than half the people in a commercial relationship with you are not registered as traders where they operate, your contract is doing more work than your due-diligence process is, and the party with the deepest pockets is the one the regulator can actually find.
Does Labelling an Ad Cost Engagement?
This is the objection every disclosure conversation eventually reaches, and it now has data on it.
Research published on 12 February 2026 by the Influencer Marketing Trade Body with HypeAuditor reports no negative association between explicit #ad disclosure and engagement across UK influencer tiers. Posts carrying #ad generated stronger median interaction metrics — likes and comments — than undisclosed commercial posts. For creators above 500,000 Instagram followers, explicit disclosure appeared to function as a legitimacy signal rather than a distribution penalty.
Published alongside it, ASA research found that 80% of UK social media users regard clear labels as essential for recognising influencer advertising.
Both figures should be read for what they are. The IMTB is the trade body for the sector it is measuring, and HypeAuditor sells influencer analytics — an interested pair, publishing a finding that happens to align with the regulator’s ask. That does not make the result wrong, and the direction is consistent with what the ASA’s own audience research reports. It does mean the finding is worth more once an independent replication exists, and none has been published.
Alex Rivera: The algorithmic-downranking theory was always doing suspicious amounts of work. It explained non-compliance in a way that cost nobody anything to believe and required no evidence. Now there is evidence pointing the other way, and the remaining case for skipping the label is that the audience responds better when it does not know it is being sold to. State that objection out loud in a brand safety meeting and watch how quickly it stops being a strategy.
What Does Non-Disclosure Cost Under US Law?
Undisclosed endorsements are not a grey area in the United States, and they have not been since October 2021.
The FTC sent a Notice of Penalty Offenses Concerning Endorsements to more than 700 companies on 13 October 2021. Failing to disclose a material connection between an endorser and a seller appears on the enumerated list. Recipients now hold what the statute treats as actual knowledge, which lets the Commission seek civil penalties in federal court under Section 5(m)(1)(B) without first litigating whether the practice is deceptive.
The penalty maximum stood at $43,792 per violation when those notices went out. It is now $53,088, as codified at 16 CFR 1.98. That figure did not rise in 2026: the Office of Management and Budget cancelled the government-wide inflation adjustment in Memorandum M-26-11 on 17 April 2026, after a lapse in appropriations left the October 2025 CPI-U unpublished. The 2025 amount therefore carries through 2026.
Statutory Penalty Exposure (SPE)
SPE — Statutory Penalty Exposure expresses the ceiling a US advertiser is exposed to, expressed per unit of undisclosed content rather than per campaign. It exists because the operative word in the statute is violation, and a violation is a piece of content, not a programme.
SPE = N × 53,088
where N = number of pieces of content carrying an undisclosed material connection
| Undisclosed endorsements | Statutory Penalty Exposure | Source |
|---|---|---|
| 10 | $530,880 | Axis Intelligence Research, per 16 CFR 1.98 |
| 100 | $5,308,800 | Axis Intelligence Research, per 16 CFR 1.98 |
| 1,000 | $53,088,000 | Axis Intelligence Research, per 16 CFR 1.98 |
SPE is a statutory ceiling, not a forecast of assessed penalties. Courts set penalties well below maxima, and the Commission must still prove knowledge and conduct. The figure is useful for the same reason a policy limit is useful: it tells a procurement team the shape of the tail they are underwriting when they sign a 200-creator programme with no compliance clause.
The two rules that govern the practice
Two instruments sit behind the exposure. 16 CFR Part 255, the Endorsement Guides in their 2023 form, set the disclosure standard and reach virtual influencers and platform tools as well as people. And 16 CFR 465.8, in force since 21 October 2024, makes it an unfair or deceptive practice to sell, distribute, purchase or procure fake indicators of social media influence — the rule defines those indicators as followers, subscribers, views, plays, likes, saves, shares, reposts and comments.
That second rule is the one most influencer programmes have not priced. Buying follower counts moved from a reputational embarrassment to a penalty-eligible act, and the metric a brand uses to select creators is now the metric a regulator uses to define the offence.
Where Does Consumer Harm Show Up in Government Data?
Influencer marketing sits inside a wider commercial environment on social platforms, and the US government measures the harm side of that environment precisely.
FTC Consumer Sentinel reports put losses to fraud that began on social media at $2.1 billion in 2025, published in an April 2026 Data Spotlight. Social media was the contact method in 28% of loss reports, second only to website or app at 31% and far ahead of phone calls at 11%.
| Year | Reported losses, social media contact method ($M) | Source |
|---|---|---|
| 2020 | 261 | FTC Consumer Sentinel |
| 2021 | 789 | FTC Consumer Sentinel |
| 2022 | 1,200 | FTC Consumer Sentinel |
| 2023 | 1,500 | FTC Consumer Sentinel |
| 2024 | 1,900 | FTC Consumer Sentinel |
| 2025 | 2,100 | FTC Consumer Sentinel |
The 2025 figure is 8.05 times the 2020 figure, and 10.53% above 2024 — the slowest annual growth in the series. The FTC notes that reports were not collected during the 2025 government shutdown, which suppresses the 2025 count by an unquantified amount, so the deceleration should not be read as a turning point yet.
None of this is a measure of influencer fraud specifically. It measures the trust environment in which paid recommendations are received, and it is the series a brand safety team should be watching when it decides how much labelling discipline is worth.
How Big Is Influencer Marketing, Really?
Here is the honest answer, and it is more useful than a forecast: no statistical agency measures influencer marketing spend, and the widely circulated market-size figures come from vendor projections that cannot be traced to a filing, a survey instrument or a sampling frame. Axis Intelligence Research does not republish them.
What can be traced is the money moving through the platforms that host the activity.
| Measure | Value | Period | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| YouTube cumulative payouts to creators, artists and media companies | over $100 billion | four years to Sept 2025 | YouTube, Made on YouTube |
| Implied average annual payout | at least $25 billion | four years to Sept 2025 | Axis Intelligence Research |
| Meta advertising revenue, quarterly | $59.36 billion | Q2 2026 | Axis canonical registry |
| YouTube advertising revenue, quarterly | $11.06 billion | Q2 2026 | Axis canonical registry |
YouTube’s figure comes from the company’s own Made on YouTube announcement of 16 September 2025. It is company-reported, unaudited, and stated as a floor — “over $100 billion” — which is why the $25 billion annual average derived from it is also a floor rather than an estimate. It also covers all payouts including music and media licensing, not brand-sponsored creator content, so it sizes the creator economy’s revenue base rather than influencer marketing itself. The Meta and YouTube quarterly advertising figures are restated from the Axis canonical number registry; the owning page is Digital Marketing Statistics 2026.
The classification gap is finally closing
Part of the reason influencer marketing has no official statistics is that until this year creators had no clean place to sit in the statistical machinery.
That changed in the UK. The Office for National Statistics published the revised UK SIC 2026 framework, last updated 3 August 2026, with explanatory notes for SIC 59.112 “Video production activities” now expressly covering the production of videos and vlogs for content-sharing sites. A classification change is not a statistic, but it is the precondition for one: SIC codes drive company registration, lending decisions and which activities appear in official output series.
Alex Rivera: Every stats page in this category leads with a market-size number, and every one of those numbers traces back to a forecast rather than a count. The useful position is the one a media buyer already occupies: you cannot spend against a global total anyway, you spend against a rate card and measure against incrementality. What the regulatory data gives you that the forecast does not is the risk side of the ledger — how much of the inventory you are buying is non-compliant, and what that costs if the wrong regulator counts it. In three years, when SIC 59.112 starts producing an official UK output series, this section gets replaced by real numbers. Until then, a stated gap beats a confident invention.
Methodology
Collection. Every figure in this article was traced to a primary document fetched and read during production on 26 August 2026. Sources: the ASA’s Influencer Ad Disclosure on Social Media: Instagram and TikTok (2024) report and its accompanying findings summary; the European Commission’s Consumer Protection Cooperation sweeps page covering the 2023 influencer sweep; the FTC’s April 2026 Data Spotlight on social media fraud losses; the FTC’s October 2021 Notice of Penalty Offenses press release; 16 CFR 1.98, 16 CFR Part 255 and 16 CFR 465.8 as published on eCFR; OMB Memorandum M-26-11; the IMTB and HypeAuditor disclosure-engagement release; the ONS UK SIC 2026 page; and YouTube’s Made on YouTube 2025 announcement. No aggregator, market-research vendor or secondary summary supplied any figure. Source URLs and retrieval dates for all 94 observations are in the downloadable dataset.
UAD formula. UAD = AdShare × (1 − DisclosureRate), where AdShare is the share of captured content categorised as likely advertising and DisclosureRate is the share of likely-advertising content adequately disclosed. Both inputs come from ASA 2024 monitoring. Readings: Instagram 11.25%, TikTok 6.67%, Instagram in-feed posts 14.28%, all as of 24 October 2024.
SPE formula. SPE = N × 53,088, where N is the count of content items carrying an undisclosed material connection and $53,088 is the maximum civil penalty per violation under 16 CFR 1.98, current as of the eCFR edition dated 21 August 2026.
Derived values. Twenty-one figures in this article are Axis Intelligence Research calculations rather than direct disclosures. Each is flagged axis_calculated = yes in the dataset with its method note, including all UAD and SPE readings, the trader-registration gap of 53.44%, the systematic-disclosure rate of 20.07% against the commercial-content population, the complaint growth of 81.11%, the Stories volume change of −65.79%, and the fraud-loss multiple of 8.05.
Rounding and precision. Percentages are carried to two decimal places where computed from published counts, and reproduced at the publisher’s own precision where quoted directly. The FTC published its 2022 and 2023 social media loss figures rounded to the nearest $0.1 billion; those rows are flagged accordingly and no cumulative total is derived from the series.
Comparability. UK and EU disclosure figures are not merged. The ASA measures content-level labelling; the European Commission measures person-level systematic disclosure. Both are published separately with their unit of analysis stated.
Verification. All arithmetic was recomputed in two independent passes, in floating point and in exact rational arithmetic, separately from drafting. Every figure appearing in the prose was matched against a dataset row before publication, and every external link was confirmed live and confirmed to contain the claim attributed to it.
About This Dataset
influencer-marketing-statistics-2026.csv contains 94 observations covering advertising share of social content, ad disclosure compliance by platform and format, EU consumer-authority sweep counts, UAD and SPE components, US civil penalty amounts and rule provisions, FTC social media fraud losses by year, disclosure-engagement research findings, platform creator payouts and industrial classification changes. Each row carries metric, segment, geography, value, unit, as_of_date, source_org, source_document, source_url, retrieved_date, is_primary, axis_calculated, method_note and license.
Coverage: 2019 through 2026, with the core disclosure measurements dated 2024 and the enforcement and classification data dated 2026.
Geography: United Kingdom, European Union (22 member states plus Norway and Iceland), United States, and global for platform payout figures.
License: CC BY 4.0. Free to use, share and adapt with attribution.
Citation line: Axis Intelligence Research, Influencer Marketing Statistics 2026, 2026.
Cite This Research
APA Axis Intelligence Research, & Rivera, A. (2026, August 26). Influencer marketing statistics 2026: The hidden-ad rate, disclosure compliance and enforcement data. Axis Intelligence. https://axis-intelligence.com/influencer-marketing-statistics/
MLA Axis Intelligence Research, and Alex Rivera. “Influencer Marketing Statistics 2026: The Hidden-Ad Rate, Disclosure Compliance and Enforcement Data.” Axis Intelligence, 26 Aug. 2026, axis-intelligence.com/influencer-marketing-statistics/.
Chicago Axis Intelligence Research and Alex Rivera. “Influencer Marketing Statistics 2026: The Hidden-Ad Rate, Disclosure Compliance and Enforcement Data.” Axis Intelligence, August 26, 2026. https://axis-intelligence.com/influencer-marketing-statistics/.
Copy any format above and paste directly.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does a UAD reading of 11.25% actually mean for someone scrolling Instagram?
It means that of every 100 pieces of content passing through a UK user’s Instagram feed, roughly 11 are commercial messages carrying no adequate ad label — about one item in nine. The reading is the product of two ASA measurements: a quarter of Instagram content is advertising, and 45% of that advertising is undisclosed or inadequately disclosed. It is not a measure of how many ads exist, which is higher, nor of how many creators break the rules, which is a different unit entirely.
If a creator uses “gifted” or “prtrip”, is the post disclosed?
No. The ASA has ruled specifically against “gifted”, “prtrip”, “aff” and “affiliate”, “brand ambassador”, “collab”, “partner”, generic thank-you wording, and a personalised discount code standing alone. The regulator and the CMA advise “Ad” or “#ad”, placed first if a creator wants to add nuance — “Ad – Gifted” complies where “#gifted” does not. That 9% band in the ASA data is entirely made up of campaigns that thought they had labelled correctly.
Why do the UK and EU disclosure figures look so different?
Because they count different things. The ASA asks whether an individual piece of advertising carried a clear label and reports 57% adequate. The European Commission asks whether an influencer disclosed systematically across their whole commercial output and reports 20.07% among those posting commercial content. An influencer who labels most posts and misses some is compliant most of the time under the first measure and non-systematic under the second. Neither figure is wrong and neither can be averaged into the other.
Does an undisclosed influencer post really expose a brand to $53,088?
That is the statutory ceiling per violation under 16 CFR 1.98, not an expected outcome. It becomes reachable where a company received the FTC’s 2021 Notice of Penalty Offenses Concerning Endorsements and subsequently ran undisclosed material connections, because the notice supplies the actual knowledge the statute requires. What makes the number operationally serious is the unit: a violation is a piece of content. A 200-post programme with systemic labelling failures is a four-figure multiple of that ceiling, not a single instance of it.
Does buying followers now break a federal rule rather than just a platform policy?
Yes, in the United States. Since 21 October 2024, 16 CFR 465.8 has made it an unfair or deceptive act to sell, distribute, purchase or procure fake indicators of social media influence for commercial purposes. The rule defines indicators broadly — followers, subscribers, views, plays, likes, saves, shares, reposts and comments — which puts the exact metrics used in creator selection inside the definition of the offence.
Does labelling a post as an ad reduce its reach or engagement?
The available evidence says no. IMTB and HypeAuditor research published in February 2026 found no negative association between explicit #ad disclosure and engagement across UK influencer tiers, with disclosed posts showing stronger median likes and comments, and disclosure appearing to act as a legitimacy signal for creators above 500,000 followers. The research comes from the sector’s trade body and an analytics vendor, and no independent replication has been published, so treat the direction as well supported and the magnitude as provisional.
Which content categories have the worst disclosure records?
Fashion and travel, with more than half of ads in each undisclosed or inadequately disclosed in the ASA’s monitoring, and travel worst overall. Technology also showed a large share of undisclosed content in the random sample. The travel pattern is structural rather than accidental: a paid trip generates a run of content over several days, disclosure is often attached only to the final post, and each earlier post is a separate breach.
Why does this article give no global influencer marketing market size?
Because no statistical agency produces one and every circulating figure is a vendor projection that cannot be traced to a filing, a sampling frame or a published instrument. Axis Intelligence Research publishes what is measured — platform payouts, disclosure compliance, enforcement thresholds, consumer-harm series — and states the gap rather than filling it. The UK’s SIC 2026 revision, which brings internet video and vlog production explicitly into SIC 59.112, is the first structural step toward an official series existing at all.
How often will these figures change?
The disclosure readings update when the ASA publishes its next monitoring exercise or the European Commission runs a follow-up sweep; the enforcement figures update with each January civil penalty adjustment; the fraud series updates with the FTC’s annual Consumer Sentinel release. The UAD readings will be recomputed the day new advertising-share or disclosure-rate inputs are published, and prior readings will remain visible rather than being overwritten.
Related Axis Intelligence research: Digital Marketing Statistics 2026 · Facebook Ads Statistics 2026 · Google Ads Statistics 2026 · Tiktok Statistics 2026 · Zero-Click Search Statistics 2026