Alix Earle’s latest brand partnership comes with an ownership stake. This month, the influencer joined supplements startup Cymbiotika as an investor, alongside Hailey Bieber and Kendall Jenner. The formula is simple: Earle invests in the brand, promotes it to her 14.5 million cumulative followers across Instagram, TikTok and YouTube, boosts its desirability and (ideally) revenues, while the brand catches the eyes of potential acquirers or investors.
Since 2024, Earle, 25, has assembled a portfolio spanning Gorgie, a wellness-focused energy drink; SipMargs, ready-to-drink sparkling margaritas; Poppi prebiotic sodas; and wellness supplements Cymbiotika. One of those investments has already reached an exit: PepsiCo acquired Poppi for $1.95 billion in May 2025. But, as far as influencers go, Earle is not alone. Wellness influencer Hannah Bronfman (1.5 million Instagram followers) has backed over 70 startups, including fertility company Kindbody, skincare label Topicals, and haircare brand Ceremonia in recent years.
Luxury fashion creator Jordan Grant (133,000 Instagram followers) has invested in AI virtual try-on app Doji, health brand Julie Inc., and creator platform Komi, while fashion-lifestyle influencer Sofia Richie Grainge (14.4 million Instagram and TikTok followers) just invested in self-tanning brand Dolce Glow, a year after becoming an investor and founding curator at affiliate platform ShopMy.
Together, they reflect a shift from monetizing attention
Together, they reflect a shift from monetizing attention through brand deals to holding stakes in the businesses their influence helps build. However, talent investing is not new. By 2018, Leandra Medine Cohen (formerly @manrepeller) and her husband Abie Cohen had invested in 15 companies, including Kosas, Drunk Elephant, and Outdoor Voices, while Arielle Charnas had also backed Kosas and Bandier.
Meanwhile, celebrities were developing a parallel path, particularly in technology: Ashton Kutcher co-founded A-Grade Investments with Guy Oseary and Ron Burkle in 2010, backing early-stage companies including Uber, Airbnb, and Spotify. Serena Williams later turned her personal investing into the early-stage firm Serena Ventures, while more recently, Charli XCX extended that lineage by becoming both a shareholder and global ambassador at London technology startup Nothing.
The rise of the influencer-investor is a natural consequence of influencers’ proven ability to create business value at scale. According to Goldman Sachs, the creator economy could approach half a trillion dollars by 2027; at the same time, Vogue Business reports that brands are moving influencers upstream from campaign execution into product development, marketing strategy and consulting roles.
Equity is a logical extension of that shift,
Equity is a logical extension of that shift, giving influencers a claim of the long-term value they help create and brands a partner capable of meaningfully influencing topline growth. But as more influencers pursue investment opportunities, harder questions emerge about how their value should be measured, who bears the risk, and how an influencer’s financial interest changes the relationship with their audience.
Side bets no more
Influencer investing is cohering into an industry — and, for some, an identity. Historically, talent agencies earned a percentage of upfront cash deals and lacked a clear way to benefit from complex, illiquid equity, says Kira Mackenzie Jackson, CMO of Mph Beauty and an advisor at RX3 Growth Partners. But in recent years, social media has given influencers greater exposure to the potential of investing, while agencies develop ways to participate in the upside themselves.
“The biggest talent agencies like UTA, WME, and CAA now run venture or investment arms that let them capture equity upside directly,” Mackenzie Jackson says. “[It’s] a signal that the model is evolving.”
New players are creating deal flow, specifically for influencers, in response. Media company and investing syndicate Bulletpitch hosts influencer pitch events and organizes special purpose vehicles (SPVs) for deals.
Participating brands range from electric flosser company Flaus
Participating brands range from electric flosser company Flaus and pet longevity startup Omi Health to pasta sauce brand Sauz. Influencers involved include fashion and lifestyle creators Jaz Smith and Halley Kate Williams (771,000 and two million cumulative Instagram and TikTok followers, respectively), as well as comedy and beauty creator Cyrus Veyssi (3.1 million cumulative followers).
However, infrastructure alone does not create a durable asset class. Anna Whiteman, a partner at Coefficient Capital, says syndicates (the individuals who back the same startup) need thematic consistency, as well as “a track record of successful exits to prove that creator capital really can produce outsized outcomes”. Lately, startups are building talent into their capital strategies earlier than ever.
“Now, brands are being built with the Poppi/Cymbiotika playbook at their foundation; where equity is being carved out proactively and long-term partnerships are the focus on day one versus one-off contracts,” Jackson says. So, while the infrastructure explains how more deals are being made, the economics of influencing suggest why investing is becoming more appealing among the creator-economy.
We’re tired. Equity is becoming more attractive, because,
“We’re tired. Equity is becoming more attractive, because, frankly, the traditional brand deal model may be quite lucrative, but it’s also erratic, unstable and creatively limiting,” says Alexis Barber, an influencer and founder of the popular media brand, Too Smart For This. Pursuing investment opportunities creates inroads for influencers to more meaningfully participate in the business value they help create.
Equity can also create a halo effect for the influencer. “Sometimes, investing in a very cool company provides clout and credibility to the creator, even if the equity stake itself is relatively small,” Barber says. However, that halo may be more cultural than commercial: Max Stein, founder of Brigade Talent, says becoming an investor does not materially differentiate an influencer in the talent market.
Therefore, any hope for meaningful returns has to rest on the investment itself. When observing the optics at large, investing promises a better holistic exchange: a longer-term claim on value for the influencer, and a more deeply involved partner for the startup. Yet, shares alone do not guarantee either outcome. Conversations with investors, brand operators, and influencers for this story suggest a way to assess when the arrangement is truly beneficial to everyone involved.
We’ve boiled it down to a framework
We’ve boiled it down to a framework of three business questions: can the influencer change the startup’s outcome? Can the startup succeed without the influencer? And can the influencer afford for the startup to fail? Test 1: Can the influencer accelerate business outcomes? “Talent is worth putting on the cap table when they move the needle for a brand in a meaningful way. Follower count is absolutely the wrong proxy,” Jackson says.
The relevant questions for brands are: what kind of influence does the creator have, and does it match what the business needs? Barber identifies five forms of value. “I believe that creators offer brands clout, credibility, conversion, impressions, and creative,” she says. “Some do one, some do all five.” The first step is identifying which of those forms of value a creator actually provides.
When a creator’s impact can be measured, the risk is that a traditional brand deal may only capture a fraction of their business impact. “I think it may actually be unfair for your participation to end with a $20,000 campaign fee, while everyone else retains the long-term value you’ve created,” Barber flags. That explains why an influencer may prefer equity to a traditional brand deal.
The brand, however, must determine whether the influencer’s
The brand, however, must determine whether the influencer’s business value corresponds to a specific required outcome. “You have to understand where you actually want the influencer to wield influence,” Whiteman says, whether in product development, opening new distribution channels, reaching new audiences, or deepening relationships with existing ones. The startup-influencer relationship must also make sense over time.
Whiteman argues that “true longitudinal alignment” between an influencer’s historic positioning and the brand’s North Star is what enables talent to support the company through “high highs and low lows”. Once that fit is established, equity can also meaningfully change the structure of the relationship between influencers and brands. Jackson says paid partnerships are constrained by fixed deliverables, whereas a talent investor whose upside is tied to business KPIs can create greater alignment and flexibility as the company’s needs evolve.
Test 2: Can the startup succeed without the influencer, anyway? However aligned an influencer may be to the business model, Whiteman affirms that influence alone cannot compensate for weak business fundamentals. “Effectively, one has to believe the business can be successful on a fully standalone basis, and an influencer’s involvement is only an added benefit,” she explains.
From a consumer investor’s perspective, influencer involvement should
From a consumer investor’s perspective, influencer involvement should only accelerate an alreadyodel. That principle may also explain why many of the most visible influencer investments cluster in beverages and supplements. All four of Earle’s investments fall within these categories: Gorgie, SipMargs, and Poppi are drinks, while Cymbiotika sells supplements
Elsewhere, lifestyle influencer Kat Stickler became an investor and co-owner of Stur Drinks in 2023; two years later, Keurig Dr Pepper acquired its parent, Dyla Brands, for $98 million. Bronfman’s portfolio includes beverage and wellness brands Táche, Ghia, and Golde. Whiteman points to the commercial characteristics of these categories: “Typically, in categories like supplements, where consumer information can be opaque and education can help drive trial, having an approachable ‘friendly’ voice lending credibility to a brand can help establish category leadership.” When consumers struggle to distinguish one unfamiliar product from another, a trusted influencer can clarify the difference or even prompt their followers to give it a try.
Whiteman explains that in a fragmented, repeat-purchase category, “this [influencer-boosted] early edge can become a real flywheel for growth at a critically important moment for a brand.”
Test 3: Can the influencer meaningfully hedge the risk of potential loss? The risks associated with an ownership stake vary by underlying condition: some influencers invest their own capital, others receive equity in exchange for their work, and some negotiate a mix of cash and equity.
When an influencer accepts less guaranteed cash than
When an influencer accepts less guaranteed cash than they would ordinarily charge in exchange for equity, the difference is effectively an investment of foregone income. “If the business fails, talent’s equity can go to zero even if they delivered on their end of the bargain,” Jackson says. “Private equity is not going to pay your rent next month. It can take five to 10 years to become liquid, if it ever becomes liquid at all.
So, if your cash flow is tight, take the cash. The possibility that a company ‘goes to the moon’ is not a financial plan,” Barber says. Assessing whether that risk is worth taking presents another challenge. “Talent also typically have less exposure to the actual financials, so oftentimes they’re trusting valuations that can’t be verified until an institutional round,” Jackson explains.
Thus, a warning: liking a startup’s product is not the same as believing it can return capital. Jackson notes that an influencer’s due diligence should cover the startup’s stage, its growth and liquidity potential, and the overall structure of the deal — including where they may sit on the cap table. Common shareholders, for example, are paid only after preferred investors’ liquidation preferences have been satisfied.
Her recommendation is straightforward: Bring in an attorney
Her recommendation is straightforward: “Bring in an attorney with experience executing similar deals, and a financial advisor. The expenditure is well worth the value.”
Those economics also limit who can truly participate. Barber points to Goldman Sachs’s findings, which suggest that only around 4% of global creators earn more than $100,000 annually. Those best positioned to benefit can influence a relevant market, protect their cash flow, and wait years for an exit.
Access to a cap table is not the same as access to wealth. The ethical question
Equity creates a different ethical question from conventional sponsorships. A brand deal is typically tied to a time-bound campaign, whereas these investments can last for years and may increase in value as the startup grows. Even when a recommendation appears organic, an influencer who owns part of a company has a direct financial stake in its success.
That doesn’t make the recommendation insincere, but it does mean that financial interest cannot be treated as incidental. Barber isn’t convinced audiences will view that financial interest negatively. “Consumers are much more aware of the game than we sometimes give them credit for, and they don’t really care,” she says. “They may read ‘investor’ as a slightly fancier version of ‘brand ambassador’.” Jackson adds that, in some cases, an ownership stake can even strengthen a recommendation.
Investing your own dollars or sweat equity into
“Investing your own dollars or sweat equity into a business will always be more compelling to a consumer than being cut a check to talk about a brand.”
The potential risk and complication is that “investor” may function as a credibility signal before it functions as a disclosure. The title can make an influencer’s endorsement more persuasive without making any of the underlying economics any clearer for audiences.
Therefore, meaningful audience transparency likely requires more than simply identifying the influencer as an investor. Jackson explains that the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) treats an equity stake as continuing material connection, meaning the disclosure obligation extends across all relevant mentions, rather than the first post announcing investment. That rule addresses how often the relationship must be disclosed (always), but not whether audiences understand what ownership actually means.
“Disclosure is the baseline, but will never be the entire trust strategy,” Barber says. “If you are going to benefit financially when your audience buys something, you should be able to clearly explain why you invested, what you believe in, and what your relationship with the company actually is.”
Source: www.vogue.com
