By Jasmine Enberg, CEO and Co-Founder, Scalable  

A creator’s follower count has never mattered less. But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t matter at all.

Everyone now knows that follower counts don’t accurately reflect a creator’s popularity—or reach. As social media feeds have become increasingly driven by algorithms, more followers doesn’t guarantee more views. 

In fact, many prominent creators including YouTuber Casey Neistat and “Queer Eye” star Tan France have recently complained that they are struggling to reach their millions of followers on social media.

“I’ve got as many followers as Instagram decides I’ve got that day,” France said in a recent interview with Scalable.

As France’s comment suggests, creators are increasingly at the mercy of social media platforms and their changing priorities. This isn’t an entirely new problem. But creators have lost more control as algorithms have gotten better at predicting what people want to see and tailoring content to each user. Even Head of Instagram Adam Mosseri addressed this in a recent post, saying “the main feed on every major app is now mostly accounts you never decided to follow.”

That’s a big part of what’s happening now. Most platforms have now moved away from follower counts toward signals like saves, shares and time spent to decide whether or not a piece of content should be recommended or distributed more broadly. As a result, smaller creators may get outsized views on their content, while larger creators may no longer command the same reach they once did. 

At the same time, the way people use social media has changed. Fewer people are posting or engaging with content publicly on their feeds. Instead, more content is shared in private spaces like direct messages or group chats: Over one-third (34%) of teen Instagram users said they messaged someone directly on the platform at least once per day, compared with just 16% who said they posted something, per an October 2025 survey by Pew Research Center.

For brands, that means metrics like saves and shares are also better predictors of business outcomes for creator partnerships than things like follower counts—or even the number of likes.

Take shares, for example. If someone makes the effort to send a post to a friend, it’s likely a sign they found it interesting, funny or valuable. Liking a post is a far more passive behavior: It only takes a second while scrolling and there’s a lower chance that the person will remember it or return to it later. 

Most marketers today understand this. They’ve moved away from follower counts as the singular or primary metric for selecting, compensating and measuring creators. Most now use a combination of different qualities and metrics, including engagement, niche and content alignment. But few have been able to let go of it entirely—and they probably shouldn’t.

Big followings still carry weight. There’s a level of cultural cachet that comes with working with a creator with a large number of followers. That’s a major reason why the MrBeasts and Alix Earles of the world can charge millions of dollars for campaigns and have no shortage of brands eager to work with them. 

Plus, even if a smaller number of their own followers are seeing their content, their posts are still being remixed, reposted or sent to others, widening their reach.

Growth in follower counts are also an effective way to track creators on the rise. For example, Tim Payne, a defender on the New Zealand soccer team, recently saw his Instagram following skyrocket from about 4,000 followers to more than 4 million in a matter of days. The jump happened after Argentine influencer Valen Scarsini, better known as Elscarso, decided he was the “least known” player at the World Cup and encouraged people to follow him and like his posts. 

And marketers are busier than ever. Glancing at a follower count remains the quickest way to assess the legitimacy of a creator, even if it’s far from perfect.