SPIM breakfast in Warsaw with EIMA: standards, measurement and disclosure

In March 2026 our co-owner Bartosz Wdowiak represented NanoBuzz at an industry breakfast in Warsaw, organised by SPIM, the Polish influencer marketing association, together with EIMA, the European Influencer Marketing Alliance. The agenda covered the part of this industry nobody posts about: standards, measurement and disclosure. All three decide whether creator marketing is bought as a serious media channel or tolerated as an experiment with a budget attached.

Standards: the same quality at ten creators and at five hundred

Standards are where the market is furthest from settled. A brief that works for ten creators often collapses at five hundred, because everything informal in it, the tone, the do-not-say list, the approval path, has to become explicit. Our position is that scale is an operational problem rather than a creative one: written briefs, client approval of every profile or delegated approval to us, quality control of every publication before it goes live, and verification afterwards with link, date and metrics. A shared baseline of that kind would make creator campaigns easier to buy for everybody in the room.

Measurement: a report has to be checkable

The second topic was measurement, and the familiar complaint is decks full of impressions nobody outside the marketing team can verify. We report views, reach and engagement per publication, then add what those numbers cannot show, which is what audiences actually wrote. In a recent nationwide campaign we collected and classified 1,652 comments as part of the client report, alongside 170+ tracked publications. A common measurement standard would not need to be complicated. It would need to be checkable line by line, in a format a client's board or finance team can read without a translator.

Disclosure: labelled content is not weaker content

Disclosure is the topic where fear still outruns evidence. Polish research covered on this blog earlier in the year found broad public acceptance of creators earning money from brand collaborations, which is the clearest available argument for labelling clearly and moving on. We treat local disclosure compliance as part of the project manager's job rather than as a creator's private risk: the rules go into the brief, labels are checked before publication, and nobody has to guess what a given market requires. Audiences do not punish a declared partnership. They punish one that reads as pretending.

Why having a European association in the room matters

EIMA's presence mattered because most of our clients do not run one country. A brand briefing us for Poland this quarter is briefing us for Czechia, Romania or Germany next quarter, and disclosure rules, contract norms and platform practices differ market by market. Standards agreed nationally that ignore the neighbours simply move the problem across a border. We work in 25+ European countries with teams in Warsaw, Poznań, Prague and Bucharest, so a shared European baseline is not an abstraction for us. It is the difference between one process and twenty-five.

What we took away

Three things. The market wants a common vocabulary for measurement more than it wants new metrics. Disclosure is close to solved in practice and now mostly needs consistency between markets. And standards for large-scale creator programmes, the kind with hundreds of participants and full logistics behind them, are still being written, which means the agencies running those programmes daily should be contributing the drafts rather than reacting to them. We came away planning to keep showing up, with campaign data rather than opinions.