Pakistan should give creator businesses room to grow

I spent years buying media for large consumer brands. When I ran media and digital at Nestle Pakistan, influencer activity competed for money with outdoor advertising and other paid channels. My view is that brands should help creators become businesses they can keep buying from. A creator who can afford an editor, develop a product and serve returning customers gives a brand more to work with than someone selling the next sponsored post.

Pakistan’s creator economy needs more of those businesses. Repeated commissions and clear rights give creators income they can plan around, while brands get work they can use and a supplier who gets better with each campaign. That is where I would put the money. Tax administration needs to make that income possible to account for, so a creator can reinvest without having to guess what will be left.

Brands should buy a result they can use

A creator can have the audience and the trust. The brief and contract decide what a brand can use, what the creator gets paid for, and whether either side learns anything from the campaign. If a brand wants a reliable production partner, its buying terms have to give that partner a reason to stay in business.

In “Brands don’t know what to pay creators”, I argued that buyers need to define usage, audience, deliverables and value before calling a creator expensive. A small cosmetics company can try several local creators, track the orders each drives and keep working with the ones whose audience buys. The same deal gives the creator a reason to make useful work and evidence for the next brand.

A code cannot prove every kind of value. A campaign may introduce a brand or make people trust it before they buy. The contract should say whether the brand is paying for a post, usage rights, a sale, or a mix. A base payment covers the creator’s work. A bonus can reward sales that both sides have agreed how to count. The brand gets a way to test the spend. The creator keeps a fair payment when an offer, delivery problem or checkout failure sits outside their control.

A creator business needs income between campaigns

One-off deals make a creator start selling again whenever the last post is done. A business has other ways to earn: platform payouts, affiliate sales, a paid community, events, or a product of its own. I made that case in Creator Economy 2030. In my article on nano creators and performance pay, I looked at how a brand can pay creators from tracked sales.

Each income stream creates work. Someone edits the video, answers customers, manages stock, books a shoot or follows up with a brand. A Pakistani creator who sells a product abroad can bring money into the country. A foreign platform payout can do the same. A local brand paying a local creator puts marketing money to work here, even when it is not export income. Audience totals and Pakistan’s broad IT export total cannot tell us how many creator companies, jobs or sales already exist. The accounts and payment records can.

Nadeem Hussain also makes the case for creator businesses with paid teams in Dawn.

That distinction should guide the national argument. Pakistan does not need to claim a creator economy from audience totals. It can make it easier for creators to build businesses, for local brands to find buyers, and for production workers to earn from recurring work. Brands will spend more when a creator can show that customers returned. Creators will invest in staff and products when they can count on income beyond the next sponsored post.

FBR’s view benchmark is part of an income calculation

The tax rules matter because a creator needs to know what records to keep before money starts moving. FBR’s September resident procedure calculates minimum income by taking remuneration, less expenses capped at 30% of total revenue. Remuneration is the higher of the view formula or actual payment, including cash and goods. The procedure sets PKR 195 as revenue per 1,000 YouTube video views. Tax follows the income calculation and the applicable tax treatment. PKR 195 is a revenue input, not a tax charge per 1,000 views. A resident who says actual remuneration was lower than the view formula must satisfy the Commissioner with evidence. (FBR SRO 1641(I)/2026)

FBR has a separate procedure for non-residents earning Pakistan-source income through interaction with users in Pakistan. It applies above 50,000 users in a tax year or 12,250 in a quarter. The threshold measures users and determines coverage under this special procedure. Other tax obligations remain subject to the applicable law. (FBR SRO 1642(I)/2026)

There is another rule at the payment stage. The Finance Act 2026 requires banks and non-bank financial institutions to withhold 5% when they credit social-platform revenue. The Act treats that as minimum tax for a resident and final tax for a non-resident without a permanent establishment in Pakistan. FBR should explain how that withholding is recorded against the separate quarterly advance-tax procedure and annual declaration. It should also explain how a creator documents platform statements, brand invoices, gifted goods and actual production costs, especially when the expense allowance is capped and a lower view-based amount requires evidence. (Finance Act 2026, resident SRO)

A creator who cannot match views to receipts, gifts and costs will struggle to budget for tax, hire help or borrow for the next project. Brands also need clean records for payments and the rights they receive. Simple guidance and a usable record trail would help FBR collect tax on real creator businesses while giving those businesses room to grow.

I would start with the next brand contract. Pay the creator for work and rights the brand will actually use, leave room for the creator to serve other customers, and renew when the work earns its place in the budget. That gives a creator a reason to hire and invest. Campaign spending can then support a business that is still operating when the campaign ends.