SRITNE (Srini Raju Centre for IT and the Networked Economy, ISB) and Hashfame, Brand-Creator Network Platform. All rights reserved, published 2026.
Published by
SRITNE, Indian School of Business, Hyderabad & Hashfame, Brand-Creator Network Platform
Citation: SRITNE & Hashfame, Brand-Creator Network Platform (2026). India's Creator Economy: A Structural Analysis of Supply, Engagement, Monetisation, and Economic Opportunity. SRITNE x Hashfame Research Series.
Reproduction: This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educational or non-profit purposes without special permission from the copyright holder, provided acknowledgment of the source is made. SRITNE and Hashfame would appreciate receiving a copy of any publication that uses this publication as a source.
Primary Data Source: Qoruz Creator Intelligence Platform (campaign and creator data, 2020–2025). Secondary Data: CMIE Consumer Pyramids Household Survey (May–June 2025, ~174,000 accepted household records); Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS 2023–24 Q4); BSNL 4G District Coverage Data; Census of India.
This report is the product of a collaborative effort involving researchers, industry partners, and colleagues across the Indian School of Business.
I am grateful to the ISB Institute of Data Science (IIDS) and the Srini Raju Centre for IT and the Networked Economy, ISB (SRITNE) for their institutional support and for providing the environment that made this research possible. As the creator economy continues to evolve, interdisciplinary collaboration of this nature becomes increasingly important in generating evidence that is both academically rigorous and practically relevant.
This report would not have been possible without the exceptional efforts of Anurag Rallabandi. From coordinating the research process and managing multiple stakeholders to analyzing the data and driving the report to completion, Anurag played a central role throughout the project. His commitment, attention to detail, and perseverance were instrumental in bringing this report together.
I would also like to thank Anirudh, Mithun and the team at Hashfame for their support throughout the project. Their insights, data support, and engagement enriched the report and helped strengthen many of its analyses.
Finally, I would like to acknowledge the ISB Marketing and Communications (MarComm) team for their guidance and support in shaping and disseminating this flagship publication.
To everyone who contributed their time, expertise, and encouragement, thank you. It is our hope that this report provides a useful foundation for researchers, creators, industry leaders, and policymakers seeking to better understand one of the most dynamic sectors of India's digital economy.
India has become one of the world's most active producers of digital content. The creator economy, defined broadly as the ecosystem through which individuals create content, build audiences and participate in brand partnerships, has moved beyond its early metropolitan base. It now extends across geographies, languages and income groups. This report examines that transition using creator, campaign, household expenditure, infrastructure and labour market data for the period 2020 to 2025.
The conventional account of India's creator economy has often been shaped by metropolitan markets. Mumbai, Delhi-NCR, Bengaluru and other large cities offered better infrastructure, stronger brand presence and more visible creator networks. The evidence in this report suggests that this account is now incomplete. Creators from smaller cities and towns crossed the majority threshold in 2021 and accounted for 66% of India's creator base by 2025. Their engagement rates also remain higher than those of metropolitan creators across the distribution.
This should not be interpreted simply as a platform story. It is also a market development story. The data indicate that creator participation has broadened geographically, brands have increased campaign activity, language markets have become more important, and households are allocating resources toward digital participation. At the same time, monetisation remains uneven. Most creators are still building audiences rather than earning regularly. For creators who cross modest campaign thresholds, however, earnings can become meaningful when evaluated against local labour market alternatives.
We present this study as a data resource and as a basis for more careful discussion. The creator economy should not be viewed only as a cultural phenomenon or a marketing channel. Collectively, the evidence suggests that it is increasingly becoming a geographically distributed, economically meaningful and more institutionalised ecosystem. Understanding its structure, constraints and next stage of development is relevant for brands, platforms, policymakers and researchers alike.
Every stage of economic development has been defined by a new form of capital. Land powered agricultural economies. Industrialisation shifted value to physical assets. Liberalisation elevated knowledge and human capital. Today, India is witnessing the emergence of another form of capital—one that is digital, distributed, and built on trust.
This report argues that audience ownership is becoming a new form of economic capital in India.
As one of the world's largest consumption-led economies, India's growth depends not only on what it produces, but increasingly on how products, services, and ideas are discovered, trusted, and adopted. In the digital economy, creators have become an important layer of this demand infrastructure, connecting businesses with consumers across geographies, languages, and communities.
This transformation extends well beyond media and advertising. It intersects with some of India's most important national priorities: enabling entrepreneurship, strengthening MSMEs, increasing women's economic participation, creating flexible livelihoods for young people, accelerating regional development, and supporting the broader vision of Atmanirbhar Bharat. As production becomes more decentralised, so too must the systems that generate demand.
Yet despite its growing significance, the creator economy continues to be understood largely through anecdotes, platform announcements, and isolated success stories. Fundamental questions remain unanswered: Where are creators emerging? How do they monetise? Which language markets remain underserved? Can creator-led income become a meaningful source of economic mobility? And what role does this ecosystem play in India's broader development story?
This report seeks to answer these questions through longitudinal creator intelligence, campaign-level behavioural data, and nationally representative economic datasets. Rather than examining creators as individuals or influencer marketing as an industry, it studies the creator economy as an economic system.
Our ambition is simple: to establish a statistical and conceptual foundation for understanding India's creator economy. We hope this report contributes not only to industry discussions, but also to research, public policy, and investment decisions that will shape the next decade of India's digital economy.
Between 2020 and 2025, India's creator economy expanded from 0.96 million creators to 4.12 million creators. The scale of this growth is important, but the more revealing change is structural. Creator participation became geographically broader, audience engagement increased rather than declined, brands expanded campaign activity and households continued to allocate resources toward digital participation. Collectively, these patterns suggest that India's creator economy has moved beyond a metropolitan social media phenomenon and is increasingly operating as a distributed economic ecosystem.
These findings imply that the next phase of India's creator economy will be defined less by the entry of additional creators and more by the productivity of creators already participating. Brands will need broader portfolios across geography, language and creator tiers. Platforms will need to reduce search costs, improve matching and increase repeat collaborations. Policymakers will need to strengthen the institutional conditions that allow creators to participate as self-employed economic actors. The relevant question is therefore no longer only how large the creator economy can become, but how effectively the market converts participation into durable economic opportunity.
In 2020, India's creator economy was still largely metropolitan. Creators based in the eight major metros, Mumbai, Delhi-NCR, Bengaluru, Hyderabad, Chennai, Kolkata, Pune and Ahmedabad, accounted for 56% of all registered creators on influencer marketing platforms. Creators based in smaller cities and towns accounted for 44%, or approximately 423,000 individuals.
The inflection point came in 2021, when non-metro creator share crossed 50% for the first time. By 2025, non-metro creators represented 66% of India's creator base, or 2.72 million creators out of a total base of 4.12 million. This should not be interpreted simply as metropolitan growth slowing. Rather, it reflects the emergence of new creator markets outside India's largest cities.
The difference in growth rates is more revealing than the majority share alone. Between 2020 and 2025, non-metro creator supply grew to 6.4 times its 2020 base, compared with 2.6 times for metro creators. This 2.5 times divergence suggests that the creator economy expanded by broadening participation across geographies rather than merely deepening activity within established metropolitan markets.
The state-level distribution provides a more granular view of this redistribution. Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra together account for about one in four creators, reflecting both population scale and early platform adoption. At the same time, the large share accounted for by states outside the top group indicates that creator participation is not confined to a few exceptional markets.
Three patterns are notable. Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Gujarat produce more creators than their population shares would predict, with Rajasthan close behind. Bihar and Odisha remain below what population alone would imply, with Odisha showing the largest creator density deficit in the current data. Jharkhand, with high rural telecom penetration and full BSNL 4G coverage across districts, appears structurally positioned for future creator growth. These differences suggest that infrastructure, household investment and local creator capability interact in shaping where creator markets develop.
| State | Share | Distribution |
|---|
The evidence in this chapter suggests that the most important change in India's creator economy has not been its size alone, but the changing geography of its expansion. Between 2020 and 2025, creator participation became increasingly distributed across smaller cities and towns, with non-metro India emerging as the principal source of creator formation.
This should not be interpreted simply as metropolitan growth slowing. Rather, the evidence points to new creator markets emerging outside India's largest cities. The transition from a metro-majority to a non-metro-majority creator base, combined with substantially faster growth outside metropolitan markets, suggests that this redistribution is structural rather than temporary.
Between 2020 and 2025, total creator supply grew from roughly one million creators to 4.12 million creators. In many digital markets, such an increase in supply would be expected to reduce average engagement because audience attention is spread across more participants. The Indian data does not follow that pattern.
Average engagement rates, measured as the ratio of median likes plus median comments to followers across the last 30 posts per creator, rose from 1.8% in 2020 to 7.2% in 2025. The result is a fourfold increase in engagement alongside a more than fourfold increase in creator supply. This pattern is consistent with an expanding audience market rather than a saturated one.
One interpretation is compositional. The expansion in supply was driven disproportionately by non-metro creators, who show higher engagement than metro creators. As their share of the creator base rose from 44% to 66%, aggregate engagement also increased. This does not imply that attention constraints have disappeared. It suggests that the creators entering the market were, on average, operating in communities with stronger engagement characteristics.
The implication for brands is narrower but important. Investing in non-metro creators should not be viewed only as a lower-cost alternative to metropolitan influencer campaigns. For many categories, it may also improve engagement performance because these creators operate closer to specific local, language and interest communities.
The distribution of engagement across creators is not uniform. Percentile band analysis from 2020 to 2025 shows the P90-to-median ratio was highest in 2020, at about 4.5 times, when the creator base was still small and thinly sampled. It narrowed sharply to about 2.5 times by 2022 as the base scaled, and has since held broadly steady in the 2.6-to-2.8 times range through 2025. A large base of creators continues to deliver steady engagement, while a smaller group of high-performing creators maintains a real, though now more stable, premium over the typical creator.
This pattern suggests that the market supports more than one campaign strategy. Brands can use broad nano-creator portfolios to generate reliable median outcomes, or they can identify high-performing creators within specific language and category clusters to pursue outlier engagement. The market has not converged to a single model of creator effectiveness.
The evidence presented in this chapter validates the geographic expansion documented in Chapter I. Creator supply increased rapidly, but engagement did not decline. Average engagement rose from 1.8% to 7.2%, while non-metro creators retained a consistent engagement premium across the distribution.
This pattern should not be read as evidence that attention constraints have disappeared. Rather, it suggests that India's creator market remained in an expansionary phase during 2020–2025, with audience demand growing alongside creator supply. The distinction matters because markets that expand without immediate engagement dilution can support broader creator participation before saturation dynamics become binding.
The term influencer often evokes creators with very large audiences. India's non-metro creator base is organised differently. In 2025, more than half of non-metro creators were nano creators, defined as creators with 1,000 to 10,000 followers. A further 28% were micro creators, with 10,000 to 100,000 followers. Together, nano and micro creators accounted for more than 80% of the non-metro creator base.
This structure has a specific economic logic. Nano creators often have audiences concentrated in a locality, language community or interest cluster. Their value does not come from reach alone. It comes from social proximity and trust. For brands, a large portfolio of nano creators can therefore provide access to many smaller communities that would be difficult to reach through a few large creators.
The growth of managed creator networks and influencer management platforms reflects this logic. These platforms aggregate dispersed creators into portfolios that can be activated at campaign scale. The nano tier should therefore not be treated only as an entry point on the way to becoming a macro creator. For many non-metro creators, the nano tier is the stable unit around which monetisation models must be designed.
The campaign-to-activated-creator ratio is a useful measure of market depth. For non-metro creators, this ratio fell from about 0.37 in 2020 to about 0.10 in 2025, even as the number of activated creators grew roughly tenfold. This suggests that growth in campaign participation has been driven mainly by breadth, more creators doing one campaign, rather than by depth, the same creators doing more campaigns.
The contrast with metro creators is informative. Metro creators monetised earlier and maintained a higher campaign-to-creator ratio throughout the period, rising from about 0.22 in 2020 to about 0.33 in 2025. This suggests that metro creators have achieved somewhat more repeat engagement with brands, though the gap with non-metro creators widened as non-metro breadth expanded faster than either group's depth. For platforms and brands, the opportunity lies in closing this depth gap by improving discovery, performance tracking and repeat collaboration.
India's creator economy appears to derive its strength from distribution rather than concentration. More than half of non-metro creators are nano creators, and more than 80% fall within the nano and micro bands. This suggests that the creator market is being built through broad networks rather than through a relatively small number of celebrity influencers.
The distinction matters because distributed creator networks can provide brands with access to more specific communities, languages and local contexts. At the same time, the campaign-to-creator ratio, which fell from about 0.37 to about 0.10 over the period, indicates that breadth has expanded faster than depth. Most activated creators still participate only occasionally.
Total campaign volume on the Qoruz platform grew from approximately 14,000 campaigns in 2020 to 42,000 in 2025, a compound annual growth rate of about 25%. This outpaced both nominal GDP growth and digital advertising growth over the period. The comparison is useful because it suggests that creator marketing was not merely growing with the economy or with digital media. It was gaining share within marketing activity.
The increase in spend per campaign provides a second signal. Even as campaign volume tripled, average spend per campaign rose approximately 3.6 times. In markets where supply expands rapidly, per-unit prices often fall. The fact that spend per campaign rose suggests that brands were investing with greater confidence, selecting more complex activations, higher-quality creator portfolios or longer campaign engagements.
This should be interpreted as evidence of organisational learning rather than budget growth alone. As brands repeat creator campaigns, uncertainty around creator selection, campaign performance and execution quality declines. Creator marketing then becomes easier to incorporate into routine planning. Institutionalisation begins when experimentation becomes repeatable.
FMCG, e-commerce and BFSI together account for more than half of influencer campaigns in India. The concentration is consistent with the economics of these categories. FMCG brands benefit from repeated exposure and ambient recall. E-commerce platforms use creators for discovery and conversion. BFSI brands, especially in fintech and insurance, use creators to simplify products for first-time users in smaller cities and towns.
| Category | Share | Distribution |
|---|
The campaign and spending evidence suggests that influencer marketing has moved beyond experimentation for many brands. Campaign volume grew from approximately 14,000 to 42,000 between 2020 and 2025, while average spend per campaign increased 3.6 times. Together, these patterns are more consistent with increasing organisational confidence than with trial activity alone.
Institutionalisation should not be interpreted merely as higher expenditure. It reflects the development of routines through which brands identify creators, allocate budgets, evaluate performance and return to the channel repeatedly. In that sense, the market becomes more efficient as repeated interactions reduce uncertainty.
Hindi-language creators account for 42% of India's creator base in 2025. This is a plurality, not a majority. The remaining 58% is distributed across Telugu, Tamil, Kannada, Marathi, Bengali, Malayalam, Gujarati, Bhojpuri and other regional languages. Regional language creators therefore collectively represent the majority of creator supply.
The distinction matters because language is not only a medium of communication. It often signals shared cultural references, local knowledge and community identity. In creator markets, these attributes reduce social distance between creators and audiences. They also make it easier for brands to match campaigns to communities where trust already exists.
For brands, the implication is straightforward but not always operationalised. Campaigns designed primarily in Hindi reach an important market, but not the full creator economy. A vernacular-first or vernacular-parallel strategy should be understood less as adaptation and more as market alignment. It follows the structure of creator supply itself.
Activation data reveals a dual pattern. Overall activation rates increased from roughly 9% in 2020 to 15% in 2025, while the share of creators completing two or more campaigns increased from 4% to 7%. These changes indicate broader commercial participation.
Language is one of the clearest organising principles of India's creator economy. Hindi accounts for 42% of creators, but regional languages collectively account for 58%. The market is therefore not a single national creator market with local variations. It is better understood as a portfolio of language markets that differ in audience trust, creator supply and campaign intensity.
The under-monetisation of Bhojpuri and Kannada illustrates this point. These are not necessarily weak demand markets. They are markets where creator supply appears to have moved ahead of commercial discovery. The implication is that brand and platform systems need to improve matching across language communities rather than relying primarily on Hindi and English discovery pathways.
BSNL 4G district coverage provides a useful proxy for baseline infrastructure availability. The underlying data classify states into two coverage tiers, labelled here as higher-coverage and lower-coverage states, rather than by the city-level metro and non-metro definition used elsewhere in this report. Several states placed in the higher-coverage tier (for example, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Maharashtra, Karnataka and Telangana) contain one of the eight named metro cities defined in Chapter I, yet these same states are discussed elsewhere in this report as having non-metro-majority creator populations. The two classifications should therefore not be read as equivalent. On a state-tier basis, higher-coverage states average 40.1% BSNL 4G district coverage compared with 31.8% for lower-coverage states, an 8.3-percentage-point difference.
This does not imply that infrastructure no longer matters. Rather, it suggests that infrastructure is increasingly becoming a necessary condition for creator participation rather than the main source of differentiation across regions. Bihar has 30.2% BSNL 4G district coverage, close to the lower-coverage state average, yet accounts for only 6% of the creator base despite having about 9% of India's population. Jharkhand has full BSNL 4G coverage across all 24 districts, yet its creator penetration remains below what demographic weight would predict.
The stronger predictor appears to be household commitment to connectivity. Bihar and Uttar Pradesh rural households allocate only 3.3% of expenditure to telecom despite adequate base-level coverage. Karnataka rural households allocate 11% of food-equivalent expenditure to telecom, the highest in India and a leading indicator of the state's creator density. The relevant distinction is therefore between infrastructure availability and household willingness to invest in connectivity.
States such as West Bengal, Bihar and Jharkhand combine high or rising rural telecom penetration with different levels of current creator activity. Jharkhand appears especially well positioned because it combines full BSNL 4G coverage, high rural telecom penetration and a young demographic profile. However, the evidence suggests that infrastructure alone will not be sufficient. Creator formation is likely to depend on capability, local examples, content skills and commercial discovery.
The evidence in this chapter suggests that infrastructure remains necessary for creator participation, but it is no longer sufficient to explain creator emergence. Lower-coverage states average 31.8% BSNL 4G coverage compared with 40.1% in higher-coverage states, and several states with adequate coverage still underperform on creator density.
This does not imply that infrastructure no longer matters. Rather, it suggests that once a baseline level of connectivity exists, differences in household investment, digital capability and ecosystem development become more informative. In this sense, infrastructure increasingly appears to be a hygiene factor, while capability becomes the source of differentiation.
The brand wallet is defined here as median monthly household expenditure on cosmetics, parlour and spa services, salty snacks and restaurant meals. These categories provide a useful market-sizing benchmark for creator campaigns in consumer categories. Across the CMIE Consumer Pyramids survey for May to June 2025 (approximately 174,000 accepted household records), this brand wallet ranges from about ₹320 per month in Bihar rural households to about ₹1,620 in Haryana rural households.
The cross-state gap is more revealing than the urban-rural distinction alone. Karnataka rural households exceed Maharashtra urban households on brand wallet share, not in absolute rupee terms but as a proportion of total household expenditure. This suggests that campaign planning should not treat rural and urban as sufficient market categories. State-level household purchasing power and category commitment are more useful benchmarks.
The telecom-to-food spend ratio provides a second measure of household commitment to digital participation. Karnataka rural households spend the equivalent of 11% of their food budget on telecom, the highest in India. Bihar and Uttar Pradesh sit at 3.3%. This ratio captures revealed preference under budget pressure. Households that allocate scarce resources to connectivity are signalling that digital participation has economic or social value.
Household expenditure data provides a useful lens for understanding where creator monetisation is likely to be commercially viable. The brand wallet varies substantially across states, and categories such as personal care show unusual resilience across income quintiles. These patterns help explain why certain creator categories can monetise even in lower-income markets.
The chapter also suggests that household digital participation should be understood as an investment decision rather than as consumption alone. Telecom spending captures revealed commitment under budget constraints. States where households allocate more of their spending to connectivity appear better positioned for creator formation, even when infrastructure differences are not large.
Income has little meaning without the right benchmark. The Periodic Labour Force Survey 2023–24 Q4 provides a useful labour market comparison for smaller cities and towns. Average monthly earnings of regular salaried employees in rural areas, per the published PLFS 2023–24 Q4 bulletin, were ₹17,033. This benchmark is worth comparing against educational attainment: about 46% of youth aged 18 to 35 outside the top metros have secondary or higher education, and about 22% are graduates.
Against this benchmark, creator campaign income remains modest relative to a full-time wage, though it becomes more meaningful at higher activation levels. A nano creator completing two campaigns per year, using the average Qoruz 2025 spend midpoint and a 30% take-rate, earns a monthly equivalent of approximately ₹5,000. This equals about 29% of the average rural salaried wage. At five campaigns, a nano creator earns about 73% of that benchmark. A micro creator completing five campaigns earns approximately 147% of the rural wage benchmark, the only scenario examined here that exceeds it.
The same income looks smaller still against the metro benchmark. A nano creator completing two campaigns earns only about 20% of the average urban salaried wage of ₹24,434. A micro creator completing five campaigns reaches about 102% of that benchmark, roughly matching it rather than exceeding it by a wide margin. The comparison suggests that creator income is not uniformly transformative, and for most creators it remains supplementary rather than a substitute for full-time wage employment. Its economic meaning depends heavily on the local opportunity set available to the creator and on how many campaigns they secure.
The evidence points to a structural condition that can sustain non-metro creator supply. Young people outside India's top metros are substantially better educated than the local labour market can absorb at credential-matched wages. The wage does not move enough with the credential. This mismatch changes the opportunity set facing households and young workers.
Content creation should therefore not be interpreted only as aspiration or leisure. For many participants, especially in smaller cities and towns, it is a low-entry-cost option in a labour market with limited wage progression. This does not mean most creators earn meaningful income today. About 85% of non-metro creators complete no campaigns in a year. But for the small and growing group that crosses repeat campaign thresholds, creator income can compete with local employment alternatives.
Creator income remains limited for most participants, and this qualification is important. Approximately 85% of non-metro creators complete no campaigns in a year. For them, content creation remains primarily an audience-building activity rather than a source of regular income.
At the same time, the income evidence becomes more meaningful once creators cross higher campaign thresholds, though it remains below a full-time wage for most scenarios. A nano creator completing two campaigns earns about 29% of the average rural salaried wage, while a micro creator completing five campaigns earns about 147% of that benchmark. The same income looks smaller against metro benchmarks, which is precisely why local opportunity is the appropriate comparison.
Taken together, the evidence suggests that the next stage of the creator economy should be evaluated less by the number of people participating and more by the number who move from occasional participation to repeat commercial activity.
The recommendations in this chapter are united by a common principle. India's creator economy no longer requires only more participants. It requires stronger relationships among participants already present in the market. Brands need better creator portfolios, platforms need to improve matching and repeat monetisation, and policymakers need to strengthen the institutional conditions under which creator work can become more productive.
This is a narrower claim than saying that the creator economy should be promoted in general. The evidence points to specific frictions: discovery gaps in language markets, low campaign frequency among activated creators, capability deficits in underperforming states and weak formal recognition of creator income. Addressing these frictions is likely to matter more than simply expanding creator supply.
This report began with a geographic question: where is India's creator economy actually emerging? The answer is more consequential than the question first appears. By 2025, non-metro creators accounted for 66% of India's creator base. This indicates that content production has moved beyond the metros and that India's creator economy is now geographically distributed.
The report then examined whether this expansion was accompanied by demand. Engagement rose from 1.8% to 7.2% even as creator supply expanded more than fourfold. This pattern suggests that India's creator economy has expanded without yet exhausting audience attention. The market has not simply added creators. It has also expanded the audience relationships that make creator activity commercially relevant.
The structure of this market is also distinctive. It is built largely through broad networks of nano and micro creators rather than through a relatively small number of celebrity influencers. This distributed structure increases audience diversity and geographic reach, but monetisation remains shallow. Many creators participate. Fewer earn repeatedly.
The evidence also suggests that the market is becoming more institutionalised. Campaign volume increased, spend per campaign rose and multiple categories now use creator marketing. Language markets have become central to coordination, while infrastructure appears to be giving way to capability as the next constraint. These patterns are consistent with a market moving from formation toward maturation.
The economic claim should be stated carefully. The creator economy does not yet provide meaningful full-time income for most participants. About 85% of non-metro creators complete no campaigns in a year. Even for creators who cross repeat campaign thresholds, income typically remains below or close to local wage benchmarks; only a micro creator completing five campaigns clearly exceeds the average rural salaried wage, at about 147% of that benchmark. This is why creator income must be interpreted against local labour market alternatives rather than metropolitan salary benchmarks alone.
Primary Data
Qoruz Creator Intelligence Platform. (2025). Creator and campaign database, 2020–2025. Qoruz Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Household Expenditure
Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy (CMIE). (2025). Consumer Pyramids Household Survey (CHHV1), May–June 2025. ~174,000 accepted household records, 28 states.
Labour Market
Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of India. (2024). Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS), 2023–24, Quarter 4. National Statistical Office.
Infrastructure
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL). (2024). District-level 4G deployment data. Telecommunications Department, Government of India.
Population Data
Office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner, India. (2011). Census of India 2011. Scaled projections used for 2025 estimates.
Sector Reference
Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI). (2024). Telecom Subscription Data, December 2024.
Internet and Mobile Association of India (IAMAI). (2024). India Internet Report 2024.
Analytical Notes
All creator income estimates are derived from Qoruz working data on average spend per campaign at the midpoint of disclosed ranges, combined with disclosed platform take-rates (30% for nano creators, 40% for micro creators). Income figures represent gross creator earnings before tax and are expressed in nominal 2025 rupees. Quintile thresholds are derived from CMIE Consumer Pyramids household expenditure distribution for smaller cities and towns (~174,000 accepted household records nationally; the subset used for quintile thresholds is smaller). Wage benchmarks are average monthly earnings of regular salaried employees from the published PLFS 2023–24 Q4 bulletin (rural ₹17,033; urban ₹24,434), not a metro/non-metro city-level breakdown, since PLFS publishes rural/urban splits only.