The national headline is only the starting point. Almost 55% of recorded creator supply sits in five states, yet some smaller markets have disproportionately large creator pools relative to their estimated Instagram audiences. For brands and agencies, the useful question is not simply how many creators exist. It is where a relevant, measurable campaign roster can be built. [1]

Figure 01 → US Instagram creator density by state, 2026. Geographic coverage is the 50 states; counts refer to profiles, not unique people. Source: [1].

• A large recruitment universe, not a ready-made roster. The study records 8.94M eligible profiles. Eligibility alone does not demonstrate campaign experience, availability, authentic engagement or commercial results.

• Five states hold most recorded creator supply. California, New York, Florida, Texas and Georgia contain 4.90M profiles: 54.7% of the total, against 38.8% of estimated users.

• New York has more than twice the national creator density. Its 9.80% profile-to-user ratio is 2.11 times the national 4.64% benchmark. Only nine states are above that weighted benchmark.

• The southern outliers deserve a closer look. Louisiana ranks third for density at 7.74%, followed by Georgia at 7.65% and Mississippi at 6.91%.

• Large audiences and dense creator markets are different things. Texas has the highest estimated users-to-population ratio, 62.3%, but its creator density is 3.68%, below the national benchmark.

• Nine in ten profiles are nano-sized. About 89% of eligible profiles have fewer than 10,000 followers; 10.8% have 10,000 or more. Micro, macro and mega counts reconcile in all 50 states.

• Context from our category studies: small creators perform. In Influencity's 2025 supplements study, micro-influencers averaged a reported 57% engagement rate against 24% for celebrities, and micro-influencers made up over half of tagged posts in our food study. These are category samples, not measures of the 8.94M pool. [7, 8]

• Gender reporting needs two denominators. Female-classified profiles represent 60.2% of classified male/female profiles, not 60.2% of all profiles. Another 21.5% have no gender classification.

Source: Influencity proprietary 2026 data, [1] Calculations use unrounded values.

California ranks first with 1,808,298 influencer-eligible profiles, followed by New York with 1,117,842. Florida and Texas complete a top four that contains almost half (49.4%) of the recorded US creator pool. These counts describe the size of the discovery universe before any audience, category or quality filters are applied. [1]

Figure 02 → California and New York are the largest recorded Instagram creator markets. State shares use the 8,943,596-profile national total. Source: [1].

Population Sets the Broad Order

The biggest influencer markets are mostly the biggest states. Across all 50 states, a state's rank by population and its rank by eligible profiles are closely aligned (Spearman rank correlation of 0.94). California is first on both measures, and Florida is third on both. [1]

Population does not explain everything, though. The ten largest creator states hold 53.4% of the US population and 54.8% of estimated Instagram users, but 69.1% of eligible profiles. Several states rank well above or below their population size:

Influencer Density, Not Instagram Adoption, Explains the Gaps

A state's creator count is the product of three things: its population, the share of residents using Instagram, and the number of creators per user (creator density). Of these, density varies far more between states, and it explains why some states punch above or below their population.

Across the 50 states, estimated Instagram use relative to population ranges only from about 47% to 62%. Influencer density ranges from 1.58% to 9.80%. Breaking down the differences in profiles per resident between states, roughly nine-tenths of the variation comes from creator density and very little from audience size. [1]

The clearest examples:

• New York is the fourth-largest state by population and by estimated Instagram users, but second for creators. At the national density it would record about 529,000 profiles; it records 1.12M, an excess of about 588,000.
• Texas is the second-largest state by population and has the highest estimated Instagram use relative to population (62.3%). Yet it ranks fourth for creators, because its 3.68% density is below the national figure. At the national density it would record about 190,000 more profiles.
• Georgia and Tennessee rise well above their population ranks (8th to 5th, and 15th to 9th), while Pennsylvania, Illinois and Ohio fall below theirs.

Why Might Density Differ?

While data alone does not explain why some states have more creators per Instagram user there are three explanations worth testing.

1. Media and creative industries. The states with the largest positive gaps include major entertainment, media and fashion centres (Los Angeles and New York City), plus Atlanta's music and screen-production scene in Georgia. Creator activity may cluster where those industries, agencies and brands are based. Section 09's niche analysis and state industry data tests this.
2. Age profile. States with younger populations may have more creators per resident. Section 06 tests this, and finds no link
3. How profiles are assigned to states. A creator's state reflects the location recorded for the profile, which may favour well-known hubs. Some creators may list New York or Los Angeles while living elsewhere, which would inflate those states' counts.  

California and New York together account for 32.7% of eligible profiles but only 18.0% of estimated Instagram users. The top five states hold 54.7% of profiles; the top ten hold 69.1%. The remaining 40 states still contribute 2.77M profiles, or 30.9% of supply. [1]

Figure 03 → Recorded creator supply is more concentrated than the estimated Instagram audience. Texas is the only top-five state whose share of users exceeds its share of profiles. Source: [1].

Instagram Influencers Are More Concentrated Than Audiences or Population

Influencer supply is clustered in fewer states than either the Instagram audience or the population. Five states account for more than half of all eligible profiles, and 17 states account for 81.0%.

The same five states hold 38.8% of estimated users and 36.9% of residents. The 25 smallest creator states contribute 9.8% of profiles but 17.3% of estimated users. [1]

Two Standard Concentration Measures

We've used the Herfindahl–Hirschman Index, 812 for eligible profiles, against 478 for estimated users and 447 for population and effective number of states. Creator supply behaves like it is spread evenly across about 12 states. Users behave like 21 states, and population like 22.

Figure 04 → Cumulative share of eligible profiles, estimated users and population, with states ranked by eligible profiles. Source: [1].

Concentration Comes from a Handful of High-Density States

Only nine states hold a larger share of creators than of users: California, New York, Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi and Hawaii. They are the same nine states whose creator density exceeds the national 4.64% benchmark.

So concentration comes from a group of states with more influencers per Instagram user than elsewhere. Section 02 sets out possible reasons, from media industries to how profiles are assigned to states. [1]

Larger Creators Are Even More Concentrated

Concentration rises with follower size. California and New York hold 32.7% of all eligible profiles, but 50.4% of micro, 67.6% of macro and 79.2% of mega profiles (section 08).

A brand looking for creators with large followings will find most of them in two states. A brand looking for smaller creators will find a far wider spread. [1]

The US Instagram Influencer Market Is Moderately Concentrated by International Standards

The top five markets hold 54.7% of US creator supply. That compares with 69.7% across Influencity's 30 European markets and 89.9% across 20 Latin American markets, where Brazil alone holds 66.1%. US supply is concentrated, but less so than in either other region (section 13). [1, 9, 10]

Figure 05 → Share of each region's Instagram creator pool held by its largest market, the next four markets and the rest. The US is the least concentrated of the three regions. Sources: [1, 9, 10].

Texas has the highest estimated Instagram-users-to-population ratio according to Influencity’s data, at 62.3%. Nevada follows at 61.5%, then Arizona at 61.0%. The national ratio across the covered states is 56.5%. These are ratios of supplied estimates, not independently measured adoption rates or verified unique-user penetration. [1]

Figure 06 → A relatively large estimated Instagram audience does not automatically imply a high density of eligible creators. Source: [1].

The Highest-Reach States Are Concentrated in the South and West

The eight states with the highest estimated reach are Texas, Nevada, Arizona, Idaho, Colorado, Florida, Washington and North Carolina, all in the South or West. California (59.0%) and New Jersey (58.3%) come next. At the other end are West Virginia (47.0%), Wyoming (47.7%), Mississippi (48.1%), Maine (49.2%) and Kentucky (49.7%). These are mostly smaller, more rural states. [1]

Larger states also tend to have higher estimated reach. The rank correlation between population and the users-to-population ratio is 0.47. One possible reason is that the audience estimates reflect urban concentration and age structure. Large, fast-growing metro areas have younger populations that use social platforms more, while older, rural states sit lower. The data contains no age or urbanization fields, so this is a hypothesis to test.

Audience Reach Varies Little but Instagram Influencer Density Varies a Lot

Estimated reach is a narrow measure. Every state falls between 47.0% and 62.3%, and the spread relative to the average is about 7%. Creator density ranges from 1.58% to 9.80%, with a relative spread of about 51%, roughly seven times wider.

This is why section 02 found that creator density, not audience reach, explains most of the difference between states' creator counts. [1]

High Reach and High Influencer Density Rarely Coincide

Across the 50 states the two measures are only weakly related (rank correlation 0.22). Of the eight highest-reach states, only Florida is above the national creator-density benchmark. Taken together, those eight states have a density of 3.95%, below the national 4.64%.

Several of the densest creator markets have below-average reach. Mississippi (48.1% reach, 6.91% density), Louisiana (52.5%, 7.74%), Alabama (50.3%, 5.05%) and Georgia (55.1%, 7.65%) are all below the national reach ratio. [1]

Figure 07 → The eight states with the highest estimated users-to-population ratio, and their creator density. Only Florida exceeds the 4.64% national benchmark. Source: [1].

Texas is the clearest example. It has 1.84M more estimated Instagram users than its population share would suggest, and 8.3M more estimated users than New York. Yet it records fewer eligible profiles than New York (726,574 against 1,117,842). At the national density, Texas would record about 917,000 profiles. [1]

What Does the Contrast Tell a Campaign Planner?

Texas leads the audience-ratio ranking but sits below the national creator-density benchmark. New York's audience ratio is 57.0%, close to the national figure, while its influencer density is more than twice as high. Louisiana and Mississippi have lower audience ratios but much higher creator density. [1]

In practice, the two measures point to different opportunities:

• High reach, lower creator density (Texas, Arizona, Idaho, Colorado, Washington): A large audience relative to the number of local creators. Recruiting may require a wider search, including creators based elsewhere whose followers are in these states.
• High creator density, lower reach (Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia): Plenty of local creators relative to the audience. Locally relevant creators should be easier to find, but each state's audience is smaller.
• High on both (Florida, California, New York): The broadest recruitment pools against sizable audiences. 

New York leads all 50 states with 9.80 influencer-eligible profiles per 100 estimated Instagram users. California, Louisiana and Georgia form the next group, each above 7.6%. Density is a relative supply measure: it is not the proportion of unique residents who earn a living as influencers. [1]

Figure 08 → Only nine states exceed the US weighted creator-density benchmark. The index divides each state's density by the national ratio. Source: [1].

Nine States, More than Half of All Instagram Influencers

The nine states in the table above show that the benchmark holds 54.4% of eligible profiles but only 34.5% of estimated Instagram users. Their combined density is 7.32%, more than twice the 3.23% across the other 41 states.

Most states sit well below the national figure. The median state density is 3.09%, and 23 states are below 3%. The national 4.64% is pulled up by California and New York; without them, the remaining 48 states have a combined density of 3.81%. [1]

A Southeastern Cluster

Six of the nine high-density states are in the Southeast: Louisiana, Georgia, Mississippi, Florida, Tennessee and Alabama. Together they hold 21.1% of eligible profiles against 16.1% of estimated users, a combined density of 6.09%.

Their neighbours sit just below the benchmark: South Carolina (4.45%), Arkansas (4.34%) and North Carolina (4.25%). The region as a whole leans towards higher creator density. That makes it more likely a regional pattern than a scatter of unrelated outliers. [1]

Two Types of High-Density State

Splitting density by follower size shows the nine states are not all dense for the same reason.

• Large-creator hubs (New York and California): They have the most creators of every size. Profiles with 10,000+ followers make up 15% and 19% of their pools, against 10.8% nationally. Per 100 estimated users, they record about 1.5 creators with 10k+ followers, three times the national 0.50. Georgia, Hawaii and Florida follow the same pattern on a smaller scale.
• Small-creator states (Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama): Their density comes almost entirely from nano profiles. Only 5%, 3% and 3% of their creators have 10,000+ followers. Louisiana's density of 10k+ creators (0.40 per 100 users) is below the national figure, even though its overall density is the third-highest in the country.

Figure 09 → Creator density split into profiles under 10k followers and profiles with 10k+, for the nine above-benchmark states. Source: [1].

This distinction matters for planning. New York and California offer depth across every tier. Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama offer large numbers of smaller, local creators, but relatively few large accounts. [1]

Why Might These States Be Denser?

The data shows where density is high, not why. Several explanations fit the patterns above and could be tested.

• Creative and media industries may explain the large-creator hubs. New York and Los Angeles concentrate on entertainment, fashion, media and the agencies and brands that work with creators. Atlanta has a large music and screen-production sector.
• Community and local-culture content may explain the small-creator states. A high share of nano influencers fits strong local content scenes (food, music, faith and community events).
• How profiles are assigned to states may shift creators towards well-known hubs. New Jersey has one of the lowest densities (1.85%) despite bordering New York, which has the highest. Some creators living in New Jersey or Connecticut may list New York as their location. Even combined, New York, New Jersey and Connecticut have a density of 6.67%, still well above the benchmark, so this would explain part of the gap, not all of it.

Where Is the Lowest Instagram Influencer Density Recorded?

South Dakota has the lowest recorded density, at 1.58%, followed by New Hampshire at 1.75%, New Jersey at 1.85%, Wyoming at 1.86% and North Dakota at 1.91%. Most are small, rural states, and New Jersey's position may partly reflect the state-assignment issue above.

A low ratio does not prove an untapped opportunity or lower competition: demand, fees and creator quality are not measured here. [1]

New York has the most influencer-eligible profiles per resident: 55.9 per 1,000 people, more than twice the national rate of 26.2. California (45.9), Georgia (42.2) and Louisiana (40.7) follow. At the other end, South Dakota records 8.7 per 1,000 residents, a 6.4-fold gap with New York. [1]

This measure complements creator density (section 05). Density compares creators with the estimated Instagram audience; this compares them with everyone who lives in the state. It answers a simpler question: how big is the local creator community relative to the population?

Figure 10 → Influencer-eligible profiles per 1,000 residents, 50 states. This is the y-axis of the age comparison. Residents = data population field. Source: [1].

Most States Sit Below the National Rate

Only nine states are above the national rate of 26.2 per 1,000 residents. The typical (median) state has 17.5, and the national figure is pulled up by New York and California. For a state-level brief, the median is a more realistic reference than the national average. [1]

Instagram Influencers Density Drives the Differences

Profiles per resident combine two things: how many residents use Instagram (section 04) and how many creators there are per Instagram user (section 05). Creator density does almost all the work.

A state's per-resident ranking almost exactly mirrors its density ranking (rank correlation 0.99). Its link with estimated Instagram reach is weak (0.34). Breaking down the differences between states, about 92% of the variation in profiles per resident comes from creator density, around 2% from audience reach, and the rest from the two combined. [1]

This is why the above-average list is almost identical to section 05's density list. The one change: Nevada (27.3) enters because its high estimated reach (61.5%) lifts a slightly below-average density, while Alabama (25.4) drops just below the line because its reach is among the lowest (50.3%).

Do Younger States Have More Influencers per Resident?

No. A natural explanation for these differences would be age: states with younger populations might have more residents creating content. Comparing each state's profiles per resident with the median age of its residents shows no meaningful relationship.

• The overall link is close to zero. Across the 50 states, the rank correlation is −0.07, and age explains about 1% of the variation between states. Excluding the two largest outliers, New York and California, makes no difference (−0.05). [1,6]
• The youngest states are not creator hotspots. Utah, the youngest state (median age 31.5), has 19.9 profiles per 1,000 residents, below the national rate. Texas (35.2) has 22.9, and North Dakota (35.4) has only 9.6, the fourth-lowest in the country.
• The oldest states are mixed. Maine (45.0), New Hampshire (43.1), Vermont (43.0) and West Virginia (43.0) all have few creators per resident. Yet Florida, the fifth-oldest state (42.7), ranks seventh with 32.7.
• The leaders are middle-aged states. The four states with the most creators per resident have median ages between 37.3 and 39.4, close to the middle of the range (31.5 to 45.0).

Grouping states into thirds by age tells the same story. The typical state has 16.6 profiles per 1,000 residents in the youngest third, 18.9 in the middle third and 15.9 in the oldest. There is no steady decline with age.

Age is also unrelated to influencer density (−0.03) and to estimated Instagram reach (−0.11). Whatever makes New York, California, Georgia or Louisiana unusual, it is not that their residents are younger. [1, 6]

Figure 11→ Eligible profiles per 1,000 residents against residents' median age, 50 states. Sources: [1, 6].

What Explains this Pattern?

Ruling out age narrows the field. The explanations that remain fit the evidence in sections 02 and 05 better:

• Media and creative industries. New York and Los Angeles are home to large concentrations of entertainment, fashion and media businesses, and Atlanta to a major music and screen-production sector. These states also lead on large creators.
• Local creator scenes. Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama are dense mainly in nano creators, which suggests strong local or community content.
• How profiles are assigned to states. Some creators may list well-known hubs such as New York as their location.

The finding is that, across states, age does not predict how many creators a state has per resident.

Figure 12 → The 60.2% female share excludes 1.93M unclassified profiles. Classification is not equivalent to self-identified gender. Source: [1].

There are about 1.5 female-classified profiles for every male-classified one. The two ways of stating the result tell different stories: 60.2% of classified profiles are female, but only 47.2% of all eligible profiles. Any published figure should name its denominator. [1]

A Female Majority in Every State-Level Total

Female-classified profiles outnumber male-classified profiles in all 50 states. The female share of classified profiles ranges from 55.7% in California to 67.6% in South Dakota. [1] 

Figure 13 → Female share of classified profiles in all 50 states, with each state's unclassified share. Source: [1].

Rural States Lean More Female; Large Coastal Markets Are More Balanced

The states with the highest female shares are mostly rural, plains or southern. South Dakota (67.6%), Iowa (67.5%), North Dakota and West Virginia (both 65.6%), Maine (65.5%), Kansas (65.4%) and Nebraska (65.2%).

The most balanced are large, mostly coastal markets, like California (55.7%), New Jersey (57.5%), New York (57.9%), Hawaii (58.2%) and Connecticut (58.3%).

By region, the female share is 62.5% in the Midwest and 62.0% in the South, against 58.5% in the Northeast and 57.2% in the West. California and New York together are 56.6% female. The other 48 states combined are 61.7%. [1]

Why Are the Big Influencer Hubs More Balanced? Larger Influencers Are

Part of the explanation is follower size. The female majority narrows as influencers grow: 60.7% of classified nano profiles are female, falling to 55.0% in micro and 50.1% in mega (section 08).

States with more macro-influencers therefore tend to be more balanced overall. Across the 50 states, the share of profiles with 10,000+ followers is clearly linked to a lower female share (rank correlation −0.47). California and New York have the most large creators (19% and 15% of their profiles have 10k+ followers, against 10.8% nationally), and they are among the most balanced states.

Figure 14 → Female share of classified profiles by follower tier (left), and by state against the share of profiles with 10k+ followers (right). States with more large creators are more gender-balanced (rank correlation −0.47). Source: [1].

That accounts for some of the geography, not all of it. Industry mix, the types of content made in each state, and differences in how profiles are classified could also play a part, and the data can't separate them. Age does not appear to be the driver. Female share has only a weak, statistically unclear link with residents' median age (−0.25). [1, 6]

The Unclassified Share Varies More Than the Gender Split

Unclassified profiles range from 11.1% of all profiles in Mississippi to 37.1% in Vermont; the typical state is at 20.0%. Coverage is lowest in the West (28.3% unclassified) and highest in the South (16.8%). The states with the highest unclassified shares are:

• Vermont (37.1%)
• Maine (31.1%)
• Hawaii (30.9%)
• Oregon (29.9%)
• Montana (29.3%)
• California (29.2%)

States with more macro-influencers also have more unclassified profiles (rank correlation 0.51). Within the tiers, the micro tier has the highest unclassified share (31.6%).

One possible reason is that larger accounts more often represent brands, organizations, publications or collaborative projects, which have no individual gender to classify. This angle matters for comparisons, where more profiles are unclassified, the classified split describes a smaller and possibly different part of the pool. [1]

How the US Instagram Influencers Compare

The US female share of classified profiles (60.2%) is almost identical to Influencity's 2026 Instagram data for Europe (59.8%) and Latin America (61.1%). The US has the smallest unclassified share of the three (21.5%, against 31.6% in Europe and 25.1% in Latin America), so its classified figures describe more of its pool. On TikTok, US creators are more female-skewed, at 63.1% of classified profiles. [4,9,10]

Figure 15 →Gender classification of all eligible profiles in Influencity's 2026 Instagram data for the US, Europe and Latin America, with US TikTok for reference. The female share of classified profiles is similar across regions; the unclassified share is not. Sources: [1, 4, 9, 10]

As a contrast, on TikTok, US creators are more female-skewed, at 63.1% of classified profiles, with only 17.7% unclassified.

About 89% of the 8,943,596 eligible profiles have fewer than 10,000 followers. Micro-influencers (10k–100k) account for 9.4%, macro-influencers (100k–1M) for 1.2% and mega-influencers (1M+) for 0.09%. In total, 961,481 profiles, or 10.8%, have 10,000 followers or more. [1]

Figure 16 → Follower-tier mix of all eligible profiles. Every share uses the same 8,943,596 denominator. Source: [1].

A Steep Pyramid

Each step up the follower ladder is much smaller than the one below:

• There are about 9.5 nano profiles for every micro profile.
• There are 7.6 micro profiles for every macro profile.
• There are 13.4 macro profiles for every mega profile.

Put another way, for every 100,000 estimated Instagram users there are about 437 micro, 58 macro and 4 mega profiles. A brand looking for large accounts is choosing from a pool of a few thousand nationally; a brand working with smaller creators has hundreds of thousands to choose from. [1]

Larger Tiers Are Concentrated in California & New York

California and New York hold 32.7% of all eligible profiles, but 50.4% of micro, 67.6% of macro and 79.2% of mega profiles. California alone accounts for 4,510 of the 8,294 mega profiles (54.4%); New York contributes another 2,056 (24.8%). [1]

Figure 17 → California + New York share by category. These tier columns reconcile in all 50 states. Source: [1].

The concentration rises steadily with size. The five states with the most creators in each tier hold:

• 52.5% of nano profiles
• 72.0% of micro profiles
• 84.6% of macro profiles
• 92.0% of mega profiles

Six states (Iowa, Maine, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia and Wyoming) record no mega profiles at all. Per 100,000 estimated users, California and New York have about 19 and 18 mega profiles, against 4.3 nationally and 1.1 across the other 48 states. [1]

Figure 18 → Share of each tier held by the five states with the most creators in that tier. Source: [1].

The share of profiles with 10,000+ followers varies widely by state. It is highest in California (18.6%), New York (15.3%), Nevada (12.9%), Florida (11.6%) and Hawaii (11.0%), and lowest in West Virginia (2.2%), Delaware (3.0%), Mississippi and Arkansas (both 3.1%). Outside California and New York, only 7.6% of profiles have 10k+ followers. Section 05 shows that the states dense in small creators, such as Louisiana and Mississippi, are a different kind of market from the large-creator hubs. [1]

A national brand seeking large profiles should therefore distinguish where creators are based from where their audiences can be reached. A mega creator based in Los Angeles may have followers across the country, or concentrated somewhere else entirely.

The Gender Split Narrows As Instagram Influencers Grow

Figure 19 → Female share among classified profiles falls from 60.7% in the nano tier to 50.1% in the mega tier. Source: [1].

The mega records contain 3,261 female-classified and 3,247 male-classified profiles: a difference of just 14. Another 1,786 are unclassified.

The micro tier has the largest unclassified share, at 31.6%. One possible reason is that mid-sized accounts more often represent brands, organisations or publications, which have no individual gender to classify. The data has no account-type field, so this remains a hypothesis. These patterns describe classification coverage, not the gender identities of every creator or their audiences.

Because larger creators are more balanced and are concentrated in California and New York, those two states are also the most gender-balanced overall (section 07). [1]

How the US Instagram Influencers Compare

The tier shape is similar across Influencity's 2026 Instagram data:

• Nano makes up about 87–89% in all three regions.
• The US has a slightly smaller micro share (9.4%) than Europe (11.3%) or Latin America (10.5%).
• It has a slightly larger mega share (0.09%, against 0.07% in both).

Figure 20 → Share of each region's Instagram creator pool by follower tier, 2026. US shares use all eligible profiles; Europe and Latin America use reported tier entries, so differences are indicative. Sources: [1, 9, 10]

The denominators differ in that European and Latin American shares use reported tier entries, so treat these as indicative rather than exact differences. [1, 9, 10]

No. A state's wealth does not predict how many creators it has. Across the 50 states, median household income shows no meaningful link with eligible profiles per 1,000 residents (rank correlation −0.05) or with influencer density (−0.15). The same is true using GDP per capita (−0.05 and −0.12). [1, 12,13]

Wealth is, however, clearly linked to the kind of creator pool a state has. Richer states have more of their creators in the larger follower tiers, more gender-balanced pools, more unclassified profiles and a higher estimated Instagram reach. [1, 12]

Figure 21 → Median household income (2025) against eligible profiles per 1,000 residents, 50 states. Sources: [1, 12].

How Instagram Influencer Supply Relates to State Wealth

The comparison in these sections uses two standard wealth measures:

• Median household income from the US Census Bureau's American Community Survey (2024, 1-year estimates) [12].
• Real GDP per capita from the US Bureau of Economic Analysis (2024) [13].

Figure 22 → Rank correlation between median household income and each creator measure across the 50 states. Sources: [1, 12].

Wealth Doesn't Determine How Many Instagram Influencers a State Has

The states with the most creators per resident include some of the richest and some of the poorest. California ($100,149 median household income) and New York ($85,820) are high-income states. Mississippi ($59,127, the lowest of any state) and Louisiana ($60,986) also rank among the top six for creators per resident.

At the other end, three of the richest states have few creators relative to their population:

• New Jersey ($104,294): 10.8 per 1,000
• New Hampshire ($99,782): 9.3 per 1,000
• Massachusetts ($104,828): 20.0 per 1,000

Grouping states into thirds by income shows no gradient. The typical state has:

• 18.9 creators per 1,000 residents in the lower-income third
• 12.8 in the middle third
• 17.3 in the higher-income third

Like age (section 06), wealth can be ruled out as the main reason some states have more influencers. That leaves the explanations in sections 02 and 05: creative and media industries, local creator scenes, and how profiles are assigned to states. [1, 12]

Wealth Shapes the Type of Instagram Influencer Pool

Richer states differ in what their creator pools look like:

• More macro-influencers, proportionally. In richer states, a higher share of creators have 10,000+ followers (+0.47). The typical state has 7.2% of its creators at 10k+ in the higher-income third, against 4.8% in the lower-income third. Mississippi, Arkansas and West Virginia, all lower-income states, have among the smallest shares of large creators (3.1%, 3.1% and 2.2%).
• But not more large creators per resident. The number of 10k+ creators per 1,000 residents is only weakly linked to income (+0.21, not statistically clear). Richer states don't have many more large creators; they have fewer small ones relative to their population. Their pools lean larger.
• More gender-balanced pools. Female share falls as income rises (−0.54). This follows from the tier pattern in sections 07 and 08: larger creators are more balanced, and richer states have proportionally more of them.
• More unclassified profiles. Richer states have higher unclassified shares (+0.63), consistent with larger accounts more often being brands or organizations (section 07).
• Higher estimated Instagram reach. Richer states have more estimated Instagram users relative to population (+0.61). That reach does not turn into more creators per user (section 04).

The overall picture is that lower-income states, especially in the Southeast, tend to have dense pools of small, local influencers. Higher-income states tend to have pools that lean towards larger, more professional-looking accounts. Neither pattern says which delivers better campaign results. [1, 12]

Fashion and food are the largest influencer niches on US Instagram. About 3.0 million eligible profiles are tagged in each, roughly a third of the 8.94M pool. Tech and gaming is third (2.60M), followed by wellness (2.15M), travel (2.04M) and beauty (1.68M). [11]

Figure 23 → Creators tagged in each niche, and as a share of all eligible profiles. Source: [11].

Most Instagram Influencers Work across More than One Niche

On average, each eligible profile appears in about 1.6 of the six niches. Influencer content rarely fits a single category: fashion overlaps with beauty and travel, food with wellness and travel.

For brands, a creator found through a fashion search may also reach a food or travel audience. For campaign reporting, niche counts must never be added together to estimate a market size. [11]

Gender Varies Sharply by Niche

Across all eligible profiles, 60.2% of classified creators are female (section 07). Within niches, the figure ranges from 54.2% to 77.0%:

Figure 24 → Gender classification of creators in each niche. Source: [11].

Key Points

• Beauty is the most female niche. Three in four classified beauty creators are female. Male creators are still a substantial group: almost 319,000 profiles, or 1 in 4 classified beauty influencers.
• Fashion leans female too (65.7%), the only other niche clearly above the national figure.
• Tech and gaming is the most balanced niche, but still has a female majority among classified creators (54.2%). This contrasts with the common view of tech and gaming as male-dominated content areas.
• Travel, wellness and food sit close to the national average (58–60%).
• Food has the highest gender-neutral share (29.2%), consistent with more restaurant, recipe and brand accounts, which have no individual gender. Beauty has the lowest (17.7%), consistent with personal, face-to-camera content.

These are classification labels, not self-identified gender, and they describe creators, not their audiences. [11]

What Niche Data Tells Brands

• Every niche offers a deep national pool. Even beauty, the smallest of the six, has 1.68M tagged profiles, about one in five eligible creators.
• Expect overlap. Searching across related niches will surface many of the same creators. Plan discovery by content fit, not niche label alone.
• Don't assume niche stereotypes. Tech and gaming has a female majority among classified creators, and beauty has more than 300,000 male-classified creators. Briefs that need a specific creator profile should search on it directly.

The national figures hide very different state markets. These six spotlights show how size, creator density, audience reach and creator mix combine in practice, and why no single ranking is enough to plan a campaign. [1]

Figure 25 → Key figures behind each of the six state spotlights. Source: [1].

California: Scale, with a Disproportionate Share of Supply

California contributes 20.2% of recorded eligible profiles, compared with 12.1% of estimated Instagram users. Its 1.81M-profile universe makes it the largest starting point for broad discovery, but state location alone cannot identify the right audience or eliminate duplicate audience exposure. [1]

California is also where large creators are concentrated:

• 18.6% of its creators have 10,000+ followers, the highest share of any state.
• It holds 4,510 of the country's 8,294 mega profiles (54.4%).
• It is the most gender-balanced state (55.7% female among classified profiles).
• It has one of the highest unclassified shares (29.2%), consistent with more brand and organisation accounts among larger profiles (sections 07 and 08).

New York: The Clearest Relative-Supply Outlier

New York has 12.5% of the eligible profile pool and 5.9% of estimated users. Its 9.80% density, 2.11 times the national benchmark, is roughly one eligible profile for every ten estimated users. This is a market-level ratio, not a claim that one in ten individual Instagram users is a professional creator. [1]

New York ranks first on both relative measures:

• Creator density: 9.80%.
• Creators per resident: 55.9 per 1,000, more than twice the national 26.2.

Its estimated Instagram reach (57.0%) is close to the national average, so the gap comes entirely from creator supply, not audience size. New Jersey, next door, has one of the lowest densities (1.85%). That contrast suggests some creators living in the wider New York area may be recorded in New York (section 05). [1]

Louisiana & Georgia: Similar Density, Different Scale

Louisiana has 187,854 eligible profiles and 7.74% density; Georgia has 476,441 and 7.65%. Georgia offers more than twice the absolute supply, while Louisiana has a slightly higher profile-to-user ratio. The distinction matters when choosing between a broad recruitment pool and a smaller regional test. [1]

The two states reach their high density in different ways:

• Georgia has a mixed pool: 9.9% of its creators have 10k+ followers, close to the national 10.8%, and it records 302 mega profiles.
• Louisiana is dense almost entirely in small creators. Only 5.2% have 10k+ followers, and it has just 20 mega profiles.

Figure 26 → Louisiana and Georgia: near-identical creator density, very different pools. Source: [1].

Mississippi: High Density Despite a Smaller Estimated Audience

Mississippi records 98,071 profiles against 1.42M estimated users. Its 6.91% density is about 49% above the national benchmark, even though its estimated audience-to-population ratio is only 48.1%, the third-lowest of any state. Audience scale and relative creator supply clearly do not move in lockstep. [1]

Mississippi is the clearest case of a nano-creator state:

• Only 3.1% of its creators have 10,000+ followers.
• It has the lowest unclassified share in the country (11.1%), consistent with a pool of personal rather than brand accounts.
• It has the lowest median household income of any state, at $59,127 in 2024, yet ranks sixth for creators per resident. Wealth does not predict creator supply (section 09). [1, 12]

Hawaii: Small Market with an Above-Average Ratio

Hawaii contributes just 0.6% of US eligible profiles, but its 6.20% density is sixth-highest among states, and it ranks fifth for creators per resident (35.0 per 1,000). That combination illustrates why a market can be strategically interesting without appearing in the top ten by volume. A local campaign still needs evidence that the creator's audience is local. [1]

Hawaii's pool leans towards larger creators (11.0% with 10k+ followers, above the national 10.8%). It also has the third-highest unclassified share (30.9%). Both patterns fit a tourism economy with many travel and hospitality accounts, a hypothesis that state-level niche data could test (section 09).

TikTok has about 9.5 influencer-eligible profiles per 100 estimated users, against Instagram's 4.64. On these inputs, TikTok's relative creator supply is roughly twice Instagram's. The comparison is contextual, the TikTok figures have not been reconciled with the Instagram export's geography, eligibility criteria or collection date. [1, 4]

At a glance

• Instagram has a bigger audience. Its estimated 192.6M users are about 26% more than TikTok's 153.0M.
• TikTok has a bigger creator pool. Its 14.5M eligible profiles are about 62% more than Instagram's 8.94M.
• The two facts point in opposite directions. On Instagram there are about 21.5 estimated users for every eligible profile; on TikTok, about 10.6.
• Category evidence favours Instagram on trust. In Influencity's supplements study, Instagram led TikTok on positive sentiment, disclosure and the study's trust index.

Figure 28 → Contextual platform comparison, not a like-for-like census. Density is the profile count divided by the estimated user count. Sources: [1, 4].

A Larger User Base Is Not the Same as a Larger Influencer Pool

On these inputs, Instagram's estimated audience is about 26% larger, while TikTok's profile count is about 62% higher, so TikTok's density is roughly twice Instagram's. Put another way, each eligible Instagram profile is set against about 21.5 estimated users, compared with about 10.6 on TikTok. These are arithmetic comparisons of the supplied figures. They are not proof that one platform offers twice as many suitable or available partners, and "users per profile" is a market-level ratio, not the audience any individual creator can reach. [1, 4]

Figure 29 → Instagram has the larger estimated audience; TikTok has the larger creator pool. Each panel uses its own scale; users per eligible profile is a market-level ratio, not individual reach. Sources: [1, 4].

What the Density Gap Means for Brands

A denser influencer market gives brands more candidates to choose from, which can make TikTok a practical place to test many creators quickly, especially for campaign briefs that need volume or variety. A less dense market means each creator is competing with fewer peers for a larger estimated audience, which may help established Instagram creators hold attention.

What Our Supplements Study Adds on Platform Differences

In Influencity's supplements study (5,000+ sponsored posts, US and Mexico, January–June 2025), Instagram led TikTok on every trust and compliance measure reported: [7]

YouTube sat between the two on sentiment (51% positive) and disclosure (70%), but the study did not report a trust score for it. Among the platforms the trust index scored, Instagram ranked highest. These results describe one regulated category in one six-month window, and they do not establish that Instagram outperforms TikTok in general. [7]

Bringing the Two Pictures Together

The density data and the category evidence suggest different strengths. TikTok offers more creators relative to its audience, which favours broad discovery and creative testing. In the supplements sample, Instagram showed stronger sentiment, disclosure and trust, which matters most for categories where credibility and compliance carry weight, such as health, beauty and finance. A reasonable starting hypothesis for a cross-platform campaign is to use TikTok to find and test creators at scale, and Instagram where trust and clear disclosure are central to the brief. Influencity's food study points the same way: its strongest California format was aesthetic TikTok video, while New York leaned on reviews and lists (section 14). [7, 8]

Key Takeaways

1. TikTok's influencer pool is about twice as dense as Instagram's on the supplied figures, though Instagram's estimated audience is larger.
2. Density measures choice, not quality: neither platform's count shows which creators will perform.
3. Plan per platform, deduplicate creators across platforms, and never add the two totals together.

Influencity's earlier US Instagram studies provide useful reference points. The US Influencer Marketing Study 2020 edition reported 8.3M influencers and 89.9M Instagram users. The US Influencer Marketing Study 2023 edition reported 10.2M influencers and 103.7M users, with 2022 as the underlying reference year. The 2026 figures come from the current 50-state data analysis.

Key findings

• More profiles than 2020, fewer than 2023. The 2026 count is 8.0% above the 2020 edition but 12.3% below the 2023 edition: there is no uninterrupted growth line.
• The estimated audience has more than doubled since 2020 (+114.3%), so creator density has roughly halved, from 9.21% to 4.64%.
• The creator pool is spreading out. California's share fell 5.78 points, and the top ten states now hold 69.1% of profiles, down from 72.3%.
• Florida is the biggest winner, rising from fourth to third, with 35.3% more profiles and +1.72 points of share.
• Against other regions, the US has the highest reach but a mid-table creator density. Without each region's largest market, the US becomes the most creator-dense of the three.

Reported Counts Don’t Show Uninterrupted Instagram Influencer Growth

The 2026 profile count is 8.0% above the 2020 edition's 8,279,357 but 12.3% below the 10.2M in the 2023 edition. Estimated users are 114.3% above the 2020 figure and 85.7% above the 2023 edition's. Because the audience estimate grew far faster than the profile count, the ratio of profiles to users fell from 9.21% to 4.64%. These are changes in reported counts, not independently established market growth or decline. [1–3]

Differences in database coverage, account eligibility, geographic assignment, estimated-user sources or collection timing could contribute to the gaps. The aggregate figures do not isolate those effects. In particular, a lower profile-to-user ratio does not show that creators left Instagram, it is at least as likely to reflect a larger audience estimate.

Which States Gained or Lost Share of the Recorded Pool?

California's share of recorded profiles fell from 26.0% to 20.2% (−5.78 percentage points), and it is the only state with fewer recorded profiles in 2026 than in the 2020 data. Florida gained the most share, +1.72 points, rising from fourth to third place. Share comparisons are less exposed to changes in total coverage than raw counts, but they still inherit method differences. [1, 2]

Figure 30 → State share of recorded profiles, 2020 data versus 2026. The chart shows reported shares, not creator migration.[1, 2].

Highlights

• The market is less concentrated. California and New York together held 38.7% of 2020 profiles and 32.7% in 2026. Every other top-ten state held or gained share, except New York, Texas and Tennessee.
• The middle of the ranking reshuffled. North Carolina rose from seventh to sixth and Illinois from eighth to seventh, while Pennsylvania slipped from sixth to eighth.
• The fastest growth came from smaller states. New Jersey (+50.7%), Montana (+50.3%), New Hampshire (+43.8%), Nevada (+41.8%) and Rhode Island (+40.2%) recorded the largest percentage increases, from smaller bases.
• Texas and Tennessee likely gained share. Both appear to lose share slightly. Texas grew about 20.8% and gained 0.77 points, and Tennessee grew about 22.5% and gained 0.27 points. The 2020 data's Texas and Tennessee unclassified totals equal their male totals, overstating 2020 by about 108,499 profiles.

2027–2029: Exponential Scenarios, Not a Market Prediction

For planning sensitivity only, the table below applies N(y) = 8,943,596 × (1 + r)^(y − 2026). The contraction rate of −3.23% is the mechanical annualised change from 10.2M in 2022 to the current 2026 count; the expansion rate of +1.30% is the equivalent 2020–2026 calculation using the 2020 edition's 8,279,357. The flat case assumes no change. For reference, a log-linear fit across all three snapshots gives +0.64% a year; with three points and two method breaks it has no predictive weight.

Figure 31 → Reported snapshots (markers) are not a harmonised time series; dashed lines are scenarios, not measured or interpolated values. Sources: [1–3].

These cases are deliberately not averaged into a central estimate and carry no probabilities or confidence intervals. The inputs are snapshots with changing definitions, not a harmonised time series; the 2020 value may also be overstated by about 108,499 profiles. The model does not establish exponential market growth. 

Creator counts must not be converted into industry revenue, spending or employment estimates without independent supporting data.

The US has the highest estimated Instagram reach relative to population of the three regions in Influencity's 2026 data, but the smallest recorded creator pool. Its 8.94M influencer-eligible profiles compare with 12.40M across 30 European markets and 18.35M across 20 LATAM markets.

On creator density, the US (4.64%) sits between Europe (4.21%) and LATAM (5.67%). That ranking changes once each region's largest market is removed: the US moves to first and LATAM to last. [1, 9, 10]

All three Influencity’s Instagram Influencer Marketing Studies share the same field structure and metric definitions, so the comparison is closer than most cross-region benchmarks.

Figure 33 →Five comparable ratios for the three regions. Each panel uses its own scale. Sources: [1, 9, 10]

The Highest Reach, a Mid-Table Influencer Density

The US has the highest ratio of estimated Instagram users to population: 56.5%, against 49.6% in LATAM and 43.9% in Europe. Relative to residents, its creator supply (26.2 profiles per 1,000) is close to LATAM's (28.2) and well above Europe's (18.5). Relative to the platform audience, US creator density is 4.64%: above Europe but below LATAM, whose lead comes almost entirely from Brazil (8.57%). [1, 9, 10]

Remove Each Region's Largest Market & the Ranking Changes

Excluding California, the remaining 49 states have a density of 4.21%. Europe falls to 4.13% without Russia, and LATAM drops to 3.42% without Brazil. On this basis, the US is the most creator-dense region of the three. The change is small for the US because California is a fifth of its profiles. Brazil, by contrast, is two-thirds of LATAM's pool. [1, 9, 10]

Figure 33 → Instagram creator density with and without each region's largest market. Sources: [1, 9, 10].

The US Sits Between Europe's Uniformity & LATAM's Extremes

US state densities range 6.2-fold, from 1.58% in South Dakota to 9.80% in New York. European markets range only 2.1-fold, from 2.69% in Luxembourg to 5.57% in Cyprus. LATAM markets range 14.8-fold, from 0.58% in Cuba to 8.57% in Brazil.

Nine of the 50 states exceed the US benchmark, the same count as Europe's 30 markets. Only three of LATAM's 20 markets exceed theirs. In all three regions the weighted benchmark sits above the median market, because the largest markets are also among the densest. The gap is widest in LATAM (5.67% against a 3.11% median), where a typical market looks very different from the regional average. [1, 9, 10]

Figure 34 → Spread of creator density across US states, European markets and LATAM markets, with each region's median and benchmark. Sources: [1, 9, 10].

Similar Gender Split and Tier Shape, Different Classification Coverage

The female share of classified profiles is within 1.3 percentage points across the three regions: 60.2% in the US, 59.8% in Europe and 61.1% in LATAM. Nano profiles make up roughly 87–89% of each region's pool, though the US figure uses a different denominator (see table note).

The US has the lowest unclassified share (21.5%, against 25.1% in LATAM and 31.6% in Europe), so its classified figures describe more of its pool. At the top tier the regions diverge: the US mega tier is at parity (49.9% male among classified records), while Europe and LATAM both have male majorities of about 55%. [1, 9, 10]

Reported Counts Moved in Different Directions

Against each region's previous edition, the recorded US count is 12.3% lower, Europe's is 17.8% higher and LATAM's is 2.9% lower. Since 2020, the US is up 8.0%, Europe about 44.2% and LATAM about 52.9%, all against rounded or provisional baselines. [1–3, 9, 10]

Conclusions

1. Don't understand the variations as a trend line. The three editions show a larger audience estimate and a broadly stable profile count, not a shrinking creator market.
2. US creator supply is spreading beyond the coasts. California's falling share, Florida's rise and fast growth in smaller states point to a wider recruitment map than in 2020.
3. The US is the most balanced of the three regions. Its national benchmark is a fair guide to most states. LATAM's isn't, because Brazil dominates it, and Europe's markets are the most uniform.
4. Per resident, the US and LATAM have similar creator supply; Europe is thinner. Size discovery by the absolute pool in the target market, not by regional averages.

The 2026 Instagram Influencer Marketing Study counts profiles. It has no engagement, sentiment, disclosure or conversion fields, so on its own it cannot say which creators perform. Two recent Influencity studies measured those things in specific categories. Their findings are useful context for the creator pool described above, but they use different samples, platforms and periods. Their figures describe those samples, not the 8.94M US Instagram profiles. [7, 8]

Key findings

• Smaller creators earned the highest engagement in supplements: about 2.4 times the celebrity rate in a high-engagement sample.
• They also drove the most food conversation: micro-creators made up more than half of tagged posts.
• Instagram led on every trust and compliance measure in supplements: sentiment, disclosure, disclosure placement, claim compliance and the trust index.
• Disclosure paid off: clearly labelled sponsored posts performed 12% better on long-term engagement.
• One in seven supplement posts carried a compliance risk, making potentially non-compliant health or disease claims.
• Independent food-study ratings match this study's density ranking for all five states compared.

Smaller Influencers Lead in Both Categories, on Different Measures

In the supplements study sample, average engagement fell steadily with audience size: a reported 57% for micro-creators (under 100k followers), 38% for macro-creators (100k–1M) and 24% for celebrities (over 1M), so micro-creators earned about 2.4 times the celebrity rate. In the food study, micro-influencers accounted for more than half of tagged posts in the social-listening sample. [7, 8]

Figure 35 → Average engagement rate by creator tier in Influencity's supplements study. The tiers are not the same as this study's: there, "micro" covers everything under 100k followers. Source: [7].

The study does not define its engagement rate, and its sample only included posts with 500+ comments from creators with an engagement-to-follower ratio of at least 2%. Quote the direction (higher for smaller tiers) rather than the absolute values.

This complements section 08. That section shows that about 89% of eligible US Instagram profiles are nano-sized, and this study shows that profiles under 10,000 followers make up at least 81% of every state's pool, from 81.4% in California to 97.8% in West Virginia. The category studies suggest that this large base of smaller creators is also where engagement (supplements) and conversation volume (food) concentrate. [1, 7, 8]

Instagram Influencer Marketing Leads on Positive Sentiment, Disclosure & Trust in the Supplements Study

Figure 36 → Sentiment, disclosure and claim compliance by platform in the supplements sample. Source: [7].

Instagram led on every measure the study reported: 10 points ahead of TikTok on positive sentiment, 12 points on explicit disclosure, 11 points on disclosure placement and 8 points on avoiding medical claims. The trust index shows the widest gap: 69 for Instagram against 23 for TikTok, three times higher. YouTube sat between the two on disclosure and compliance but had the lowest positive sentiment (51%) and the highest negative share (19%), and it received no trust score. [7]

Disclosure Did Not Cost Engagement

Posts that clearly disclosed a sponsorship with #ad or #sponsored performed 12% better on long-term engagement (saves, shares and repeat comments) than undisclosed or ambiguous posts. Content built on routines and personal progress drove nearly three times the engagement of hard-sell posts. Meanwhile, 15% of analysed posts, about one in seven, made potentially non-compliant health or disease claims, mostly for weight-loss and gut-health products. These are observed associations in one category, not controlled tests. [7]

Food Discovery in Five of the Largest Influencer Markets

The food study's five states include all four of this study's top four states by eligible profiles, plus Illinois (seventh); Georgia, fifth by profiles, was not covered. The study's qualitative ratings of influencer penetration match the density pattern measured here. California and New York, rated very high, have the two highest creator densities. Florida, rated high, is above the benchmark. Texas and Illinois, rated medium, sit below it. The two approaches are independent, so the agreement is reassuring, but it compares ratings with ratios and is not a statistical validation. [1, 8]

Figure 37 → Creator density in this study set against the food study's influencer-penetration ratings. Sources: [1, 8].

The food study's social-listening data also show who is talking: people aged 25–34 wrote 39.11% of the mentions, the largest age group. Its strategic recommendation, to combine national creators for awareness with city-level micro-creators for foot traffic, fits the concentration pattern in section 03: large creators cluster in California and New York, while smaller creators make up the large majority of every state's pool. [1, 8]

Third-Party Figures Quoted in the Two Studies

Both studies also quote outside research. These figures are attributed below:

Neither category study measures the 8.94M profiles in this study, but together they answer the question which creators perform. The answer, in two categories, is consistent. Smaller creators drive engagement and conversation, transparent disclosure supports performance, and Instagram carries the most trust where credibility matters. Treat these as tested hypotheses for their own category, then confirm them with their own campaign data.

The practical use of this study is to improve the order of campaign decisions: map the available supply, establish audience fit, vet and activate creators individually, then measure outcomes. State-level counts are a starting point for discovery, not a substitute for campaign evidence. The twelve recommendations below follow that sequence and draw on the findings in sections 02–13.

Figure 38 → The campaign decision sequence, with the evidence from this study that informs each step. Sources: [1, 4, 7].

At a glance: what the evidence supports

• Discovery is broad, but concentrated. 8.94M eligible profiles, with 54.7% in five states. [1]
• Supply relative to the audience varies widely. State density ranges from 1.58% to 9.80%, and only nine states exceed the 4.64% benchmark. [1]
• Smaller creators dominate every state. Profiles under 10,000 followers are at least 81% of every state's pool. [1]
• Smaller influencers performed in both category studies: highest engagement in supplements, most conversation in food. [7, 8]
• Platforms play different roles. TikTok has about twice Instagram's creator density, while Instagram led on trust and disclosure in supplements. [4, 7]
• Transparency pays. Disclosed sponsored posts performed 12% better on long-term engagement. [7]

Step 1: Map supply

1. Build a Discovery Universe, then a Qualified Shortlist

Start with high-supply states when the brief needs a broad choice of creators. California, New York, Florida, Texas and Georgia hold 4.90M eligible profiles, 54.7% of the US total (section 02). Then narrow by category, audience geography, relevant language, content quality, recent activity and brand suitability. Track how many candidates survive each filter rather than treating all eligible profiles as usable supply. [1]

2. Combine Pool Size and Density When Choosing States

Pool size tells you how many candidates exist; density tells you how much creator supply there is relative to the platform audience. Used together, they split the map into clear roles (Figure 38):

• Scale markets with high density: California, New York, Florida and Georgia. Large pools and above-benchmark density make them the default starting point for broad discovery.
• Scale markets with lower density: Texas, Illinois, North Carolina and Pennsylvania. Large pools, but each creator is set against a bigger estimated audience. Texas has about 27 estimated users per eligible profile, against about 13 in Louisiana. [1]
• High-density test markets: Louisiana, Mississippi, Hawaii, Tennessee and Alabama. Smaller pools with above-benchmark density.

Figure 39 → Pool size against creator density for all 50 states. Density is relative supply, not performance. Source: [1]

3. Test Smaller High-Density Markets Deliberately

Louisiana (187,854 profiles; 7.74% density), Mississippi (98,071; 6.91%) and Hawaii (50,087; 6.20%) have above-average relative supply but much smaller absolute pools than California or New York (section 05). Use them as test markets when the brand has a relevant product, retail footprint or audience hypothesis. Validate followers' actual locations before calling a partnership local: creator location does not establish where followers live. [1]

4. Look Beyond the Traditional Influencer Hubs

The recorded pool is less concentrated than in 2020. California's share fell from 26.0% to 20.2%, and the top ten states' share fell from 72.3% to 69.1%. Florida's count rose 35.3%, and several smaller states, including New Jersey, Montana and New Hampshire, grew by more than 40% (section 12). Methods differ between snapshots, but the direction supports widening recruitment beyond California and New York rather than relying on them by default. [1, 2]

Step 2: Establish Fit

5. Match Influencer Tiers to the Job, Not a Universal Ranking

About 89% of eligible profiles have fewer than 10,000 followers, and they make up at least 81% of every state's pool. Larger profiles cluster heavily: California and New York hold 79.2% of mega and 67.6% of macro profiles (section 08). A practical portfolio combines smaller profiles for niche relevance, local reach and creative testing with a few larger profiles for broad distribution. Influencity's category studies support testing this. In supplements, micro-creators earned about 2.4 times the celebrity engagement rate, in a sample filtered for high engagement. In food, micro-creators produced more than half of tagged posts (section 14). Never convert follower counts into guaranteed reach. [1, 7, 8]

6. Report Gender and Tier Mix with their Denominators

Female-classified profiles are 60.2% of classified profiles, but 21.5% of all profiles have no gender classification (section 07). When a brief specifies creator gender, report the classified base and the unclassified share alongside it. When briefing internationally, remember that Europe's unclassified share is higher, at 31.6% (section 13). [1, 9]

7. Use Each Region's Own Benchmark in Multi-Region Programmes

The US national density is a fair guide to most states, but regional averages can mislead elsewhere. LATAM's benchmark is driven by Brazil, which holds two-thirds of its pool, and its market densities range 14.8-fold. Size discovery by the absolute pool in each target market, not by regional averages (section 13). [1, 9, 10]

Step 3: Validate and Activate

8. Choose Each Platform for Its Role

On the supplied benchmark, TikTok has about twice Instagram's creator density, a deeper pool for discovery and creative testing. In Influencity's supplements study, Instagram led on positive sentiment (68% vs 58%), explicit disclosure (78% vs 66%) and the trust index (69 vs 23). That makes it a strong candidate for briefs where credibility matters (sections 11 and 14). Build separate platform shortlists and deduplicate creators who appear on both: adding the two platforms' totals overstates unique people. [4, 7]

9. Make Disclosure a Performance Standard

In the supplements study, posts with a clear #ad or a #sponsored label performed 12% better on long-term engagement than undisclosed or ambiguous posts. Write disclosure into every contract, specify placement (above the fold, not buried in hashtags) and check it before content goes live. US rules require clear disclosure of paid relationships in any case. [7]

10. Build Compliance into Briefs for Regulated Categories

About one in seven supplement posts (15%) made potentially non-compliant health or disease claims, mostly for weight-loss and gut-health products (section 14). In health, wellness, finance and other regulated categories, give creators approved claims and prohibited phrases, require pre-approval of scripts, and monitor posts after publication. [7]

11. Brief for Authentic, Local Formats, Not Scripts

Routine and personal-progress content drove nearly three times the engagement of hard-sell posts in the supplements sample. In the food study, the strongest format differed by state: aesthetic TikTok videos in California, reviews and lists in New York, taste tests in Texas, travel food content in Florida (section 14). Brief creators on the message and the guardrails, then let them choose the format their audience responds to. [7, 8]

Step 4: Measure and Learn

12. Measure the Result the Campaign Was Designed to Produce, and Track the Whole Funnel

For brand awareness, prioritize qualified reach, view quality and frequency. For consideration, examine relevant saves, shares, site visits and search activity. For sales, use tagged links, codes and appropriate conversion or incrementality analysis. Set attribution windows and paid-reuse rules in advance. A save is a behavioural signal, not proof of a purchase.

Alongside outcomes, keep separate counts for profiles discovered, qualified, contacted, replies, signed collaborations and completed deliverables (Figure 38). This shows whether the real constraint is supply, fit, response rate, negotiation or execution, and builds a benchmark for the next campaign.

Figure 40 → Metrics by campaign objective, and what each cannot prove. Sources: [7].

2026 planning checklist

• Size the discovery universe by state, then record how many candidates survive each filter.
• Assign each target state a role: scale market or test market.
• Validate audience location, language and authenticity for every shortlisted creator.
• Build a tier portfolio weighted towards smaller creators, with a few larger profiles for distribution.
• Shortlist per platform, deduplicate, and match each platform to the brief.
• Write disclosure, approved claims and placement rules into every contract.
• Agree metrics, attribution windows and reuse rights before launch.
• Track the full recruitment funnel and keep the data for the next campaign.

Turn the market map into a relevant creator shortlist. Explore influencer discovery with Influencity. [5]

This is an analytical and descriptive study of the US Instagram influencer market, built on Influencity's own data. It draws on three layers of evidence, kept separate throughout. The core is a 2026 export from Influencity's influencer database. Influencity's earlier and companion studies add historical and regional context, and its category studies add performance evidence. External and third-party inputs are used only as context, and each is labelled with its status.

Where the Numbers Come from

Every statistic in this study comes from Influencity's own data and tools: the 2026 export of Influencity's influencer database, the Influencity platform's Monitoring Tool, and Influencity's earlier and companion studies. The only exceptions are the contextual inputs named in this section: the population and estimated-user fields, the TikTok benchmark and the third-party statistics quoted in our category studies. Each is labelled with its source and status wherever it appears.

Derived figures, such as ratios, shares and changes, are direct calculations from the source values, and each can be traced to the study table it comes from. Sentiment shares in the supplements study were classified by the natural language processing built into Influencity's Monitoring Tool, with disclosure and compliance coded manually.

Figure 41 → Sources, checks and readiness for this study. A profile-level census or independently audited sampling frame is not implied. Sources: [1–4, 6–10].

Evidence Used in this Study

Source and Unit of Analysis

The primary data is an export from Influencity's influencer database, which indexes public creator profiles across Instagram, TikTok and YouTube for influencer discovery [+350 public profiles]. For this study, Instagram profiles located in the US were aggregated by state, with fields for population, estimated Instagram users, eligible profiles, gender classification and follower tier. The unit counted is an Instagram profile, not a unique individual, business, campaign or paid partnership. One person or brand can hold several profiles. [1]

Geographic Coverage

The study covers 50 US states. The District of Columbia and US territories are not separately represented. "US total" means the sum of those 50 state rows. State attribution describes the profile location recorded in Influencity's database; it does not establish citizenship, legal residence or where a creator's followers live. [1]

Eligibility and Follower Tiers

"Influencer-eligible profile" means a public profile that meets the study's eligibility and follower filters. Profiles are grouped into four follower bands: nano (under 10k), micro (10k–100k), macro (100k–1M) and mega (1M+). The minimum nano threshold, age rules and boundary treatment form part of the release documentation. Inclusion does not demonstrate professional status, campaign participation, purchasing influence or availability. [1, 4]

Influencity's Social Listening Tools

The 2026 data counts profiles but holds no performance data. To show how creators actually perform, this study draws on two Influencity category studies, each built with a different Influencity tool:

• Supplements study [7]: produced with the Influencity Monitoring Tool. It covers 5,000+ sponsored posts on TikTok, Instagram and YouTube in the US and Mexico, January–June 2025. Comment sentiment was classified with natural language processing. Disclosure and health-claim compliance were coded manually, with inter-coder agreement checked on a 15% sample (Cohen's kappa above 0.80). The sample included only posts with 500+ comments from creators with an engagement-to-follower ratio of at least 2%.
• Food study [8]: produced with Influencity Social Listening. It covers 10,568 social mentions across TikTok, Instagram and YouTube in California, New York, Texas, Florida and Illinois, plus a 20-creator dataset and nine brand case studies.

These studies use different samples, platforms and periods from the 2026 study. Their figures are always labelled with their source and are never combined with the profile counts.

Previous Influencity Studies

Influencity published earlier US studies in 2020 [2] and 2023 [3]. Their reported totals give historical reference points in section 12. 2020 edition totals exactly (8,279,357 profiles; 89,892,000 users) and carries state rows, which allow the 2020-to-2026 share comparison.

Comparison with Europe and Latin America

This study is part of a series of 2026 Influencity studies. Section 13 compares the US with the companion studies of Instagram in Europe (30 markets) [9] and Latin America (20 markets) [10]. All three studies use workbooks with the same field structure and the same metric definitions, and every ratio is recalculated from unrounded market rows. That makes the comparison closer than most cross-region benchmarks.

Two differences remain: user estimates come from different sources in each region, and US states are not equivalent to countries. The Europe and LATAM figures were taken from the companion studies.

External and Third-Party Data

• Population and estimated users. The population (341.1M) and estimated Instagram user (192.6M) fields come with the data and are used as denominators. The population figure is of the same order as recent Census Bureau estimates in 2025.
• Census Bureau median age (section 06). Age comparison used the median age by state from the American Community Survey (table B01002) or the Population Estimates Program, using the vintage that matches the population field. [6]
• BEA and Census economic data (section 09). The niche analysis uses GDP per capita or median household income, and industry shares of state GDP. [6]
• TikTok benchmark (section 11). Users and profiles from the "From Influencity's 2026 TikTok US study [4]" 
• Third-party statistics in the category studies (section 14). Listed with the source of each study name and a verification status. 

Aggregation, Validation and Corrections

• Totals. National population, audience and profile totals were recalculated by summing the 50 state rows. They were then checked against Influencity’s proprietary data stored totals and its presentation sheets.
• Calculations. All percentages, ratios and rankings are calculated from unrounded values. National benchmarks are weighted (total profiles ÷ total users), not averages of state percentages.

Metric Definitions and Research Limitations

Density = eligible profiles / estimated users. Female share excludes unclassified profiles. All figures describe the supplied 2026 data, not verified unique people. All figures describe Influencity's 2026 database export.

Instagram creators by state: full ranking (continued)

National totals: 8,943,596 eligible profiles; 192,606,008 estimated users; 4.64% density; 26.2 profiles per 1,000 residents; 60.2% female share among classified profiles.