Social media has buzzed with the leaked price quotations of Hang Du Muc, an emerging KOL, which showed that to book Hang Du Muc’s advertising livestreams, one has to pay a sky-high price.

A non-cart-linked livestream ad costs VND120 million. A review video at certain locations, such as a shop, tourist site, or café in HCM City, Hanoi, or Guangzhou (China) is priced at VND300 million. For other provinces, the figure is VND350 million on average, while overseas shoots (outside Vietnam) cost VND450 million.

Meanwhile, each 2-hour exclusive livestream session for a brand costs no less than VND250 million, while clients have to pay VND350 million for 3-hour broadcast.

A media company’s recent price quotation revealed a notable fee for Hang Du Muc’s exclusive TikTok sales livestream: VND325 million for two hours, plus a commission worth 15 percent of revenue.

Vo Quoc Hung, development director at Tonkin Media, said these prices are set based on efficiency and other factors. Despite the high costs, not every brand can collaborate with Hang Du Muc.

“Only about 20 percent of brands, mostly famous brands, can have the opportunities. She prioritizes livestreams to build her personal brand or promote products she owns or has stakes in,” Hung noted.

Other KOLs also set very high rates. Quang Linh Vlogs, for instance, charges VND770 million for a package of three livestreams within a month, with multiple brands. He doesn’t take single bookings, and only holds streams on schedule on Wednesdays, Fridays, and Sundays.

Other prominent KOLs, such as DLA, charge VND225 million for a two-hour exclusive livestream, plus the commission of one percent of revenue. Meanwhile, the charges are VND50-60 million for SLL, TND and CSL.

The 2025 We Are Social’s Digital Report, released earlier this year, showed that the average budget for advertising via KOLs in Vietnam was $84 million (VND2 trillion) in 2024, which truly reflected the bustling and costly influencer marketing market.

Huge earnings, light fines

Digital marketing experts believe that lenient penalties are a key reason behind the rise in KOLs’ false advertising. The current fines are not high enough to deter violators and cannot prevent them from repeating the same move.

On March 20, 2025, the Authority of Broadcasting and Electronic Information (ABEI) under the Ministry of Culture, Sports, and Tourism (MCST) released a decision on fining Nguyen Thi Thai Hang (Hang Du Muc) and Pham Quang Linh (Quang Linh Vlogs) for advertising violations.

The two KOLs falsely promoted Kera vegetable candy, a product of CER Group, manufactured by ASIA LIFE JSC (in Dak Lak). The ad was found to be misleading consumers about its quality. Each of them was fined VND70 million and required to correct the misinformation.

Many people have commented that the fine of VND70 million is too small compared with the income they can expect from the ads.

For some KOLs, VND70 million is just equal to the income from 15–30 minutes of live advertising, excluding sales revenue.

The fines are clearly not proportional with the revenue of hundreds of millions of dong earned per livestream.

Insiders said Kera candy brought revenue of VND24 billion, while Hang Du Muc and Quang Linh Vlogs had only to pay VND70 million each in fine. 

Nguyen Duy Vi, CEO of Buzi Agency, said that given KOLs’ influence and income, such penalties are too weak. 

An exclusive livestream can earn hundreds of millions, plus 10–15 percent commission on product sales. For large-scale (mega) livestreams, billions of VND earnings are normal.

Vi estimated that with frequent livestreams monthly, KOLs’ annual revenue is substantial. Thus, their willingness to risk false advertising and pay fines is predictable.

Notably, after violations, many KOLs or celebrities simply apologize, pay fines, and quietly resume activities shortly after. 

Media expert Nguyen Ngoc Long, while calling this “social media whitewashing,” said that it is the consumers’ leniency which seduces violators to continue their violations. An apology from KOLs is not enough to compensate for the damage to consumers, businesses and the entire market. 

People have called for more severe penalties for these subjects, such as increasing the fine level to act as a deterrent, even "banning" them from social networking platforms, television, or prohibiting them from participating in events. More seriously, criminal prosecution is needed if the violations seriously affect users and society.

Le My