We just wrapped a cross-market influencer campaign that didn’t hit our targets—not a disaster, but clearly underperformed. And now I’m facing a choice: do we write it up and share it internally (or with partners), or let it fade into the past?
Here’s what got me thinking: I’ve learned way more from studying failed or mediocre case studies than from the obvious wins. A winning campaign often succeeds for multiple reasons, so it’s hard to isolate what actually worked. But a failed campaign? That’s a masterclass in what not to do.
The flip side is that documenting failures feels risky. What if stakeholders use it against us later? What if it damages our credibility with partners who see us as less experienced?
But then I see how much time we waste repeating the same mistakes because we never formally document what went wrong. We learned something in Q2, forgot it by Q3, and made the same error in Q4.
I’m curious: how many of you actually maintain playbooks that include honest case studies about what didn’t work? And if you do, how do you frame them internally so they’re seen as learnings rather than failures? Are there specific formats or structures that make failed campaigns more useful to your team?
Also—if you’re working across Russian and US markets, do you find that failures in one market show up differently than the other? I’m wondering if the learning curve is market-specific.
100% document the failures. This is one of the hardest lessons I learned as a founder.
We used to hide underperforming campaigns because I was embarrassed. Wasted months repeating similar mistakes. Finally, I started a “Lessons Log” where we document every campaign (good, bad, average) with three fields: What we expected, what actually happened, why the gap existed.
That log has saved us thousands of dollars because the team can now reference it. “Hey, remember when we tried organic reach on that audience in March? That case study shows it doesn’t work for this segment.”
The framing matters: reframe it as “learning velocity.” You’re not failing; you’re building institutional knowledge faster than competitors who hide their mistakes.
On the Russia vs. US question: yes, the failures are different. In Russia, we often underestimated the importance of community building before promoting (people want to trust the creator). In the US, we underestimated the cost of customer acquisition and expected too-fast conversions. Different markets, different failure modes.
Do you currently have a template for logging these, or are you starting from scratch?
One more practical tip: when we share failures internally, I always lead with the financial impact of the lesson. “We spent $X to learn that Y doesn’t work—that’s cheaper than learning it on a bigger budget.” That reframes it from “we messed up” to “we invested in knowledge.”
Also, give credit to the people who flag the problem early. It removes the stigma.
The data supports this strongly. Teams that formally document failures have significantly lower repeat-error rates. I compared our Q1-Q2 performance (no failure documentation) with Q3-Q4 (documented failures) and we cut preventable errors by about 65%.
Here’s my structure: For failed campaigns, I log: hypothesis (what we thought would happen), execution (what we actually did), results (what happened), gap analysis (why the difference), and decision rule (what do we do next time?).
The decision rule is crucial. It’s not just "don’t do this again."It’s “do this instead” or “only do this if conditions X are met.” That makes it actionable.
I also tag them by category: market-specific failure, creator-fit issue, audience misalignment, budget allocation mistake, platform choice error. Over time, you see patterns. “Oh, we keep failing when we don’t validate audience overlap before onboarding creators.”
That’s way more useful than just knowing we failed.
On Russia vs. US: I’ve noticed we fail differently in conversion metrics (US campaigns) vs. engagement metrics (Russia campaigns). US failures often come from audience/product mismatch. Russian failures more often come from creator selection or timing issues. The diagnosis informs the playbook.
From a partnership side, I’d say: absolutely document failures, but do it collaboratively with your partners.
When we had a misaligned creator-brand collaboration (happened once, learned a lot), I sat down with both sides and we literally co-wrote the case study. The creator explained their constraints, the brand explained their expectations, everyone understood where the gap was.
That turned a tense situation into a bonding moment. Both sides respected the honesty and felt invested in future success.
If you’re working cross-market, I’d even recommend sharing these documented failures with your partner market. “Here’s what failed for us in Russia, watch out for it in the US.” It builds trust and accelerates the collaborative learning.
People open up way more when you’re vulnerable first.
Have you thought about doing a “failure case study session” with your team or partners to jointly analyze what happened?
Absolutely document failures—but be strategic about who sees them and when.
Internal team? Document everything with full honesty. That’s your competitive advantage—a playbook built on real data.
Stakeholders or external partners? Frame it as risk mitigation, not failure. “Here’s what we learned about audience behavior in [market] that helps us avoid X in future campaigns.”
External public? Only share redacted, anonymized failures—and only when it’s strategically valuable for your brand (thought leadership, demonstrating expertise).
The structure I recommend: Executive summary (2-3 sentences on what happened and why it matters), Hypothesis and execution (what we tried and why), Results and gap analysis (what actually happened and why), Playbook update (how this changes our approach going forward).
On cross-market differences: US audiences punish failed campaigns harder (they expect polish and professionalism), so we document those more carefully for compliance and learning. Russian audiences are more forgiving of rough edges, but failures around trust and authenticity are harder to recover from. Different reputation risks.
Documentation helps you manage those risks proactively.
We run probably 15-20 campaigns monthly across multiple clients and markets. I’ve built a strict protocol: every campaign, win or loss, gets a post-mortem report filed in a shared system.
The ones we learn most from? The mediocre ones. 60-70% performance. Those are complex—something worked, something didn’t, you have to dig.
For client-facing work, failures are tricky. I present them as “optimization opportunities” rather than failures. “This strategy underperformed; here’s three iterations we’ll test.”
But internally, we call them what they are. And yes, we reference failed campaigns constantly in campaign planning. “Remember when we assumed this audience would respond to product-focused content? We tested that in Q2, it didn’t work.”
Cross-market: US clients expect you to not make the same mistake twice—they’ll hold it against you. Russian clients are more collaborative about figuring it out together. That affects how aggressively we document and iterate.
If you want your playbooks to be truly actionable, you need 70% of them to be based on real campaign data (win/loss/mediocre), not theory.
What’s your current version control system for playbooks? Are they living documents or static templates?
As a creator, I actually appreciate when brands are honest about what didn’t work in past campaigns. It helps me understand what they’re trying to do and what they learned.
One time, a brand told me, “Our last campaign underperformed because we picked creators who didn’t authentically use the product. Can you talk about how you use it in your actual life?” That conversation made me a better partner because I understood what they were learning.
I’d say: document failures, but don’t just point fingers at creators or audiences. Usually the issue is somewhere in the strategy or brief. When brands admit that, it creates space for real collaboration.
On the market difference thing: honestly, I think audiences everywhere respond better to authenticity and less to “perfect” campaigns. Failed campaigns usually fail because they feel inauthentic, not because of market differences.