We’ve been thinking about this for a while, and we finally started testing it. Our agency is Russia-based, and we’ve been connecting with partners in the US and Europe to co-deliver campaigns for clients that need presence in multiple markets.
So far, we’ve explored a few scenarios:
-
Joint campaigns for global brands: A US beauty brand wanted to test the Russian market and had a partner who needed exposure in the US. We coordinated a two-market influencer campaign. Partner handled US side, we handled Russian creators. Client got simultaneous launches, we both got a larger deal.
-
Sub-contracting arrangements: A European partner brings us a brief for influencer production in Russia. We execute, take a margin, they maintain the client relationship. Pretty straightforward.
-
Shared creator networks: This is newer. We’re experimenting with showcasing our Russian creator network to US/European partners, in exchange for access to their creator networks. Could be interesting for co-creation opportunities later.
Here’s what’s working: clarity of roles. When both partners know exactly who’s responsible for what, timelines are shorter, and clients get better results.
Here’s what’s painful: time zones, communication delays, and figuring out who owns what financially. We had one deal where two partners were unclear on commission splitting, and it turned into a nightmare.
I’m curious about who’s actually doing this at scale. How are you structuring these partnerships? What’s actually making money, and what’s just creating extra complexity?
This is such an exciting direction! Cross-border partnerships are where real growth happens, but yeah, they require clear structure.
From what I’m seeing in the community, the partnerships that work best are the ones where people actually play to their strengths. You own Russian creators and execution. Your partner owns US/European relationships and client development. Neither of you tries to do both.
The commission splitting problem you mentioned—that’s super common. What I’ve seen work: agree on a tiered commission structure upfront. Like, 'Partner A brings client and primary relationship (higher commission). Partner B executes (lower commission, but gets paid faster.) Everyone knows the deal before work starts.
Also, have you formalized these partnerships at all? Like, even a simple one-page agreement can save so much headache.
I know several agencies doing this really well. Want to connect with them?
Let’s quantify this. What are the actual economics?
For your first scenario (joint two-market campaign):
- What was total campaign value?
- How much went to each partner?
- What was your margin after paying creators and internal costs?
- How much time did partnership coordination consume versus solo delivery?
For scenario two (sub-contracting):
- What margins are you taking (typical range)?
- Project volume per quarter?
- Are these repeat partners or one-offs?
- What’s your cost of sales for these deals? (Probably lower than direct client work.)
For scenario three (creator network sharing):
- This is the least proven model. Have you actually converted any cross-border co-creation deals yet?
- What would the financial split look like?
The reason I ask is that partnership often feels good (shared burden, network effect, etc.), but sometimes it’s economically inferior to either going solo or hiring in-house. You need the numbers to know if this path actually makes financial sense.
What does profitability look like right now?
We’ve been doing this with SaaS—partnering with European and US resellers to expand geographically. A few hard-won lessons:
-
Start with a test: One small project with a potential partner tells you way more than conversations. That’s how you learn about their actual reliability, communication style, and financial expectations.
-
Put everything in writing: The time zone and communication delays you mentioned—those compound fast. Written agreements about roles, deadlines, and pay terms reduce friction dramatically. Like, ‘Partner A delivers brief by X date. Partner B responds by Y date. Deliverables due by Z.’ Sounds rigid, but it prevents arguments.
-
Separate client relationship from partnership: You mentioned ‘partner maintains client relationship.’ That’s actually a problem long-term because the client depends on one person. Could the partnership break? Then the client is stuck. I’d recommend transitioning key client relationships to be known to both sides.
-
Revenue share vs. fixed fee: For sub-contracting, fixed fee is cleaner. You deliver, you get paid. Less fighting about percentages later.
Have you thought about whether these partnerships are temporary (project-based) or long-term strategic partnerships?
Okay, here’s the real talk: joint campaigns are harder than they sound, but they’re definitely worth doing if you structure them right.
What’s working for us:
-
Lead model: One partner owns the client relationship. The other is a sub-contractor or co-deliverer. Ownership clarity is everything. The lead partner makes final decisions, takes commission, and is accountable to the client. The other partner executes and gets paid for deliverables. Clear boundary.
-
SOPs for partnership: We have a process document for every partnership type. Like, ‘US Partner + Russian Partner’ has its own playbook. Who communicates with the client? Who approves creatives? Who handles revisions? Template it all.
-
Payment terms: We don’t do commission splits. We do fixed deliverable fees. ‘You deliver X UGC videos, you get paid Y.’ No negotiation mid-project. Cleaner.
-
Partner vetting: We do at least two small projects with a potential partner before committing to larger deals. That tells you everything about reliability.
One more thing: time zones are actually a feature, not a bug, if you use it right. While your US partner sleeps, you’re working. Deliverables can move fast if you optimize for it.
How many active partnerships do you have right now? And which of these scenarios is actually generating revenue?
From a creator’s perspective, multi-market campaigns are awesome when they’re organized, but chaotic when they’re not.
If you’re coordinating Russian creators with US partners, make sure there’s one person managing the creative brief and feedback. When creators get conflicting notes from multiple partners, content quality drops.
Also, payment reliability matters. Creators don’t care which partner technically hired them—they just want to get paid on time. If there’s a dispute between partners about commission, don’t let the creator suffer.
One suggestion: be transparent with creators about the partnership structure. Like, ‘You’re working with us, but we’re partnering with a US agency on this campaign.’ That builds trust.
The other thing—if you’re sharing creator networks with partners, make sure there’s a clear agreement about exclusivity. Like, can the US partner hire your creators directly for future projects? That matters to you and to the creators.
You’re thinking about this right, but let me reframe strategically.
Cross-border partnerships aren’t just about expanding reach. They’re about accessing markets you can’t serve alone. The key is thinking about which partnerships actually create competitive advantage.
Type 1 partnerships (what you’re doing): Complementary execution. You do Russia, they do US. These are good for revenue growth but not defensible long-term. Anyone can find a US partner tomorrow.
Type 2 partnerships (what you should be building): Proprietary relationships. Like, you have unique access to a tier of Russian creators. They have unique relationships with premium US brands. Together, you’re relevant to that segment. That’s defensible.
Here’s my question: Are your current partnerships Type 1 (easily replaceable) or Type 2 (hard to replicate)? Because that determines whether scaling them makes strategic sense.
Also, what’s the actual customer acquisition cost for partnership-sourced deals versus direct sales? And lifetime value? That tells you if partnerships are actually efficient for growth or if you’re just spreading yourself thin across too many relationships.
I’d also push on your third scenario (creator network sharing). That’s actually your most differentiated asset—don’t commoditize it. If you’re sharing your best creators with partners who compete with you, you’re potentially weakening your position.