I’ve been wrestling with this problem for a few months now, and I feel like I’m constantly second-guessing myself. We have a bilingual team working with creators in both the US and LATAM, but every time I try to compare their performance side-by-side, the numbers just don’t make sense.
Like, we’ll have a US creator with 500K followers getting 2% engagement and a LATAM creator with 150K followers getting 8% engagement, but when we actually measure conversions or brand sentiment, the results flip. It’s maddening.
I think part of the problem is that we’re not actually looking at authentic performance indicators. We’re stuck comparing vanity metrics like reach and follower count, when what we really need to understand is whether these creators actually have credibility with audiences that care about our brand.
The challenge gets messier when you factor in time zones, platform preferences (TikTok dominates differently in Mexico vs Brazil vs the US), and audience intent. A creator who crushes it with awareness campaigns in LATAM might be completely wrong for a direct-response campaign we’re running in the US.
Have any of you figured out a system for actually benchmarking creator performance across these markets without driving yourselves insane? I’m wondering if the issue is that we should be comparing creators within their own markets first, then choosing our partners based on brand fit, rather than trying to force an apples-to-apples comparison across regions.
This is exactly where most teams blow it. You can’t compare raw engagement rates across markets—the context is completely different. What I’ve found useful is normalizing your metrics by creating market-specific baselines. For example, LATAM creators typically see 3-5x higher engagement rates than equivalent US creators, so comparing a 5% rate to a 2% rate isn’t telling you much. You need to establish what “top performer” means within each market first.
What I actually track now: audience overlap (do they reach your target demographic?), sentiment analysis of comments (are people actually interested in your product category?), and conversion micro-events (clicks, saves, shares) rather than just impressions. The conversion data is where you’ll find the real signal.
For your bilingual campaigns, I’d recommend segmenting your performance analysis by campaign objective. If it’s awareness, different creators will win. If it’s consideration or conversion, you’ll get completely different winners. That’s been a game-changer for us.
One more thing—platform matters more than you probably think. A creator who absolutely crushes TikTok in Brazil might have a dormant Instagram following, and vice versa. We started building creator profiles that show platform-specific performance, which helped us match creators to the actual channels we were planning to use. That reduced a lot of our comparison confusion.
I love this question because it touches on something really important: you need to talk to your creators about their audiences. I know that sounds simple, but most brands skip this step. When I’m vetting partners for cross-market campaigns, I always ask creators about their audience demographics, interests, and where they actually spend time online. A US creator might have followers from LATAM, and vice versa—that overlap is gold for your campaigns.
I’ve also found that creators themselves are often aware of which markets their content resonates in. They know their authentic audience. So rather than forcing a comparison, I encourage brands to have a conversation: “Where do you think your audience would actually connect with this message?” That usually reveals way more than the spreadsheet does.
The creators who are transparent about their audience breakdown and honest about where they’re strongest? Those are the partners who deliver. It’s not about finding the perfect metric—it’s about finding partners who understand their own market positioning.
Also, consider building a small “test cohort” with creators from both regions on one campaign, even if it’s a small budget. Run the same brief with 2-3 LATAM and 2-3 US creators, then compare how they execute and what results you get. That real-world test will teach you more about authentic performance than any metric comparison ever could. Plus, the creators will appreciate the chance to collaborate with brands that are being thoughtful about cross-market work.
Here’s what we’ve built a process around: forget trying to compare creators directly. Instead, compare campaign performance across markets, then work backwards to understand which creators delivered results.
So we’ll run the same campaign brief across 3-4 US creators and 3-4 LATAM creators, measure bottom-line performance (sales, qualified leads, community growth—whatever matters for your business), then see which creators actually moved the needle. The winners in each market become your benchmarks. Then when you’re sourcing new creators, you compare new candidates to your proven winners in their own market.
It’s more work upfront, but it removes the guesswork. You’re not relying on engagement rates or follower counts—you’re relying on a track record of actual business results. That’s how you build a sustainable partner network across markets.
The core issue here is that you’re trying to solve for comparability when you should be solving for relevance. Two completely different questions.
From a strategic standpoint, here’s how I think about it: (1) Who is my target customer in each market? (2) Which creators have authentic access to that audience? (3) What does success look like for each market—is it the same KPI or different?
Once you answer those three questions, the metrics comparison becomes a lot simpler. You’re not asking “which creator is objectively better?” You’re asking “which creator is the right fit for my specific objectives in this specific market?”
In my experience, the brands that struggle most with cross-market influencer work are the ones trying to impose a one-size-fits-all framework. Markets are different. Audiences are different. Winning creators are different. Accept that, and your metrics problem dissolves.
One tactical thing: build a scorecard that includes both quantitative metrics (engagement rate, conversion rate, audience overlap with your target demo) AND qualitative factors (audience quality, creator credibility in their niche, brand alignment, communication style). The quantitative stuff gives you a baseline, but the qualitative stuff is where you actually identify authentic partnerships that will deliver long-term value.
Quick perspective from the creator side: most of us know exactly where our audience is strongest and what types of briefs actually resonate with them. When a brand comes to me with a campaign and asks me to predict performance, I can usually tell you if it’s going to land or not based on my community.
What I notice is that brands often don’t ask for that perspective. They just look at follower count and engagement rate and assume that’s the whole picture. But there’s so much context that doesn’t show up in metrics: my audience might have high engagement because they’re actually invested in my life (loyal), or they might have high engagement because of controversy (not loyal). Those are completely different audiences for your brand.
My suggestion: ask creators to walk you through their audience. Don’t just accept the metrics—ask us to explain them. Why do our followers engage? What kind of content performs? What wouldn’t resonate? That conversation will give you way more clarity about how we’d actually perform for your campaign than any comparison sheet.
Also, price is a huge part of this puzzle. LATAM creators are “cheaper” not because we’re desperate—it’s because the market economics are different. US brands sometimes assume lower price = lower quality, but that’s not always true. A LATAM creator at $2K might deliver the same authentic value as a US creator at $8K because the cost of living is different, the follower base is more authentic (less bot-inflated), and the engagement rates are naturally higher. So when you’re comparing, factor in price-to-value, not just price.