I’ve been wrestling with this for a few months now. We work with brands that have roots in Russia but are scaling into the US market, and every time we try to share campaign results, something gets lost in translation—and I’m not just talking about language.
It’s not just about translating the text. The way we frame objectives, the metrics we prioritize, even what counts as a “win”—it’s all different. Russian partners care deeply about reach and CPA, while US partners want to see ROAS and attribution. And when you’re documenting a case that needs to convince both sides, you end up either over-complicating it or leaving out critical details.
I started thinking: what if we structured case studies with a clear three-part framework that works across both markets? Something like:
- Objectives (what were we actually trying to do, stated in a way that makes sense to each audience)
- Actions (the specific tactics, channels, creators involved—no fluff)
- Results (both quantitative and qualitative, presented in a way that resonates with each market’s priorities)
But here’s where I’m stuck: how do you present numbers when the benchmarks are literally different between markets? How do you make a case study feel cohesive when you’re juggling two different measurement philosophies?
Have any of you actually pulled this off? What’s your approach to documenting campaigns that need to work for audiences on opposite sides of the world?
This is exactly the gap I see most often when agencies try to scale cross-market. You’re right that it’s not just translation—it’s a structural problem. Here’s what I’ve learned: you need a translation layer for metrics, not just language.
What I mean is: don’t try to make one metric universal. Instead, document the campaign in its native metrics first (ROAS for US, CPA for Russia), then add a conversion table. Show how X US metric translates to Y Russian metric. This way, each audience sees their language, but you’re being transparent about the math underneath.
For objectives, I always recommend framing them in business terms first: ‘acquire 500 high-intent customers in the 25-35 age bracket.’ Then you can say ‘in the US, we’ll measure this via ROAS’ and ‘in Russia, we’ll track this via CAC against LTV.’ Same goal, different lenses.
The key is being explicit about why you chose those metrics. That’s what makes it bridge both markets.
I’ve been documenting cross-market cases for about two years now, and I found that the structure you mentioned—objectives, actions, results—works, but only if you add granularity to the results section.
Here’s what I do:
- Core metrics (CTR, conversion rate, engagement)—these are universal and don’t need translation
- Market-specific KPIs (ROAS for US, CPA for Russia) presented side-by-side so they’re visible to both audiences
- Qualitative insights about what actually worked (creator type, content format, time of posting) that transcend metrics
The thing that surprised me: when I stopped trying to make everything universal and instead just transparently showed both perspectives, partners actually respected it more. It felt honest. Like ‘here’s what mattered in each market, and here’s what we learned that applies everywhere.’
One tactical thing: I always include a small ‘methodology’ section that explains the metrics. It takes up maybe 5-10% of the case, but it eliminates confusion downstream.
We just did this with our first big influencer campaign. Honestly, it was messy because we figured it out as we went, but here’s what ended up in the final case study:
We had our Russian team and US team working independently at first, and they came back with completely different narratives. Same campaign, totally different conclusions. That’s when we realized: the case study structure had to force alignment before people started interpreting data.
So we created a shared Google Doc template with locked sections for objectives and actions, but then separate ‘results’ columns for each market. It looked awkward at first, but it worked because there was no ambiguity about what was being measured where.
The unexpected benefit? Halfway through filling it out, the teams started seeing where their strategies diverged and could actually discuss it. Now we’re using that same template for every campaign.
My advice: build the structure with your teams before you need the case study. Figure out the framework when there’s no pressure to ‘make it work.’
Oh, this is such a pain point! I see it every time we’re coordinating between Russian and US creators or brands.
One thing that’s helped me is treating the case study like a partnership document, not just a report. I involve both sides early in the structure-building process, which sounds obvious, but most people don’t do it. They build the case first, then try to translate it.
What works: I ask the Russian stakeholders, ‘What three things do you need to see in a case study to feel convinced?’ and then the US stakeholders the same question. Then I build the structure around those needs. It usually ends up being something like:
- Why we picked these creators (relationship/partnership angle)
- What we asked them to do
- What happened (both hard metrics and creator feedback)
- What we’d do differently next time
The last part is actually crucial for bilingual cases because it shows that nobody’s pretending the campaign was perfect—it creates trust with both audiences.
If you want to talk through your structure before you documentit, I’d honestly love to help. This stuff fuels my life.
We’ve been doing this for client presentations constantly. My team standardized on a four-part framework that’s worked across multiple markets:
Client Brief > Campaign Design > Execution Summary > Results + Learning
Each section has both English and Russian, but more importantly, each section reprises the same information in slightly different ways depending on who’s reading it. The objectives get a ‘creative summary’ for storytellers and a ‘metrics summary’ for analysts.
What I’d add to your three-part model: include a ‘decision framework’ section where you explain why you chose certain channels or creators. That context is what actually sticks with both markets—it’s not just ‘we got X result,’ it’s ‘we got X result because we understood Z about this market.’
Also, don’t underestimate the power of visual comparison tables. I put side-by-side columns for performance in each market, even if the metrics are different. People scan those in seconds and get the full picture.
If you’re building templates, happy to swap notes on what’s worked for us.
From a creator perspective, when I’m reading a case study (especially as potential proof of work for a brand collaboration), I want to know:
- What was the creative brief? What did you actually ask creators to do?
- How many of us were involved and what was our compensation structure?
- What content formats performed best?
- Would you work with us again and under what conditions?
I think the bilingual challenge is partly that brands forget to explain the creative decisions to creators. You can have all the metrics in the world, but if I don’t understand why my TikTok video got prioritized over my Instagram Reel, it feels like the case study isn’t giving me useful info.
If you’re building a template, make sure there’s a section that actually tells the story of which creators did what and why those choices mattered to the campaign. That’s the part that translates across markets without any confusion.
Also, creators always want to know: ‘Can I share my version of this case study in my portfolio?’ That’s a permission thing, but it matters for making the case study feel authentic rather than corporate.