I’ve been running my agency for a few years, mostly working with Russian brands, and I kept hitting the same wall: every client felt like a one-off project. Cold outreach to US agencies was going nowhere, and even when I landed something, it was exhausting to repeat.
Then I started thinking differently about partnerships. Instead of chasing individual clients, I focused on building actual relationships with US-based agencies and strategists. The bilingual hub made this shift possible—I could actually see who was doing what kind of work instead of guessing.
What changed for me was stop thinking about “landing” clients and starting to think about “matching” them. I’d post about a Russian brand looking to enter the US market, and US partners would respond. But here’s the thing: I realized I could formalize this process.
I started documenting what made these matches work. Which brands paired well with which US partners? What was the typical campaign structure? I put together a simple one-pager on how I’d approach a collaboration, shared it with a few trusted partners, and suddenly we had a repeatable framework.
Right now I’m trying to figure out if there’s a way to build something that feels less transactional. Like, do I charge a finder’s fee per deal, or do I structure it more like a retainer where my partners know I’m continuously bringing them vetted brands? The finder’s fee model feels honest, but it also means I’m only earning when something closes. A retainer would give me stability, but I’d need to deliver consistent quality introductions.
What does your agency do when you’re brokering partnerships between markets—are you thinking of it as a one-time matchmaking service, or are you trying to build something more sustainable?
This is exactly where I landed too, and I’ll be direct: the finder’s fee model scales better than you think, but only if you’re ruthless about deal quality. I stopped taking every introduction and started being selective. My partners know that when I send something, it actually converts. That reputation compounds.
What shifted for me was building a simple CRM. I track every intro I make, what happens, and whether the client comes back for a second project with that partner. You’d be surprised how many initial matches turn into repeating collaborations if the first project goes well. That’s when I started positioning myself as the guy who didn’t just make one match—I made relationships that lasted.
The retainer model sounds safer, but it creates a weird incentive. You’re tempted to send weaker matches just to hit a number. I’d rather stay lean with finder’s fees and build a reputation where partners actively ask me: “Do you have anyone for this?”
One more thing I’d add: document everything, but keep it simple. I use a one-page brief template that covers the Russian brand’s goals, the US partner’s strengths, and what success looks like in 60 days. When both sides fill it out, you’ve got a shared language. Prevents a lot of misunderstandings later.
You’re asking the right question, but I’d push back on the structure. The finder’s fee vs. retainer debate assumes you’re purely a broker. What if you’re actually creating value beyond the introduction?
Here’s what I’ve seen work: charge a project coordination fee (not a finder’s fee). So when you make the match, you also structure the brief, manage the handoff, and oversee the first 30 days. That way you’re not just hitting “matchmaker”—you’re delivering a service. The fee is tied to the outcome of the project, not just the introduction.
If you’re just introducing people, yes, finder’s fee. But if you’re actually coordinating the campaign and ensuring it runs smoothly across time zones and languages, that’s a different service entirely, and it’s worth more.
What’s your current involvement after you make the introduction?
Also, the data point I’d want to see: what percentage of your introductions are actually converting into projects? If it’s below 30%, your matching process needs refinement. If it’s above 50%, you might be sitting on something scalable enough to actually formalize into a service offering.
This resonates so much with me! I’ve been doing similar work connecting Russian creators with US brands, and what I learned is that relationships are the real revenue stream, not transactions.
I started a simple database where I’d note which partnerships felt natural and which felt forced. The ones that clicked? I’d introduce them to each other for future projects without taking a cut. Sounds backwards, but it built trust. Now when I do recommend a partnership that needs coordination, everyone knows I’m not just trying to make a quick fee—I’m genuinely thinking about mutual benefit.
Maybe think of the retainer not as “you owe me X per month” but as an ongoing relationship where you’re their dedicated connector. They know you’ll keep bringing quality matches, and they’re willing to pay a small retainer or revenue share when things actually happen.
As someone actually trying to navigate this on the founder side, I’d say: whatever structure you choose, be transparent about it upfront. I’ve been on both sides of partnerships where the broker’s compensation model wasn’t clear until mid-project, and it created friction.
Make it clear whether you’re taking a finder’s fee, a coordination fee, or a retainer. Then stick to it. The partnerships that survive are the ones where everyone knows what the other person is getting out of it.