I spent most of last year sending cold emails to US agencies. Generic pitches, low response rates, and when someone did respond, we’d spend weeks figuring out if we were even aligned. It was exhausting and inefficient.
About three months ago, I started using this community differently. Instead of lurking, I actually got involved in conversations about cross-border work, started asking specific questions about how other agencies structure partnerships, and eventually connected with people who had real experience on both sides of the US-Russia bridge.
The difference has been massive. Through conversations here, I met an agency that was already thinking about Russian market expansion. We didn’t have to spend weeks explaining our value—they already understood the market differentiation. We could jump straight to: “Okay, how do we actually pilot a project together?”
But here’s what I’m still trying to figure out: how do you know, early on, if a partner you meet through a community is actually worth pursuing? I’ve had a few connections that looked promising in initial conversations but fell apart when we got into real collaboration details.
What’s your actual vetting process? Are there red flags you look for in initial conversations that tell you to keep looking? And how much due diligence do you do before even suggesting a first small project?
One more thing: when someone can introduce you to a mutual contact instead of cold meeting, that’s already a huge signal. The community is small enough that reputation matters. If someone respects this person, it usually means something.
I haven’t been through agency partnerships, but I work with agencies a lot, and I can tell you what makes me want to keep working with someone versus ghost them after one project.
The ones I keep working with: they’re clear about what they need, they actually listen when I suggest something, and they pay on time. That’s it. Those three things.
I’ve worked with agencies I met through communities, and the vetting isn’t complicated. First project is usually smaller scope—maybe one UGC asset or a short creator collab. You learn crazy fast if someone’s professional or if they’re going to be a headache. The ones who treat that first small project seriously are the ones worth scaling with.
I’m very data-driven about this. Before I recommend a partnership to anyone, I ask to see:
- Historical campaign performance data—what’s their average ROI?
- Client retention rate—what percentage of clients come back?
- Project timeline accuracy—do they deliver on time?
- Cost structure—are they transparent about how they price?
Their willingness to share this data is itself a test. If someone won’t share basic performance metrics, that’s a red flag. If they share vague numbers or won’t break down costs, also red flag.
I’ve analyzed enough campaigns to know: the best partners are ones who can articulate exactly what they do and why it works. Not in marketing-speak, but in actual metrics. If they can do that, they probably have good process too.
One more screen: I ask them what their biggest challenge is right now. Their answer tells you about their self-awareness. Vague answer = not self-aware. Specific answer with clear problem-solving approach = someone worth working with.
From a startup perspective, I care about: can they move fast, do they understand my market, will they be honest about what they don’t know?
I always do a quick project together before a real partnership. Nothing huge—maybe $2-5K scope. See how we operate together. Some teams look great in meetings but can’t actually execute. Others are rough around the edges but incredibly reliable.
The best partner I’ve found was someone who told me upfront: “We’ve never done exactly this before, but here’s how we’d approach it, and here’s what I’d do to minimize risk.” That honesty was refreshing. We did the small project, it worked out, and now we’re discussing bigger collaborations.
Don’t overlook honesty about limitations. The partners I trust most are the ones who know what they don’t know.