I’m managing campaigns across US and Russian markets right now, and I’m running into a really frustrating problem: my ROI metrics don’t compare well across markets. A creator who delivers 3x ROAS in Russia might only hit 1.2x in the US, even when it’s the same creator, similar content, and roughly similar budgets.
I know some of this is just market differences—cost of acquisition is different, conversion rates vary, audience purchasing power isn’t the same. But I’m struggling to figure out: what metrics actually matter when you’re comparing creator performance across different markets? Should I even be comparing them at all?
Right now I’m tracking:
- Reach and impressions
- Engagement rate (comments, shares, saves)
- Click-through rate to site
- Conversion rate
- Revenue generated
- CPM and CPC
But when I try to normalize these across markets, I’m getting inconsistent conclusions. A creator who looks average on engagement but drives strong conversions in one market might look exactly opposite in another.
I’ve tried adjusting for market maturity, audience demographics, different cost structures… but I still feel like I’m missing something. Are there specific metrics that actually predict creator success across different markets? Or is this just inherently messy and I need to stop trying to make apples-to-apples comparisons?
Okay, this is actually a really important question and I’m glad you’re asking it. The short answer: yes, you should be comparing across markets, BUT you need to establish market-specific benchmarks first.
Here’s what I do: I build a benchmark report for each market before I start comparing creators. I look at:
- Baseline conversion rates by market (what’s the natural conversion rate for your specific product in Russia vs. US?)
- Cost structure differences (CPC, CPM, AOV all vary)
- Time lag to conversion (sometimes US audience takes longer to decide)
- Content consumption patterns (US might prefer different content length, format, posting times)
Once I have those benchmarks, I calculate a normalized performance score for each creator. Instead of comparing raw ROAS, I compare performance against market baseline.
For example: If your US baseline ROAS is 2.0x and a creator hits 2.5x, that’s +25% above benchmark. If your Russian baseline is 4.0x and a creator hits 4.8x, that’s also +20% above benchmark. Now you can actually compare them fairly.
The metric that’s been most reliable for me across markets: incremental revenue per 1000 impressions. It’s less sexy than ROAS, but it accounts for market differences and actually predicts long-term success better than I expected.
I’d also stop tracking CPM/CPC heavily across markets—those are too market-dependent. Focus on quality metrics that matter to your business: how many sales, customer quality, repeat purchase rate.
One more thing—engagement rate has been misleading me in cross-market work. Russian audiences tend to comment way more on content (it’s more of a cultural norm), while US audiences favor saves and shares. If you weight engagement rate equally across markets, you’ll overvalue Russian creators. I’ve started tracking engagement type separately now, which gave me much clearer picture of what’s actually working.
This is solid thinking. From my experience in DTC, the problem you’re describing is actually common and comes down to comparing outputs instead of outcomes.
Here’s the framing shift: instead of trying to make ROI directly comparable, establish a cohorted analysis. Group your creators by tier (nano, micro, macro) within each market, then track performance against their cohort peers.
So instead of asking “why does Creator A (Russia) have 3x ROAS but Creator B (US) has 1.2x,” ask “how does Creator A perform against other macro influencers in Russia” and “how does Creator B perform against other macro influencers in the US.”
This approach has been way more actionable for us because:
- It removes market-level noise
- It helps you identify truly exceptional creators (top 10% within their market)
- It makes budget allocation decisions clearer
That said, if you do want a single cross-market metric, I’d recommend tracking customer acquisition cost (CAC) from creator channels rather than ROAS. It’s more stable across markets and directly tied to your business objective. You’ll see variation, but it’s easier to explain market-by-market.
What does your attribution look like? Are you using UTM parameters, discount codes, or something else?
We’re literally dealing with this right now as we expand from Russia to EU markets. The Russian campaigns were performing beautifully (3-4x returns), and when we launched similar campaigns in Western Europe, they tanked. Made us question everything.
Turns out it wasn’t the creators or the strategy—it was that we were comparing apples to oranges. Russian e-commerce is way more mature and competitive, so benchmarks are just naturally different. We had to stop thinking about “which market is more profitable” and start thinking “how is each market performing against its own benchmarks.”
Also learned the hard way: engagement metrics vary wildly by platform and culture. A creator with 5% engagement rate in Russia might be crushing it, while someone with 5% in the US might be underperforming. We now have a full spreadsheet for each market with baseline benchmarks.
What helped most was hiring someone who understood both markets deeply to audit our measurement approach. Might be worth it if you’re managing multiple markets seriously?
Real talk: most agencies mess this up, so I’m glad you’re being critical about it. Here’s how I solve it—I use a tiered assessment approach:
Tier 1 metrics (always track, always comparable): Sales, revenue, customer acquisition cost
Tier 2 metrics (market-specific benchmarks required): ROAS, conversion rate, engagement rate
Tier 3 metrics (context-dependent, use for optimization only): CPM, CPC, reach
When I brief clients, I set market-specific targets upfront based on historical data. So a client knows: “In the US market, we’re targeting 2.0 ROAS. In Russia, we’re targeting 3.5 ROAS based on market rates.” This prevents the apples-to-oranges problem later.
I also built a simple dashboard that calculates an efficiency index for each creator that normalizes for market differences. Basically, it’s (Actual Performance / Market Baseline) × 100. A creator scoring 120 is 20% above expectations for their market. Now I can actually rank creators fairly across markets.
One more thing—don’t underestimate qualitative metrics. Sometimes a creator delivers mediocre ROAS but builds brand affinity that matters for long-term growth. I track brand sentiment from comments and repeat purchase rates because those often predict future performance better than short-term ROAS.
This is something I see constantly when coordinating partnerships across markets. The brands that do this well are the ones who acknowledge from day one that markets are different, and they build that into their expectations.
I always recommend having a kickoff conversation with creators about market expectations. Like, “here’s what we’re measuring, here’s why, here’s what success looks like in each market.” Transparency prevents the awkward “why didn’t this work” conversation later.
One thing that’s helped—I started asking creators about their audience directly. Like, “tell me about your US followers vs. Russian followers.” Most creators have strong intuition about their audience differences, and that usually reveals gaps in how brands are measuring performance.
I’ve also seen good success when brands measure audience quality alongside ROAS. A creator might have lower ROAS but attract way higher-value customers. That shifts the ROI story completely.