I’ve been running campaigns for brands trying to break into both LATAM and US markets simultaneously, and I keep hitting the same wall: what works for US creators doesn’t automatically translate to LATAM, and vice versa. The audience expectations are just different.
We recently managed a campaign for a DTC brand that needed to launch across Mexico, Brazil, and the US at roughly the same time. Initially, I thought we could use the same creator brief with minor tweaks. That was naive. The nuance isn’t just language—it’s cultural context, platform preferences, posting cadence, even how audiences engage with authenticity.
What I’ve learned is that creator sourcing itself needs to be market-specific. A 100k follower creator in the US operates completely differently from a 100k follower creator in LATAM. Their audience is different, their engagement patterns are different, even how they negotiate rates is different. We can’t just apply a US framework and expect it to work.
The other thing that surprised me is how much the approval process matters. When you’re coordinating between teams in different timezones, and each market has its own stakeholders, bottlenecks happen fast. We had to build a system where regional leads could approve creative independently, but within a shared guardrail of brand values.
I’m curious—when you’re building a creator strategy that spans both regions, do you build separate playbooks for each market, or do you try to maintain one unified approach with local adaptations? And more importantly, at what stage do you involve your regional teams in the brief creation?
Интересно, но я бы добавила данные. У нас есть анализ engagement rate по 200+ кампаниям в LATAM и США, и цифры показывают очень чёткую картину.
В США средний engagement rate для influencer контента — около 3-4%, но в LATAM (особенно в Бразилии) мы видим 5-7%. При этом стоимость за engagement в LATAM примерно на 40-50% ниже. Это означает, что вы можете получить больше за меньше, если правильно структурируете кампанию.
Но есть подвох: конверсия иногда выше в США, несмотря на меньший engagement. Это связано с целевой аудиторией и платёжеспособностью. Так что ROI нельзя оценивать по одной метрике.
Мой совет: создайте отдельные KPI для каждого региона, основываясь на исторических данных именно вашей аудитории, а не на средних показателях.
Спасибо за инсайты. У нас была похожая ситуация, когда мы пытались масштабировать нашу платформу и в США, и в Мексике одновременно.
Мы сделали ошибку—попробовали использовать одних и тех же креэйторов для обоих рынков. Результат был хуже, чем если бы мы работали с ними отдельно. Оказалось, что аудитория видит неаутентичность, когда креэйтор работает для рынка, который они не понимают по-настоящему.
Теперь мы выделили бюджет на поиск локальных креэйторов в каждом регионе. Это дороже, но результаты говорят сами за себя. Конверсия выросла на 35% в течение трёх месяцев.
Один вопрос: как вы управляете циклами платежей? Креэйторы в разных странах могут требовать разные способы оплаты и разные сроки, и это может усложнить логистику кампании.
This is exactly where most agencies stumble, and I think you’ve nailed the core issue. Unified approach sounds efficient on paper, but it kills authenticity—and authenticity is literally what influencer marketing sells.
We’ve structured our team so that each regional lead owns the creative brief for their market. They work within a global brand framework, but they have decision-making power. It takes longer upfront, but execution is 10x smoother because there’s less back-and-forth.
The key is having clear non-negotiables (brand values, core messaging) and then giving regions freedom on everything else (tone, content format, creator selection, posting cadence).
One thing that’s worked for us: we use a shared workspace (we use Notion, but you could use anything) where both teams can see the brief simultaneously, leave comments, flag concerns. This prevents the “lost in translation” trap where one team isn’t aware of what the other is doing.
Also—and this is critical—we’ve stopped trying to launch everything at the same time. Staggered launches by region mean you can capture learnings from the first market and apply them to the second. It’s a small change, but it improves results noticeably.
Strong points all around. I’d just add one more layer: compliance and regulatory differences.
When you’re running campaigns across US and LATAM, disclosure requirements vary. The FTC in the US has specific rules about #ad disclosures. Brazil has different rules. Mexico has yet another framework. If you’re not accounting for this in your brief and approval process, you risk running afoul of regulators, which costs way more than the campaign revenue.
We require that every brief includes a compliance checklist specific to each market. It’s annoying adminstration, but it’s saved us multiple times.
Also, on the approval workflow—consider building in redundancy. Don’t make everything dependent on one person’s approval. We use a rule: if US approval isn’t back in 24 hours, the LATAM lead can proceed independently (within guardrails). This keeps things moving without sacrificing quality.
Have you thought about how you’d handle a situation where US and LATAM teams fundamentally disagree on creative direction? That’s happened to us, and we had to create a decision framework to avoid endless debates.