Our finance team keeps asking me to justify why influencer campaigns cost what they do, and honestly, I struggle to give them a straight answer. I can point to engagement metrics and reach numbers, but that doesn’t translate into the language they care about: revenue attributed, ROI, customer acquisition cost.
I know there are case studies out there—other companies doing this successfully in US and LATAM markets—but I’m not sure where to find reliable data. And even when I find a case study, it’s hard to know if it’s actually comparable to our situation.
I feel like there’s a gap between what we’re doing and what we’re explaining. Like, we’re running legitimate campaigns that drive results, but I can’t articulate it in a way that satisfies a skeptical finance person who doesn’t work in marketing.
Have any of you actually cracked this? Like, where do you find solid benchmarking data for influencer campaign ROI across markets? And how do you translate that into justification for your budget? What’s your actual playbook for getting finance buy-in?
This is exactly my world. The gap you’re describing is real, and it comes down to attribution methodology and comparability.
First, let me address the data sourcing issue. Industry benchmarks exist (Influencer Marketing Hub, HubSpot, Gartner publishes reports), but they’re broad and often don’t break down by market or campaign type. What I’ve found more useful is:
-
Internal case study development: Document your own campaigns comprehensively. Track spend, reach, engagement, traffic driven, conversions, repeat purchase rate. Build a database of 5-10 campaigns. Now you have comparable data that’s specific to your situation.
-
Peer networks: Join industry groups or connect with marketers doing similar work. Ask them directly: “What’s your typical ROAS on influencer campaigns?” These conversations give you realistic ranges.
-
Platform-provided data: TikTok, Instagram, YouTube all publish creator insights and benchmarks. This is gold because it’s real data from millions of campaigns.
Now, for the finance translation. They don’t care about engagement rate. They care about:
CAC (Customer Acquisition Cost): Total campaign spend ÷ new customers acquired. This is your primary metric.
ROAS (Return on Ad Spend): Revenue generated ÷ total spend. This is what justifies the investment.
LTV:CAC Ratio: If your LTV is $200 and CAC is $30, that’s a 6.67:1 ratio—healthy. Finance understands this intuitively.
Payback period: How long until the campaign pays for itself?
If you can show: “Influencer campaign had a 3.5:1 ROAS and 45-day payback period,” finance stops asking questions. That’s the language they speak.
For LATAM vs. US comparison—and this is important—CAC and ROAS will differ by market. LATAM CAC is typically lower (because creators cost less) but might have longer payback periods (because markets are still building). Document this. Finance needs to understand you’re not comparing apples to apples, but you’re being transparent about it.
Have you been tracking revenue attributed to influencer campaigns, or just engagement metrics?
Anna’s absolutely right on the metrics front. Adding a strategic framework:
When presenting to finance, break down influencer campaigns into three buckets:
1. Direct response campaigns (driving immediate sales)
- These should have clear ROAS targets and be measured accordingly
- CAC comparison to other channels (paid social, email, etc.)
- Finance expects these to be profitable in 30-90 days
2. Awareness & brand-building campaigns (expanding reach, brand consideration)
- Harder to attribute directly, so measure differently
- Cost per thousand impressions (CPM), brand lift studies, share of voice
- ROI is longer-term (6-12 months) but still measurable
3. Community & retention campaigns (creator partnerships, ambassador programs)
- Measure by engagement quality, repeat customer rate, lifetime value improvement
- Lower immediate ROI, higher long-term value
When you pitch to finance, clarify which bucket each campaign falls into. If someone says “influencer marketing doesn’t work for ROI,” often what they mean is “I’m measuring a brand-building campaign with direct response expectations.”
For LATAM-specific justification: emphasize market entry cost. If you’re new to a market, some spend is market development, not pure ROI play. That’s legitimate and finance understands it if you frame it correctly.
What’s your current breakdown? Are you mixing all three types of campaigns and presenting them as one ROI number?
From a partnership perspective, I’d add something about creator relationship value that finance might not immediately see.
Long-term creator partnerships (ambassadors, retainers) are different from one-off campaigns. They build institutional knowledge—the creator understands your brand, your audience, your product deeply. That value compounds over time.
When you’re justifying budget to finance, separate one-off campaigns from partnership programs. A partnership that costs $5K/month but produces consistent 2.5:1 ROAS month over month is fundamentally different from an experimental campaign.
Case study angle: show finance a creator partnership that’s been running 6+ months. Track the ROAS trend—often it improves over time as the creator gets more authentic in their advocacy and audience trust deepens. That’s a story finance can follow.
Do you have any long-term creator partnerships currently, or are you running mostly one-off campaigns?
Here’s what actually works with finance teams from my experience:
-
Create a comparison document. Show them influencer CAC vs. paid social CAC vs. email CAC. Often influencer CAC is competitive or lower—that’s finance language.
-
Use benchmarking data responsibly. If you say “industry average influencer ROAS is 5:1,” finance wants to know the source and whether it’s comparable to your business. Be specific: “E-commerce brands in our category are seeing 3.5-4.5:1 ROAS on influencer campaigns” (with source).
-
Show variance by market. “US influencer campaigns are hitting 3.8:1 ROAS. LATAM campaigns are hitting 2.5:1 ROAS, but CAC is 40% lower, making up the difference.” Finance appreciates nuance and transparency.
-
Present quarterly reviews. Don’t wait until budget renewal to discuss. Every quarter, show finance the actual performance data from your campaigns. This builds confidence in your projections.
-
Admit uncertainty. If you’re entering a new market and can’t guarantee ROAS, say so. Then show what assumptions you’re testing and how you’ll measure success. That’s more credible than over-promising.
For case studies specifically, I’d look at your own data first (easiest to defend), then industry reports from reputable sources, then case studies from similar-sized companies in your vertical.
What’s your current budget cycle like? Do you get quarterly check-ins or is it annual approval?
We had to justify a big international marketing budget recently, and what finally convinced our finance team was a bottom-up projection based on actual campaign data.
We said: “Here’s what we’ve learned from our past 8 campaigns—average CAC of $35, average ROAS of 2.8:1, payback period of 60 days. If we run 12 campaigns this quarter using the same playbook, we project $X revenue with $Y cost.” That was concrete enough for them to approve.
The key difference from just citing industry benchmarks: we were using our own data. That’s always more credible.
For LATAM expansion specifically, we presented it as “market entry investment with lower expected ROAS initially (2.0:1 projected) but with long-term upside as brand awareness grows and repeat customers accumulate.”
Finance appreciated the honesty. They knew what they were getting into.
How many campaigns have you run to date that you can build your own benchmark from?