I’ve been thinking about what we’re all dancing around in various conversations: we don’t actually have good benchmarks for influencer ROI when you’re operating across different markets with different cost structures, audience behaviors, and measurement systems.
The benchmarks that exist online are either super generic (“average influencer ROI is 5-6x”) or they’re so specific to one market, one product type, one platform that they’re not transferable. And when you’re trying to expand a Russian brand into the US, or connect US brands with Russian creators, or navigate bilingual audiences, those generic benchmarks are basically useless.
So here’s what I’m wondering: what if we actually ran a structured roundtable in the Holy Marketing community—a forum discussion or even a live conversation—where people who’ve actually run cross-market campaigns shared their real numbers?
Not theoretical benchmarks. Not “what the industry says.” But actual: “Here’s a campaign we ran. Here’s what we spent. Here’s what we earned. Here’s how we measured it. Here are the difficulties we hit.”
I’m imagining we’d extract things like:
- What CPM/CPC actually looks like for Russian creators vs. US creators
- How engagement rates actually differ (and why)
- What conversion rates are realistic for different product types across markets
- How to adjust for platform differences (VK/Telegram vs. Instagram/TikTok)
- What measurement gotchas people hit when spanning two markets
- Real case studies of what worked and what didn’t
If we could actually document this, it would be so much more useful than generic benchmarks. Because then new brands expanding internationally could have actual reference points: “Oh, in software/SaaS when you’re going from Russia to US, people typically see a 3x difference in CPC, so let me adjust my budget accordingly.”
I guess my real question is: is there enough interest and enough real data in our community to actually make this work? What would you want to share, and what would you want to learn from a roundtable like this?
I’m genuinely interested in this, and I have data I could contribute. But let me be real about what would make this useful vs. just a conversation:
What makes roundtables valuable:
- Structured format (not just “share anything”)
- Data standardization (so we can actually compare across cases)
- Anonymization where needed (so people will share real numbers without worrying about competitors)
- Follow-up time (one conversation isn’t enough; analysis and synthesis are needed)
What I’d want to contribute:
- Real ROI numbers from our e-commerce cross-market campaigns (Russia → Europe/US)
- How we measure attribution across markets
- Where our benchmarks differ between markets and why
- What surprised us as we expanded
What I’d want to get out of it:
- SaaS/software benchmarks (different from e-commerce, which is what we do)
- How creators factor into these numbers vs. paid ads
- How to handle currency/pricing differences
- Real failure cases (not just successes)
Structural suggestion:
Frame it as a case study exchange:
- Each person/company submits one detailed case (2-3 pages)
- Cases include: market, product type, budget, tactics, results, learnings, surprises
- We collectively analyze themes and extract actual patterns
- Publish anonymized findings
Without structure, this becomes anecdotes. With structure, it becomes useful intelligence.
I’m in if we do it right. When would you want to start?
I love this idea because I see the gap constantly—people are making decisions blind. But I want to add something: the most valuable insights aren’t always in the numbers. They’re in the relationships and decisions.
Like: “Here’s our ROI” is one thing. But “Here’s how we found these creators, why they were the right fit, and what we’d do differently” is much more useful.
So if we’re doing a roundtable, I’d want to structure it around:
- Discovery — How did you find creators/influencers across markets?
- Selection — Why did you choose these specific people?
- Campaign structure — How did you set it up? What were your success metrics?
- Results — What actually happened? How does it compare to what you expected?
- Relationships — Would you work with these creators again? Why/why not?
Because ROI is one metric, but the relationship quality and scalability of the partnership is the real insight.
Also, I’d want to hear from creators too—not just brands. What do creators actually experience when they’re being asked to work across markets? What’s hard for them? What do they wish brands understood?
A roundtable that includes brands and creators would be so much richer.
I’d definitely participate. This is exactly the kind of open-source knowledge the community needs.
Real talk: I need this. I’m in the middle of international expansion and I’m basically guessing on a lot of metrics because there’s no good reference.
What I’d want from a roundtable:
- Actual case studies from founders/brand builders (not just marketing professionals)
- Failure cases, not just successes (I can learn more from what didn’t work)
- Practical adjustments (“Here’s how we adjusted for market differences”)
- Cost structure transparency (What does creator outreach cost in each market?)
The benchmarks I need:
- Creator sourcing timeline (how long does it actually take?)
- Average cost per creator per post (by market)
- Time to first ROI visibility (how long before you know if it’s working?)
- Success rates (what % of creators you approach actually work out?)
I’m willing to share our case (we’re expanding to European markets from Russia), including the messy parts and what we’re still figuring out.
One ask: can we keep it private initially? I don’t want sales competitors seeing my exact numbers. Anonymized public version later, but raw version for community only?
How would that work logistically?
I’m interested but from a different angle. As a creator, what I notice is that brands are totally confused about how to brief and pay creators differently across markets.
Like: A US brand approached me wanting me to reach “Russian-speaking audiences.” But I’m primarily a US creator. They expected me to magically have Russian followers. That’s a mismatch that could have been solved with better market understanding.
So from the creator side, what would help us is understanding:
- What do brands need from creators in different markets?
- What are realistic expectations for creator reach/impact per market?
- How should compensation change per market?
If a roundtable happened, I’d contribute: What I’ve actually experienced working with brands that are trying to be bilingual/cross-market. And what I see other creators struggling with.
Honestly, some of this is about creator education too. A lot of creators don’t understand how to position themselves for cross-market work. A roundtable that clarifies expectations could be really valuable for everyone.
I’d support this, but let me think structurally about what would make it valuable:
The problem: Without standardized data, roundtables end up as interesting conversations that don’t drive strategic decisions.
The solution: Build a benchmarking framework first, then fill it in together.
Framework I’d propose:
Case Study Template:
- Market pair (e.g., Russia → US)
- Product category (SaaS, e-commerce, personal brand, etc.)
- Creator tier (mega 1M+, macro 100K-1M, micro 10K-100K, nano <10K)
- Tactic (sponsorship, UGC, long-term partnership, one-off)
- Budget
- Duration
- Platform(s)
- Key metrics used
- Results
- Attribution method
- Surprises/learnings
If everyone filled this in for 2-3 cases, we’d have a comparative dataset instead of anecdotes.
Then we could actually analyze:
- ROI by market pair + product category
- Optimal creator tier per use case
- Platform performance differences
- Cost structure differences
- Attribution challenges and solutions
Deliverables from roundtable:
- Anonymized dataset
- Pattern analysis and insights
- Updated benchmark recommendations
- Recommendation on what needs further study
This would take real effort upfront, but the output would actually be strategic, not just conversational.
I’d lead this if there’s community interest. The structure matters more than the participants.
Who’s willing to commit to submitting actual data?