So we connected with a US agency through the hub, and they seemed genuinely interested in working together. First few conversations felt collaborative—talking about how we could source creators, run campaigns together, build something. I was excited.
Then in our third call, they casually asked, “So which brands do you have lined up for us?” And I realized… they weren’t thinking about us as equals building something together. They wanted us to be their lead generator.
The issue is, we’re still in the early stages of finding US clients ourselves. We have maybe two prospects, both still in discovery conversations. We came to this partnership partly because we needed help cracking the US market, not just to be a feeder of other people’s leads.
But I don’t want to kill the relationship by saying no. They clearly have real experience, a solid portfolio, and could be valuable. But if I commit to feeding them clients we don’t have yet, we’re basically working for them instead of with them.
Has anyone else run into this? How do you navigate the conversation when expectations are this misaligned? Do you just accept that’s the dynamic, or do you push back and potentially lose the partner?
This is a real dynamic, and honestly, you need to address it directly before it becomes a problem.
Here’s the thing: some partners see cross-border relationships as one-way pipelines. They want Russian agencies to bring them US clients, or vice versa. And if you accept that framing from the start, that’s the relationship you’ll have forever. They’ll measure your value by leads, not by collaboration.
I’d have a straightforward conversation: “We’re excited to work together, but I want to be clear on the model. We have two things we can contribute: creator sourcing, and some early client leads. But we’re also building our own US client base. I think our real value to each other is that we can co-execute campaigns, not that I become your lead gen department.”
If they push back and insist on a one-way lead feed, you have two options: decide if that’s actually worth your time, or walk. Because if you take that deal, every conversation will be them pressuring you for more leads, and you’ll spend energy managing their expectations instead of actually doing good work.
The partners worth keeping are the ones who understand mutual value, not just extraction.
Also—be specific about what you ARE willing to do. Don’t just say no to leads. Offer an alternative: “Here’s what we can do: we can co-execute campaigns where we bring the client and you bring scalability, or we can white-label our creative services for your clients. But we can’t be your dedicated lead gen team because we’re building our own client base too.”
Frame it as a real business proposition, not as pushback.
One more thing: pay attention to how they respond to the pushback. If they immediately pivot and propose something collaborative, great. If they go cold or start pressuring you, you dodged a bullet. Those are the partners who would drain your energy anyway.
This is a classic partnerships problem in the US. People get into these arrangements thinking “Oh, we’ll help each other,” but one side is always in scarcity mindset and the other side is thinking about volume.
Here’s what I’d do: get data on the table. How many leads do THEY expect per month? What’s the conversion rate they’re projecting? What’s the value per lead? Because honestly, if they want 5 leads a month and your conversion rate is 40%, that might actually be worth your time. Or it might be completely unrealistic given that you’re also hunting for your own clients.
Once you have numbers, the conversation becomes easier. You can say, “Okay, I can probably commit to 2 qualified leads per month, but I need to build our own pipeline too. How does that work for you?”
If their model requires more leads than you can realistically provide, then you know it’s not a good fit structurally. It’s not about willingness; it’s about capacity.
Also think about whether this actually aligns with your business model. Some agencies ARE happy to be lead gen funnels because they take a percentage. But that’s usually a formal partnership with contractual terms, not a casual collaboration.
If that’s not your model, be clear about it. If you both need to find clients independently and only collaborate on execution, that’s a different relationship. Just make sure you’re both clear on which one you’re trying to build.
One red flag to watch: if they frame all the value as coming from them—“We have the US brand relationships, you just need to deliver”—then they’re positioning themselves as the gatekeeper and you as the vendor. That dynamic usually doesn’t end well for the vendor.
Okay so I’ve facilitated a lot of these partnerships and I see this happen constantly. The US side thinks “Russian partners can find us creators or leads” and Russian side thinks “US partners will help us understand the market.”
My advice: be honest about what you actually need from them. Don’t just say what you’re willing to give. Say: “Here’s what we’re looking for: help understanding how to position our team to US brands, maybe some warm intros if you have them, and co-execution on campaigns.”
If they respond with enthusiasm to that, great. If they say “Oh, that’s nice, but mainly we need leads,” then you at least know the real dynamic.
I find that the best partnerships start when both sides are transparent about what they need. It feels awkward at first, but it saves so much time.
Also—don’t let one awkward conversation make you abandon the relationship immediately. Sometimes people are just not good at talking about these things. Maybe they’re testing you to see how you react. Have the conversation, be clear, and see if they shift. If they don’t, then you know.
And honestly, if you DO decide to send them leads occasionally, make sure it goes both ways. Don’t be the only one feeding the pipeline. That’s how partnerships become one-sided.
This is actually a data question. Let me think through it:
What’s your actual lead flow right now? If you’re generating 10 leads a month total and 2 are US-qualified, then offering the partner 1 lead a month is realistic. But if you’re only generating 2 leads total, you can’t sustainably feed them anything without sacrificing your own growth.
Calculate your CAC (customer acquisition cost) for leads. If it costs you $500 to generate a client lead, and you give it to them for free, you’re subsidizing their business. Maybe that’s worth it for the relationship. Maybe it’s not.
I’d recommend: propose a revenue-share model instead of just lead-feeding. If they close a client you send them, you get a percentage of that project. That way you’re not giving away value; you’re earning commission. That also forces them to actually close deals instead of just taking your leads and never following up.
Also track what happens to the leads you DO give them. Do they follow up? Do they close? If they’re getting leads but not converting them, that’s telling you something about their sales process, not about your lead quality.
Bottom line: Only commit to lead-feeding if the math works for your business. If it doesn’t, say no. Don’t sacrifice your own client growth to support someone else’s pipeline.
And if they want leads, ask them: what’s in it for you? Like, commission on projects? Referral fees? Because if they’re getting free leads but you’re getting nothing in return, that’s not a partnership—that’s just you doing work for them.
I’ve turned down collaborations that felt one-sided and I’ve never regretted it. The collaborations I regret are the ones I said yes to even though they felt off from the start.
Also think about: could you avoid this partner entirely and just hire someone who knows the US market? Sometimes an employee or contractor is cheaper and simpler than a partnership that’s poorly structured.
But if they seem worth keeping, definitely have the hard conversation now. Future-you will appreciate it.