I’m at a decision point and I’d love someone to talk me through the actual tradeoffs here.
We’ve got our relocation brand doing well in Russia—decent creator network, some UGC campaigns running, predictable ROI. Now we’re deciding if we should test the US market, and I keep going back and forth on whether to figure it out ourselves or bring in a partner from day one.
The solo approach: we hire someone locally, they learn our brand, we keep full control, save the partner commission, move fast.
The partner approach: we align with an existing agency or experienced founder who’s done this before, move slower initially, but potentially avoid expensive mistakes and tap into their existing creator relationships.
I think I’m romanticizing the solo route a bit. Running a campaign in an unfamiliar market where you don’t understand creator economics, platform dynamics, or compliance requirements feels risky. But bringing in a partner from day one feels like we’re admitting we don’t have the expertise—and I’m not sure we’re ready to give up that much control.
Here’s the real question: at what point does saving money end up costing you more? Have you faced this decision? What actually pushed you one direction or the other? And if you did partner early, how did you structure it so you weren’t just paying someone to make decisions you didn’t understand?
I’m biased here because I run an agency, but let me be honest about when you actually need a partner versus when you don’t.
If you’re a relocation brand and you already have:
- Operations figured out in Russia
- A creator playbook that works
- Financial model that’s predictable
Then you don’t need a full-service agency. What you actually need is someone who knows the US creator ecosystem and can introduce you efficiently. That’s not the same as an agency managing your campaigns.
Here’s what I’d do: instead of hiring an agency, find someone (agency, freelancer, could even be an experienced creator) who has real relationships with 20-30 relevant creators in your space. Pay them a finder’s fee. Have them make introductions. Then you work with those creators directly for your first 2-3 campaigns.
Why? Because the creator relationship becomes yours, not the intermediary’s. And you learn the economics firsthand instead of through a report.
The only scenario where you actually need a full partner: if you’re scaling to 10+ simultaneous campaigns in multiple regions with different regulatory requirements. Then you need someone operational.
For a first market entry? Get smart introductions, hire someone local to help you understand the landscape for a month, then run campaigns yourself. You’ll move faster, learn more, preserve capital.
Obviously I’d love to help with this if it makes sense, but I’m telling you what would actually be efficient for your situation.
I did this wrong initially, then corrected, so maybe my mistake saves you some headache.
I tried the solo route first. Hired a US-based content manager, thought they’d own the campaign. What happened: they didn’t understand our product’s nuances, they made hiring decisions based on US market logic (which was right) but didn’t understand our budget constraints, and I ended up in a weird position where I was basically managing them instead of them managing execution.
Wasted about 3 months and €30k proving that model didn’t work.
Then I brought in an agency owner who had worked with Russian companies before. She understood both worlds, made better decisions faster, and most importantly—she taught me why she was making certain decisions. That transparency made all the difference.
Here’s what I actually think: if you’re not willing to relocate someone to the US market for 2-3 months or hire someone full-time long-term, you need a partner. Not because you can’t do it solo, but because half-managing from Russia while someone else executes is actually the worst scenario.
If you can get someone locally, even part-time to start, do that combined with an advisory relationship with someone experienced. That gives you control + learning + network access.
The decision came down to: am I willing to invest a person’s full attention into this market? If yes, go solo. If no, get a real partner. Hybrid doesn’t work—it just creates confusion.
Okay, so this is interesting because it’s not really about solo versus partner—it’s about whether you’re ready to step into a new market. And I think the answer is different depending on your risk tolerance.
What I’ve noticed: founders who succeed at this bring someone in not to do the work, but to bridge the gap. They’re not outsourcing strategy, they’re outsourcing network access and cultural translation.
So instead of asking “agency or solo,” maybe ask: “Do I know enough people in the US market that I can make informed decisions?” If the answer is no, you need a partner who does. If yes, you might be ready to move fast on your own.
I genuinely think the best model is what I’d call a “strategic partnership.” You find someone (could be a small agency, could be an experienced founder, could be an agency principal) who becomes your US market advisor and makes introductions to creators. They’re not managing your campaigns—you are. They’re making sure you don’t make obvious mistakes and opening doors.
Cost is usually 10-15% of campaign budget for this kind of advisory relationship, or a monthly retainer. Way cheaper than a full agency, way smarter than going in blind.
If you want, I can actually help you figure out what kind of partner makes sense for your situation. This is literally what I love doing—connecting founders with the right people at the right time. What’s your timeline looking like?
From a creator’s perspective, I gotta say: when brands come in with no understanding of the local market, it’s pretty obvious immediately. You can tell within the first conversation if someone knows what they’re doing or if they’re flying blind.
The brands I actually want to work with repeatedly? They either have someone local who gets it, or they’re humble enough to ask creators for advice. That openness actually matters more than whether they have perfect knowledge.
Here’s the thing: if you come to US creators saying “we don’t have local expertise, help us understand what works,” most of us are cool with that. We’re collaborators, not just vendors. We want brands to succeed.
But if you come in treating creators like we’re just distribution channels and assuming the Russian playbook works? That’s when it gets weird.
Practically speaking: I’d bring in a partner who can make quality introductions to creators. Not an agency managing everything, just someone who knows good creators in your space and can vouch for you. That relationship matters so much more than having perfect strategy figured out.
The partner should get you meetings with 5-10 creators. Then you run those conversations. You learn faster, creators feel like they’re working with the founder (which they actually prefer), and you avoid the awkwardness of working through an intermediary.
That’s the model that’s actually worked best when I’ve advised creator friends thinking about international deals.