I’m struggling with a practical problem: when I try to compare ROI across LATAM campaigns versus my US or European campaigns, the numbers look wildly different, and I can’t figure out if it’s because LATAM campaigns are actually underperforming or if I’m just measuring wrong.
For example, I’ll run a campaign with a similar-tier influencer in the US and get a 3:1 ROAS (return on ad spend). Run the same campaign in Brazil with a comparable creator, and I’m getting 1.2:1 ROAS. Is that normal? Is it market maturity? Creator quality? Measurement differences?
Part of the problem is that benchmarks vary. I can find industry benchmarks for US influencer campaigns pretty easily, but LATAM benchmarks are either nonexistent or they’re so generic they’re useless. Everyone says “engagement rates vary by platform,” but that doesn’t help me actually compare apples to apples.
I’ve also been trying to figure out whether there are shared playbooks or real case studies from practitioners who’ve run campaigns across multiple LATAM markets. That’s where I think the actual learning is—not in generic advice, but in structured data from people who’ve done this.
How do you actually set up ROI measurement so you can compare campaign performance across LATAM countries and compare LATAM results to campaigns in other regions? What benchmarks do you trust? Are there resources where influencer marketing practitioners actually share their real data?
This problem is absolutely solvable, and it’s about establishing consistent measurement frameworks. Let me explain what we’ve built.
First, the ROAS difference you’re seeing isn’t necessarily a failure. Here’s why: US influencer audiences are saturated with sponsored content. Consumer purchase intent is harder to isolate. LATAM markets, particularly emerging tier-2 cities, often have less saturated creator ecosystems, which can mean higher engagement but different conversion paths.
Here’s how to actually compare:
-
Normalize for audience size and platform. A 50K follower creator on TikTok in Brazil cannot be directly compared to a 100K follower creator on Instagram in the US. They operate in different ecosystems.
-
Measure micro-conversion points, not just final sales. For LATAM campaigns, we track: awareness (impression share), consideration (click-through rate, comments), and conversion (actual purchase). US campaigns might convert faster at the final stage, but LATAM audiences might need more touchpoints.
-
Establish regional benchmarks, then track against those. Don’t compare Brazil to the US. Compare your Brazil campaign to other Brazil campaigns in your category.
-
Account for seasonality and market maturity. LATAM e-commerce penetration is lower than US, so conversion expectations should reflect that.
-
Control for product fit. A product that appeals to US consumers might not resonate equally in LATAM markets, affecting conversion rates regardless of creator quality.
We built a spreadsheet that tracks, by market: creator tier, platform, audience size, engagement rate, reach cost, traffic generated, conversion rate, and final ROAS. That gives us the data we need to compare.
The insight: LATAM campaigns often underperform on final ROAS not because creators are worse, but because audience purchase power and e-commerce maturity are lower. However, acquisition cost per customer is often lower, which means LTV calculations can favor LATAM campaigns if you’re building long-term customer value.
Can you share what product category you’re promoting? That affects how realistic your ROAS expectations should be for LATAM.
We’re dealing with this exact issue right now. Our European expansion has shown similar ROI variance—sometimes better than Russia, sometimes worse.
What I’ve learned: You can’t directly compare 3:1 ROAS between markets because audience purchasing power, platform maturity, and product category awareness are so different.
Here’s what actually helps: Find case studies or playbooks from other companies that have expanded to LATAM. We’ve learned more from talking to founders at other Russian-rooted companies about their LATAM launch than from any agency report.
The best insight I’ve gotten: One company that expanded to Argentina said their initial ROI was lower (1.5:1), but after 6 months of market education and building audience trust, they hit 3:1. The first campaigns were customer acquisition; the later campaigns had more repeat customers.
Are there communities where LATAM expansion case studies are actually shared? That’s what would help me make better decisions.
One more thing: currency fluctuations matter. If you’re comparing ROAS across countries, make sure you’re normalizing for currency and purchasing power. A 1.2:1 ROAS in Brazilian Real might represent better actual profit than 3:1 in US dollars, depending on margins.
Let me reframe this for you strategically.
ROS and ROAS are important metrics, but they don’t tell the full story across markets with different maturity levels, currencies, and customer behavior patterns.
Here’s how I recommend setting up apples-to-apples ROI measurement:
-
Define a consistent outcome metric: Don’t just measure final sales ROAS. Measure Customer Acquisition Cost (CAC), Customer Lifetime Value (LTV), and LTV:CAC ratio. This lets you compare efficiency across markets.
-
Account for market variables: Create a “market maturity adjustment factor” that accounts for e-commerce penetration, platform usage rates, and creator market development by country. This explains why LATAM might have lower immediate ROAS.
-
Establish region-specific benchmarks: Don’t compare Brazil to the US. Compare your Brazil campaign to median Brazil campaigns in your category. Every market has its own baseline.
-
Run 3-month minimum pilots: First month is audience education. Second month is optimization. Third month is scaled performance. Your 1.2:1 ROAS in LATAM might be month-one data—wait for month three before comparing to mature US markets.
-
Measure incrementality: Not all conversions from a creator campaign are incremental. Some would have happened anyway. Use control groups to measure true incrementality, which might differ between markets.
When you control for these variables, you’ll have meaningful data to compare. What you’re probably seeing is that LATAM requires different expectations and longer customer journey timelines.
What’s your product category, and how long have you been testing LATAM influencer partnerships?
This is such a common challenge for brands scaling across markets, and I think the insight you’re missing is that ROI measurement across LATAM should be collaborative.
What I mean: successful brands in LATAM don’t measure in isolation. They connect with other brands and practitioners who are running similar campaigns, and they share benchmarking data. That’s how you get real context.
I’ve been working to build communities where marketing professionals can actually share case studies and ROI data from LATAM campaigns. The challenge is that most brands keep this data private. But if you can access pooled insights from 10-20 brands running similar campaigns in Brazil or Colombia, suddenly your single-data-point campaign becomes contextualized.
Have you connected with other brands doing similar work in LATAM? Sometimes the best learning is direct conversation—not from databases, but from peers who understand your challenges.
I’d also say: different creator tiers and platforms generate different ROI profiles. An influencer marketing ROI benchmark for mega-influencers on Instagram won’t apply to micro-influencers on TikTok. Are you comparing similar-tier creators?
There’s also a partnership quality factor. If you’re running one-off sponsored posts, ROI will be lower than brands running deeper, longer-term partnerships with creators. Creator commitment affects results.
Here’s what I’ve seen: brands trying to compare LATAM and US ROI directly are missing critical context.
In the US, influencer marketing has matured. Creator rates are higher, audience expectations around sponsored content are established, and conversion paths are optimized. LATAM markets are earlier in that curve.
My clients who’ve succeeded at LATAM expansion do three things differently:
-
They set region-specific ROI targets informed by market research, not global averages. A successful LATAM campaign might be 1.5:1 ROAS in year one with plans to improve as market matures.
-
They invest in longer partnerships with creators rather than one-off campaigns. This builds trust with audiences and improves performance over time.
-
They measure multi-touch attribution, not just last-click. Creator awareness campaigns often drive sales through channels you’re not immediately crediting.
The reason LATAM numbers look lower isn’t usually because creators are worse. It’s because the market is less mature and consumer behavior is different.
If you want accurate ROI benchmarks, you need data specific to your market and creator tier. Happy to discuss specific LATAM expansion strategies—this is where our agency adds value by helping clients build realistic expectations and measurement frameworks.
What markets are you targeting, and what’s your current creator tier mix?