I’ve been thinking about a problem we keep running into: when we want to launch a campaign across LATAM and the US simultaneously, we often don’t have a success story from both regions yet. So we’re stuck choosing between:
- Starting from scratch with a new client and betting that it works
- Adapting a success story from one market and hoping it translates
- Waiting until we have real data from both regions (which delays launch)
Recently, we tried a different approach: we built a cross-market success story by connecting a Russian-origin brand with US-based experts and LATAM creators in a pilot campaign. The idea was to create the case study as we built the campaign, not after.
Here’s what happened: we documented everything—the challenges the brand faced entering new markets, how we sourced the right influencers, what messaging actually resonated, where we had to pivot. By month two, we had a real, credible success story that showed exactly how to replicate the approach. It was almost like the case study was the product.
The tricky part was coordinating the narrative across three parties (brand, US experts, LATAM creators) while keeping the campaign running. We ended up doing weekly sync calls where everyone agreed on what the “story” would be, not just what the results would be.
Has anyone else intentionally built a case study as part of the campaign process? What worked and what didn’t?
This is brilliant. You’re essentially co-creating the narrative with all stakeholders, which means everyone’s invested in making it work. It also solves the trust problem—people can see the real process, not just the polished end result.
The weekly sync calls sound crucial. I’m imagining conflicts happening there: the brand wants to highlight one thing, the US expert sees different angles, the LATAM creators have their own perspective. How did you navigate disagreements about what the “story” should be?
I especially love that this creates immediate credibility. Instead of asking “trust us, we know how to do this,” you’re saying “here’s exactly how we did it.” This is gold for networking and future client conversations. Did you find that potential clients responded better to this kind of transparent, in-progress case study versus a traditional post-campaign writeup?
Interesting approach, but I need to push back on one thing: how do you measure the success of the case study itself? Because if you’re documenting the process as you go, you might be capturing interesting stories that don’t actually correlate with strong ROI.
For example, if an LATAM creator performed well but it wasn’t the “story” you were telling, do you include it? Or do you only document the parts that fit the narrative you decided on in those weekly calls?
I’m asking because I’ve seen agencies build beautiful case studies that look great in pitches but don’t actually reflect the levers that drove results. The narrative and the performance metrics need to be aligned.
This addresses a real pain point for us. We’re a Russian startup trying to enter LATAM and the US simultaneously, and we don’t have proof points in either market yet. The idea of building credibility through the process rather than waiting for perfect results is exactly what we need.
But I’m wondering: did the brand feel like they were taking on extra risk by being the “pilot” case? How did you justify asking them to be part of a documented experiment?
This is a scalable model. If you can replicate the process—document it, get stakeholder buy-in on the narrative weekly, build the case study in parallel—you’ve got a repeatable system. That’s not just good for this one campaign; that’s a differentiator for pitching new clients.
My question: how much additional overhead did this add? Weekly sync calls with three parties across multiple time zones sounds like it could eat up a lot of budget. Was it worth it compared to just running the campaign and writing the case study afterward?
As a creator, I actually really like this approach because it means I’m not just executing a brief and disappearing—I’m part of the story. That feels more collaborative and authentic.
But I’m also curious: when you’re building the narrative in those weekly calls, do creators get a voice? Or is it mainly the brand and the US experts deciding what the story is? Because what resonated for me might be different from what the brand thinks is important.
Smart play. This reduces the risk of launching a campaign without proof points, and it creates content assets as a byproduct. From a strategy perspective, though, I’d want to know: did defining the narrative upfront bias your decisions during the campaign? Like, if something performed well but didn’t fit the story you decided on, did you lean into it or stick to the original plan?
I’m asking because the best case studies usually emerge after you see what actually worked, not before. Deciding the narrative in week one might limit your ability to capitalize on unexpected wins.
Also, how did you measure whether the case study itself drove future business? Like, did having this cross-market story help you close deals faster or attract better-fit clients?