We tried something new this year: a real joint client-win model with a US-based agency. Not just outsourcing work to them—actual co-delivery, co-pitching, shared revenue. The goal was to offer US brands access to Russian market expertise, and Russian brands access to US-based strategy and execution.
It’s been six months, and I’ve learned a ton. Some worked, some didn’t.
The framework we used is basically: (1) partner finds a client that needs what we both do; (2) we co-develop a proposal that’s actually integrated, not just two separate pitches duct-taped together; (3) we set clear SLAs and communication protocols upfront; (4) we maintain regular sync points to catch issues early.
What surprised me most was how much clarity we needed around decision-making. Who decides what if we disagree on strategy? How do we handle scope creep when the client is asking one of us for extras? How do we split revenue in a way that feels fair to both sides?
We’ve landed two successful campaigns so far, and they’ve been genuinely good clients. But we’ve also noticed that assembling the right partnership infrastructure takes real effort—briefs, templates, communication protocols, even just agreeing on how we measure success.
For anyone thinking about this: what’s your take on formalizing these kinds of arrangements? Do you use partnership agreements? Revenue splits? How do you handle the inevitable moments when a client asks one partner for something the other partner isn’t equipped to do? And what’s your experience with co-created pitches—do they actually win more often, or does the added complexity just slow you down?
This is gold. We’ve been testing a similar model, and I’ll be honest: the infrastructure is everything. You can have a great partner with complementary skills, but if you don’t have clear decision-making frameworks and revenue splits, things fall apart fast.
Here’s what’s worked for us: (1) A partnership agreement that spells out decision-making hierarchy—who has final say on what. For us, each partner owns their domain (we own influencer strategy, they own brand positioning), but big decisions are shared. (2) Revenue splits that factor in how much work each partner is doing, not just equal splits. That might sound obvious, but I’ve seen partnerships blow up because one side was doing 70% of the work and getting 50% of the revenue. (3) A formal intake and brief process so there’s no ambiguity about who’s doing what.
On scope creep: we have a rule that any request outside the original scope goes through both partners first. One partner can’t just say yes to the client without checking with the other. That’s saved us multiple times.
For co-created pitches, they absolutely perform better—but only if you actually invest in the integration. A pitch that’s ‘here’s our side, here’s their side’ doesn’t win. A pitch that’s seamlessly integrated and shows how both agencies working together solves the client’s problem? That wins every time. But that takes real collaboration time upfront.
Also, document everything. After your first few projects, create templates for everything: briefs, scopes, internal communication protocols, client reporting. That standardization is what lets you scale these relationships without them becoming administrative nightmares.
From a client side, I’ve worked with several co-delivery teams, and the ones that win are the ones with crystal-clear service delivery models. As a brand, what I care about is: Who’s my primary point of contact? Who makes the final call on strategy? How are decisions made when the partners disagree?
The best co-delivery pitches I’ve seen don’t try to hide the fact that there are two partners—they lean into it. They say: ‘You get US market expertise AND Russian market expertise, and here’s how those two perspectives strengthen your strategy.’ That’s compelling if it’s genuine.
On revenue splits: as a client, I honestly don’t care how you split it internally, as long as the final deliverable is world-class. But what I’ve noticed is that when one partner is getting screwed on the deal, the work quality suffers. So fair revenue splits actually matter to client outcomes.
One data point: co-delivery partnerships that work have very clear performance metrics and reporting. As a client, I want to know: What’s each partner responsible for? What are the specific KPIs for each? How will I know if something is falling short? If you can’t answer those clearly in the pitch, I’m hesitant.
This is super interesting from a creator’s perspective because we’re often the ones hit hardest by unclear partnerships. If two agencies are co-delivering and there’s confusion about who’s managing the creator, who’s approving briefs, who’s handling revisions—that chaos trickles down to me.
What I love about well-structured co-delivery partnerships is when they have one clear creative lead who coordinates with me, and the backend stuff (process, approval, tech) is handled by the partners. That clarity makes my job so much easier.
For you guys thinking about this: make sure there’s ONE person who’s my point of contact for creative direction, even if multiple agencies are involved. Nothing is worse than getting conflicting feedback from two different partners.
Also, co-created briefs are either really great or really confusing. If the two agencies actually collaborated on the brief and made a cohesive document, amazing—I get clear, integrated direction. If it’s two separate briefs duct-taped together, I end up confused and over-communicating to clarify. Spend time on that brief.
One more thing: be transparent with creators about the partnership structure. I don’t need to know your revenue split, but I should know who to talk to about what, and I should know there’s actually a team supporting the project. Transparency builds trust.
I absolutely love this model because it’s how real growth happens—partnerships that actually solve problems for clients. Here’s what I’ve seen work: the best co-delivery teams are the ones who genuinely respect each other’s expertise. There’s no ego, just mutual recognition that together they’re stronger.
For structuring these: I always recommend a kick-off meeting with both agencies and the client where everyone gets aligned on the model. Transparency about how decisions are made, who’s accountable for what, and how often you’ll sync. That single meeting prevents 90% of the friction that emerges later.
On revenue splits: I’ve seen simple models and complex models, but the ones that work best are the ones that feel fair to both partners based on actual work distribution. Sometimes that’s 50/50, sometimes it’s 60/40 based on scope. Just make sure both partners believe in it.
Also: create a monthly sync between the two agencies, separate from client stuff. That’s where you catch issues early and strengthen the partnership.
One last thing: sometimes the best partnership move is knowing when NOT to partner. If a client need is outside both agencies’ wheelhouses, be honest about it. Partnership credibility gets built from saying ‘we can’t do this well’ as much as saying ‘we can do this better together.’
Also, track partnership metrics separately: How often did scope creep occur? How long do decisions take when both partners are involved? What’s your revision rate? These are the things that tell you if the partnership structure is actually efficient or just adding friction.
One more thing: your revenue split should account for different work phases. Maybe one partner does more upfront (strategy), the other does more backend (execution). Your split should reflect that, or you’ll create resentment.
Scope creep is real. We had a situation where the client asked the US team for something the Russian team thought was out of scope. Communication between the partners saved us there—we caught it quickly, looped in the client to clarify, and adjusted.
One thing I’d emphasize: document everything post-project. Not just for the client, but for the partnership. What worked? What was friction? What would we do differently? That feedback loop is what makes your second project better than your first.