I’ve been working on comparing results for several campaigns we ran across Russia and the US, and it’s been way more complicated than I expected. We have this Russian e-commerce brand that’s trying to figure out which strategies work in both markets, but every time I pull the numbers, I’m looking at different metrics, different platforms, and honestly, different interpretations of what “success” even means.
Last month, we ran an influencer campaign in Moscow that looked amazing on the surface—great engagement, solid reach. Then we ran a similar campaign in the US with comparable influencers, and on paper it should have performed the same way. But when I dug into the actual ROI and conversion data, nothing lined up. I realized we were measuring completely different things: the Russian team was looking at engagement rate and brand mentions, while the US side was focused on click-through rates and actual sales. Same campaign, completely different story.
The real wake-up call was when I tried to present this to stakeholders. I had numbers that didn’t talk to each other, case studies from different markets that couldn’t be compared, and no clear way to say “okay, here’s what actually works globally and what’s just market-specific.”
I’ve started pulling together a more structured approach—defining metrics upfront, documenting case studies from both markets side by side, and actually sitting down with team members from different regions to align on what we’re measuring. It’s slower, but the insights are so much clearer.
How do you handle benchmarking when you’re working across multiple markets? Do you create completely separate frameworks for each region, or do you try to find a common language for comparison?
This resonates so much with what I see in my own work. The metric alignment issue is real, and it’s usually the first thing that breaks when you scale across borders.
What worked for us was creating a “master metrics glossary” before we even started comparing campaigns. So instead of just saying “engagement rate,” we defined it exactly: likes + comments + shares / total impressions, calculated the same way on both platforms. Sounds basic, but most teams skip this step.
For benchmarking specifically, we built a two-tier system:
- Universal metrics: Things like ROAS, cost per acquisition, brand lift (measured consistently)
- Market-specific context: Platform differences, audience behavior, seasonal patterns
Then when presenting to stakeholders, we separated the story: “Here’s what works globally” (the universal metrics) vs. “Here’s what’s unique to each market” (the context layer). That made it so much easier to compare apples to apples.
One more thing—I started collecting case studies with structured “before and after” format: what was the objective, what did we do, what did we measure, what were the actual results. When you document it that way, comparing becomes natural instead of painful.
You’re hitting on a fundamental challenge in international marketing: standardization vs. localization. Most teams get this wrong because they assume you have to pick one.
Here’s what I’ve learned: you need a standardized framework (so you can compare), but localized execution (so you’re not forcing US playbooks onto Russian markets). The benchmarking happens at the framework level, not the execution level.
What this looks like practically: you define your top 3-5 core metrics that every market tracks the same way. Everything else can vary. So ROAS stays consistent across regions, but how you generate that ROAS (which platforms, which influencer tiers, which content types) can be totally different.
The other thing that helped us was creating quarterly “cross-market analysis sessions” where we literally compare case studies side by side. Not just numbers—actual campaign stories. What worked in Russia, what worked in the US, what the differences were. That’s when the real insights emerge.
I’ve been going through exactly this as we expand. One thing I realized is that you can’t just compare raw numbers—you have to compare relative performance against local baselines.
So when our Russian campaign got 8% engagement and the US campaign got 4%, that looked bad until I checked: Russian influencers in our category average 6%, US influencers average 2.5%. Suddenly the US campaign was outperforming, and the Russian one was just average.
I started tracking benchmark data for each market specifically, then comparing campaigns to their local benchmarks. That way you’re actually seeing what’s working in context, not just raw numbers that don’t mean anything without context.
Do you have access to external benchmark data for your markets, or are you building benchmarks from your own historical campaigns?
This is such an important conversation because it affects how we pitch partnerships too! When we’re recommending influencers or campaign structures to brands, we need to understand exactly what success looks like in their target market.
I’ve started always asking brands upfront: “What are your non-negotiable KPIs?” Not just “we want good results,” but specifically what metrics matter. Then I can actually help match them with influencers and partners who historically deliver on those specific metrics in their market.
Maybe worth documenting your learnings in a shareable format for other team members? I always find that case studies—real examples with the messy details—help so much more than abstract frameworks. People remember stories.
Great question. From an agency perspective, this is why we now onboard every client with a “metrics alignment workshop” before we even launch a campaign.
We literally sit down with decision-makers from each market and answer: What does success look like? How do we measure it? What’s the baseline for comparison? We write it down, get sign-off, and then execute against that definition.
It sounds like extra process, but it eliminates so much confusion later. And frankly, it’s saved us from some bad reputation situations where we launched something that technically hit its numbers but didn’t align with what the client actually cared about.
For benchmarking campaigns across markets, we’ve started pulling together competitive analysis for each region—not just internal KPIs, but how the client compares to competitors in Russia, US, Europe, etc. That gives context to whether our numbers are actually good or just meeting a low bar.
I notice a lot of brands I work with struggle with this, especially when they’re trying to scale UGC campaigns across markets. From a creator perspective, what I see is that the same content performs differently depending on the cultural context and platform timing.
I’ve had brands ask me to replicate a successful Russian TikTok campaign in the US, and it just doesn’t work because US audiences have different expectations for UGC authenticity. So when benchmarking, I think you also need to factor in: did we actually test different content styles, or are we comparing apples to oranges (same content approach in different markets)?
Maybe part of your framework should include documenting what the actual content was, not just the numbers? Because then you can tell what part of the difference is metrics, and what part is just that different audiences respond to different things.