I want to ask something that I think people are dancing around but not saying directly: How many of you are using the hub’s influencer and UGC strategy resources to actually acquire new clients, versus just improving your own work?
Here’s my situation. I run a content agency managing UGC campaigns. I’ve been diving into the hub’s playbooks for influencer collaboration strategies, creator vetting frameworks, and campaign optimization guides. They’re solid—I’ve learned things I didn’t know before.
But here’s the weird part: I’ve been using these playbooks to improve my campaigns for existing clients, which is great. The work quality went up, results improved. But in terms of new client acquisition? I’m not sure it’s actually helping.
Let me explain: I thought the playbooks would give me angles to pitch new brands. Like, ‘We’ve learned from the hub’s framework that your brand should be using tier-2 creators instead of macro influencers,’ and that becomes a consulting argument.
What I’ve found instead is that knowing the playbook matters way less than having a case study that proves it works for your ideal client. A brand doesn’t care that I read a brilliant strategic framework; they care that I got similar results for someone like them.
So I’ve been trying a different approach: co-create campaigns with other creators or agencies in the hub, document the results, and use those joint case studies as proof points to land new clients.
It’s slower. But the leads that come from ‘We ran this collaborative campaign together and got X results’ convert way higher than ‘I know best practices.’
I’m trying to figure out if this is just my market, or if there’s a real gap between learning strategies in a community and actually using those strategies to grow your business.
What’s your experience? Are the playbooks shaping how you pitch new clients? Or are you mostly using them to improve internal work?
You’ve nailed the real problem. Strategic frameworks are table stakes now. Every agency I know reads the same playbooks, takes the same courses, knows the same “best practices.”
The competitive advantage is execution and proof. A brand asking ‘Does this creator framework actually work?’ isn’t answered by you reciting theory. It’s answered by: ‘Here’s a campaign we ran using this framework—same budget as our competitor would’ve spent, and we got 40% better metrics.’
So your instinct to co-create case studies is right. But I’d go one layer deeper: the co-creation itself is part of the pitch. When you’re landing a new client, you can say: ‘We don’t work in isolation. We collaborate with other specialists in our network to validate strategies before we deploy them for you.’
That positioning—‘collaborative approach, validated through real partnerships’—is actually more compelling than ‘I read a good playbook.’
The playbooks are research. The case studies are proof. Brands buy proof.
I’m with you. I’ve been in the hub for a year now, and the first 6 months I was collecting insights like they were going out of style. Then I realized—none of it happened until I actually did something with it.
What shifted: I stopped thinking of the hub as a learning resource (though it is) and started thinking of it as a testing ground. Every playbook I wanted to validate, I’d propose a small collaboration to someone in the hub, run the experiment, and if it worked, then I’d pitch it to prospects.
Turns out, prospects care way more about ‘We tested this with another founder and here’s what happened’ than ‘I read this article.’
Your co-creation approach is the move.
From the creator side, YES—I notice the difference immediately between someone who’s read a playbook about creator collaboration and someone who’s actually done it.
The people who’ve actually worked with creators approach the pitch totally differently. They ask smarter questions, they build in flexibility for how I work, and they don’t treat me like I’m a commodity.
So yeah, the playbooks help. But only if you then take that knowledge and actually work with someone to prove it. The co-creation thing you mentioned? That’s the magic step that most people skip.
Also, from a client acquisition angle: brands can tell when you’re theory-rich and execution-poor. A client would rather work with someone who’s done something similar at smaller scale than someone who’s read everything but never actually shipped.
Use the hub to learn, then use collaboration to prove.
This is a classic problem in professional services: knowledge transfer doesn’t equal business impact.
Playbooks help you think better, which helps you execute better, which eventually lands new clients. But there’s a lag, and there’s no direct line.
What I do: I use playbooks to set strategy with my current clients first. Prove the results. Then I use those results to pitch new clients. It’s a 30-60 day cycle, but it’s real.
I wouldn’t invest heavily in co-creating case studies just for the sake of having them. That’s just work for work’s sake. But if you’re already running campaigns, and you can document them well, that’s your proof.
Question for you: Are the co-creations you’re running actually getting client results, or are you building portfolio pieces that look good but don’t convert prospects?
I think the playbooks are most useful when they’re not just knowledge, but connection points. Like, someone reads the influencer vetting framework and that sparks a collaboration with someone in the hub. The playbook was the spark, but the collaboration is the real value.
So maybe the question isn’t ‘Are these playbooks helping me land clients?’ but rather ‘Are these playbooks helping me find better collaborators?’ If the answer is yes—and the collaborations lead to stronger work—then clients follow.
I’d encourage you to also share your co-created case studies back in the hub. Not as sales content, but as genuine learning. I bet you’d attract more collaborators and potential clients that way.
This is really practical. For my company, we’ve been using some of the hub resources to think through influencer partnerships for our US launch. But I notice the same thing—reading about it and doing it are different things.
I’m curious: when you co-create case studies, how much of a time investment is that? Is it worth it for someone like me who’s just trying to test a market, or is that more for agencies?
Like, should I be doing lightweight collaborations first, or jumping straight to documented case studies?