I’ve been experimenting with something that’s a bit unconventional for my agency: instead of pitching individual creators to clients, I’m co-branding campaigns with creators and positioning the combined offering as something worth paying for.
Here’s the setup: I partner with a creator who has strong engagement in the US market (often bilingual or with Russian-American roots). We develop a concept together—usually around UGC for their portfolio but packaged as a case study we can show to brands. Then, we use that joint case study as proof-of-concept when we pitch to new prospective clients.
The theory is sound: brands see a creator and an agency working together, the execution quality is higher than either of us could produce alone, and it becomes easier to close deals because the risk feels lower—“we’ve done this successfully before, together.”
But here’s where I’m stuck. It works sometimes. We’ve had two solid wins. Other times, it feels like we’re just building portfolio pieces that never convert into actual client revenue. I’m not sure if I’m:
(a) Picking the wrong creators to partner with,
(b) Not positioning the offering clearly enough to buyers,
(c) Spending too much time on case studies that don’t have enough sales horsepower behind them, or
(d) All of the above.
The creators I partner with are genuinely talented and have engaged followings. But I wonder: are we targeting the right buyer personas? Are we being too experimental? Should I be more selective about which campaigns I co-brand, or am I just not giving this enough runway?
Has anyone else tried this model? If it’s working for you, what made the difference?
Okay, so I’ve been on the creator side of this, and I can tell you exactly what makes or breaks it. The issue isn’t usually the creativity—it’s whether the co-branded case study actually speaks to the business outcome the brand cares about.
If I’m a DTC brand looking to hire an agency, I don’t care that the UGC looks pretty. I care about: CTR, conversion rate, CAC, and ROI. If the case study doesn’t have those numbers front and center, it’s just a pretty portfolio piece, not a sales tool.
Second thing: creators and agencies often have different energy. Creators are thinking virality and engagement. Agencies are thinking ROI and repeatability. When both of you are truly on the same page about the business goal (not just the creative goal), that’s when buyers take it seriously. Maybe that’s where the disconnect is?
Also, one tactical thing: which platforms are you selling on? LinkedIn B2B? Directly to brand managers? If you’re just hoping these case studies get discovered organically, that’s probably why they’re not converting. The co-brand needs to be actively promoted to your target buyer list, not just posted to portfolio.
I’d actually recommend being more selective, but not for the reason you might think. The issue I see here is scope creep in the partnership itself. You’re essentially taking on the overhead of managing a creator relationship, developing a case study, and then trying to sell the output.
Instead of doing more co-brands, I’d do fewer but with much higher curation. Pick creators who not only have engaged audiences but whose follower demographic directly overlaps with your target buyer’s ICP. And measure the performance of that case study as a sales asset before you move to the next one.
One metric: for every co-brand you create, how many qualified conversations does it actually generate? Track that religiously. If it’s below a certain threshold (I’d say 1 qualified lead per case study minimum), it’s probably not worth repeating.
Also—and this might sound harsh—but are you sure the creators you’re partnering with are actually strategically aligned with your agency’s strengths? Sometimes we partner with talented people because they’re fun to work with, not because they’re the right fit for the buyer. Big difference.
From a data perspective, you need to separate three metrics: (1) creative quality (engagement, comments, etc.), (2) commercial relevance (does the case study demonstrate ROI?), and (3) sales conversion (does it actually help close deals?).
My guess is you’re strong on #1 and maybe #2, but #3 is where it’s breaking down. Before you pivot or scale, I’d conduct a post-mortem on the two wins you mentioned: What made them work? What was different about the pitch, the creator, the timing, or the case study itself?
Once you have that pattern, replicate it exactly. Don’t add more campaigns; make each one count.
This is interesting because I’m actually on the buyer side sometimes. When I see co-branded stuff, my first instinct is: “Why should I trust both of them equally?” Like, is the agency the lead and the creator is supporting? Or is it co-equal?
I think the positioning matters a lot here. Make it clear who’s responsible for what and why both parties bring unique value that a solo agency or solo creator couldn’t. That clarity actually increased my trust when I’ve seen it done well.