I’m at an interesting inflection point with our expansion. We’ve got a solid product-market fit back home, but pivoting to US/Europe is a completely different beast. The biggest challenge I’m facing right now isn’t just finding influencers—it’s actually designing a go-to-market strategy that works across both regions without feeling like two separate campaigns duct-taped together.
Here’s where I’m stuck: when I look at how successful Western brands approach GTM, they have this deep local expertise baked in from day one. We’re coming from Russia with a different market understanding, different partnership playbooks, different measurement frameworks. I’ve been trying to adapt our Russian playbook directly, but I keep hitting dead ends.
What I’m realizing is that I need to co-create the actual GTM playbook with the influencers and partners I’m working with in the US/EU, not just execute a pre-built plan. But I’m not sure how to structure that collaboration in a way that doesn’t become a total mess or blow out my timeline.
Have any of you actually built co-created growth playbooks with cross-border partners? What did that process look like? How did you handle the differences in how you measure success or what “good” looks like?
Oh, this is exactly what I love talking about! I’ve been facilitating these kinds of partnerships for a while now, and the magic really happens when you stop thinking of influencers as executors and start thinking of them as strategic partners.
What I’ve seen work really well is setting up structured co-creation sessions early—like, before campaign launch. Get 3-4 key influencers or partners in a room (virtual or otherwise), walk them through your core GTM hypothesis, and actually ask them what’s missing. They’ll spot cultural blindspots you won’t see, they’ll know which channels actually work in their market, and honestly, they’ll be way more invested in execution if they helped build the strategy.
I usually structure it like this: first session is discovery—you share your brand story and goals, they share what they know about the local landscape. Second session, you co-define the core messages and value props. Third session, you map the actual execution across their networks and channels.
The key is treating it as a real collaboration, not just giving them a brief. Does that approach sound like something you’d consider?
I’d add one thing to this that I’ve learned from analyzing campaign performance: you need to align on metrics before co-creation, not after. We’ve run a lot of cross-border campaigns, and the #1 reason they underperform is that the Russian side measures success by one set of KPIs and the US side by another. ROI means something different. Conversion looks different. Engagement rates vary wildly.
What actually helped us: we created a shared scorecard at the beginning of any co-created playbook. It had 3-4 core metrics we all agreed on, plus region-specific metrics where it made sense. This way, when the US partner is creating content, they’re optimizing for goals you actually care about, and you’re not blindsided by “we hit our targets” meaning something completely different.
I’d recommend documenting that scorecard as part of your co-creation process. It sounds boring, but it saves so much friction later.
This is the right instinct, and I think you’re asking the right questions. Here’s what I’ve learned from running these collaborations: co-creation works best when there’s a clear decision-maker on each side, but they’re actually communicating, not just delegating.
What I do with my clients: identify a primary stakeholder on their side and a lead partner on the influencer/agency side. Those two people own the relationship and make the calls. Everyone else provides input, but those two have veto power and alignment responsibility.
I also set up a collaboration cadence—weekly syncs during the co-creation phase, shared doc that lives in one place (we use Notion or Google Docs), and I actually write a memo after each session that says “here’s what we decided, here’s what we’re still debating, here’s the open question.”
With cross-border work specifically, I’ve found it helps to have someone who understands both markets in that decision-making loop. That could be you, or it could be a consultant or partner who gets both sides. That person becomes the translator—not of language, but of expectations and market realities.
You might also consider starting with a pilot campaign with one or two key partners. Co-create a playbook for that, run it, measure it, then scale the learnings to other partners and channels. Way less risky than trying to perfect the playbook theoretically.
I love this question because from a creator side, I can tell you what actually makes me want to co-create vs. just execute. It’s when the brand genuinely wants to understand my audience and my creative process, not just hand me a script.
When I’ve been part of co-created playbooks, it usually means the brand founder or strategist actually sits with me and asks “what would actually resonate with your community?” That’s when I start bringing real strategic thinking to it, not just content creation skills.
One thing that helped a lot: brands I’ve worked with shared their audience research and market hypotheses with me early. So I’m not just creating blindly. I understand why they’re positioning something a certain way, and I can either validate that it’ll work or flag if I think it’s off.
I think for you, the co-creation includes sharing what you know about the US market from research, data, initial conversations—and then the creators fill in the gaps with what they actually know from living and creating there. The collaboration is real data + local intuition.
One question: are you planning to work with agencies in the US/EU who do GTM strategy, or more with individual creators and influencers? That changes how I’d structure the co-creation, honestly.
You’re touching on something really important here—the difference between adapting an existing playbook and co-creating a new one for a new market. Most brands try to do the former and then wonder why the execution feels off.
Here’s my framework: co-created GTM playbooks work best when you have alignment on three things: (1) the core value prop and how it translates to the new market, (2) the audience segmentation and where they actually congregate, and (3) the partnership model that makes sense locally.
I’d structure your co-creation in phases. First is validation—work with 2-3 market experts (could be agency heads, could be well-connected creators) to stress-test your core hypotheses. What’s resonating? What are you missing? Second is design—with those partners, sketch out the actual playbook: channels, messaging, partner types, timeline. Third is pilot—run a small version with one key partner to see what actually works.
The metrics thing is critical. I usually build a hypothesis dashboard that shows: what we believed coming in, what we’re testing, what early data is showing, and where we’re adjusting. That keeps everyone aligned and makes it clear when to pivot.
One tactical thing: document everything you learn from this co-creation process. When you scale to more regions or more partners, you want to be able to say “here’s what worked in this market, here’s why, here’s what to adapt.” That becomes your playbook for future expansion.
What’s your timeline looking like? That affects how aggressive the co-creation process can be.