Every time we try to bring in a new US partner (agency, influencer network, consultant), the vetting process takes forever. We do intro calls, ask for case studies, check references, and we’re still not sure if they actually understand the Russian market or if they’re just saying what we want to hear.
Meanwhile, we’re slow-walking market entry because we don’t have partners locked in. And when we finally do hire someone, there’s often a mismatch—they claim expertise in cross-border work but they’re really just a US-only shop that’s worked with one Russian client.
I feel like there must be a faster, smarter way to identify and vet partners who actually have relevant experience and aren’t going to waste our time. What’s the signal you actually look for? How do you compress the vetting timeline without cutting corners on due diligence?
I used to spend months on partner vetting too. Here’s the framework that cut it down:
Fast qualification (15 minutes max):
- Ask: “Who’s your last three clients in [specific market]?” If they hesitate or name big aspirational clients, they don’t have real work.
- Ask: “Show me one campaign you ran into Russia/Cyrillic-speaking market in the last 18 months.” Not a proposal—actual past work.
- Ask: “What’s different about that market vs. the US?” If they answer generically, they’ve never actually worked there.
These three questions tell you everything. Real partners answer in 30 seconds with specifics. Pretenders take 10 minutes and hedge.
Red flags:
- “We’ve worked with a Russian founder” (doesn’t mean they understand Russian market)
- “Our team includes a Russian speaker” (doesn’t mean they have agency experience)
- Lots of talk about “cultural adaptation” without specifics
Green flags:
- They ask you questions about your specific brand before suggesting an approach
- They name specific campaigns with client permission
- They talk about mistakes they’ve made (everyone makes them; honesty is a signal)
My vetting process now:
- Phone screener (15 min) using those three questions
- Request 2–3 case studies with client names/permission
- One reference call with a past client
- Done. Total time: 90 minutes spread over a week.
If a partner won’t do this efficiently, they’re not a good vendor anyway. Good vendors respect that you’re busy.
How much time are you currently spending on vetting? And are you asking to see actual past work, or just hearing pitches?
I built a scorecard for this. It’s saved us weeks:
Quick screening (before deeper conversation):
- Local team presence in market or strong local partnerships? (Yes/No)
- Track record with category similar to yours? (Yes/No)
- Case studies with metrics (not just stories)? (Yes/No)
- Reference willing to be contacted? (Yes/No)
If they don’t hit 3/4, you stop here.
Deep vetting (if they pass screening):
- Specific questions tied to your use case: “We need to launch in the US with Russian brand messaging. How would you handle that?” Watch if they actually think or if they use generic frameworks.
- Ask them to assess your market fit risk in 10 minutes. If they’re thoughtful and honest about challenges, they’ve done real work. If they’re cheerleading, they haven’t.
- Check: Do they know your competitors? Have they worked with anyone similar? What did they do differently?
Reference call script (30 min, specific questions):
- “Did they meet timelines?” (punctuality matters)
- “Did they adapt when your market needs changed?” (flexibility matters)
- “Would you hire them again?” (the real question)
Portfolio audit:
- Look at their client list. Can you verify them? (LinkedIn helps)
- Are they doing the same playbook for everyone, or tailoring approaches?
This entire process takes us 4–5 hours per potential partner, spread over 2 weeks. That’s tight and defensible.
Pro tip: Ask potential partners for names of clients they didn’t work out with. If they’re honest about bad fits, they know their limits. That’s actually trustworthy.
How many partners are you typically vetting at once? And are you clear on what “success” looks like for each partnership before you even talk to them?
Honest answer: I used to waste time on detailed vetting, then I realized the best way to vet is to do a small project first.
Here’s my current approach:
Phase 1: Quick intro (20 min call)
- Do they understand the challenge?
- Can they talk specifics, not generalities?
- Do they ask smart questions?
Phase 2: Micro-project (2–4 weeks)
- Give them a small, defined scope: “Help us identify 10 potential US influencer partners for our category” or “Run an audit of our current brand positioning in the US market”
- Pay them fairly for this (we budget $2–5K)
- See how they actually work, not how they pitch
Phase 3: Decide
- Did they deliver quality work?
- Were they organized?
- Did they hit timeline?
- Could you actually work with them long-term?
This gives you evidence instead of promises. And if they’re not a fit, you’ve spent 2–4 weeks and $5K instead of 3 months wondering.
The ones who are good? We expand the project. The ones who fumble? We know early.
Bonus: They get a real sense of working with you, which actually helps partnerships work long-term. There are no surprises.
There were a couple times we did the micro-project and realized the fit wasn’t there, but at least we knew fast. And honestly, that saved us from way worse scenarios.
Are you open to paying for a smaller project upfront? That might compress your timeline significantly.
From the partnership angle, here’s what I’ve learned: the best partners are the ones who understand who they are and who they aren’t.
Here’s my vetting shortcut:
Ask them this: “Who shouldn’t work with you? What’s not in your wheelhouse? What market have you tried and walked away from?”
Partners with confidence and experience answer honestly. Pretenders try to be everything to everyone.
My actual process:
-
Intro call (15 min): Get a sense of whether they’ve actually done this before. Do they know the market? Do they ask about your specific needs or pitch generic solutions?
-
Reference calls (30 min each, I do 2, not 1): I ask the same reference about two different things and see if the stories line up. I ask about challenges and how the partner handled them.
-
Trial collaboration (2–4 weeks): One small project together. This is the real test.
Honestly, the vetting process that works best is one where both sides are honest. I tell new partners: “We need you to be real about what you can do and what you can’t.” The good ones respect that.
One thing I’ve started doing: I ask partners who they’ve rejected as clients. Someone who’s selective about who they work with tends to be more reliable than someone who says yes to everything.
Who’s your current go-to for vetting advice? Are you leaning on any existing network, or is it all from scratch?
I tracked our partner vetting process once because it felt inefficient, and here’s what I found:
Vetting method effectiveness:
- Case studies alone: 40% partner success rate (they look good on paper, underperform in reality)
- Reference calls only: 65% success rate
- Reference calls + trial project: 85% success rate
- Reference calls + trial project + founder call: 90% success rate
So the fastest vetting that’s still reliable is reference calls + trial project. That combo catches most problems.
Specific vetting questions to ask references:
- “Did they do better/worse/same as expected?” (Honesty marker)
- “What surprised you about working with them?” (Real insights, not rehearsed answers)
- “Would you hire them if you expanded to a new market?” (Adaptability signal)
- “When did they stop being useful?” (What’s their depth limit?)
The fourth question is key. Everyone sounds good until you ask what they don’t do well.
For cross-border specifically, ask references:
- “How did they handle the language/cultural gap?”
- “Did they hire local support or try to manage remotely?”
- “How much hand-holding did they need from you vs. how much did they take ownership?”
Timeline: Reference call (30 min) + trial project (2–4 weeks) + decision = 4–5 weeks total. Get three references and you can compress it to 3 weeks.
My data point: Partners we hired after quick vetting had 40% churn in year one. Partners we vetted with trial projects had 8% churn. That ROI on an extra 2 weeks of vetting is massive.
How many partners have you cycled through? That might tell us if vetting speed is actually the problem or if there’s a fit issue.
I’m a creator, not a hiring person, but I see this from the other side when agencies try to partner with creators like me. Here’s what I notice about agencies/partners that seem legit vs. sketchy:
Legit partners:
- Ask about my audience specifically (not generic influencer questions)
- Have done work with creators before (they ask informed questions)
- Show examples of campaigns they’re proud of (with permission)
- Clear about payment, timeline, and what they expect from me
Sketchy partners:
- Pitch generic “influencer packages”
- Can’t name specific past creators they’ve worked with
- Vague about deliverables or timeline
- Lead with “exposure” instead of actual payment
If that tells you anything: the partners worth working with are transparent about past work. If someone won’t let you talk to past creators or clients, that’s a red flag.
Also, real talk: any agency doing cross-border work should have at least worked with creators on both sides. If they don’t know what creators look for or how they operate, they’ll fail.
Do your partner candidates have creator references? Or are they only giving you brand/agency references? That’s a gap.