I’m having a hard time figuring out how to present what my agency actually does well when I’m talking to potential partnership prospects. There’s this weird balance between: “Here’s what we’re genuinely excellent at” and “Here’s what we could theoretically do but haven’t done at scale yet.”
Right now, we’re really strong in influencer strategy and campaign execution for Russian and Eastern European brands. We know those markets deeply, we have solid creator relationships, and our clients trust us. But when I’m talking to US-based agencies or brands who want to enter those markets, I often find myself either downplaying what we can do (because we haven’t done it with US-based clients) or inflating our experience (because I’m nervous we’ll lose the opportunity).
The issue is that portfolio cases don’t always tell the whole story. A successful campaign with a Russian e-commerce brand doesn’t necessarily prove we can handle the strategy piece for a US DTC brand entering the Russian market. Different constraints, different audience behavior, different measurement frameworks.
I’ve also realized that some of the best partnerships have happened when both sides were really transparent about where they have gaps—and then committed to filling those gaps together instead of pretending we had endless capabilities.
How do you actually present your agency’s positioning without sounding either defensive or like you’re overselling? And when you’re evaluating a partner’s capabilities, how much do you trust their portfolio versus what they’re telling you directly?
This is probably the most important thing I’ve learned about partnerships, so I’m glad you brought it up.
I used to do exactly what you’re describing—oversell on capability and undersell on specialization. It burned me. I’d win a project, realize halfway through that we didn’t have the depth we promised, and then look incompetent.
Now I do this instead: I position my agency by what we’ve repeatably delivered, not by what we theoretically can do. So instead of saying “we run influencer campaigns,” I say “we’ve run 40+ UGC campaigns for Russian fashion and beauty brands with consistent 3.2% conversion rate,” and then I explain why that’s specific and what conditions that requires.
Then—and this is the key part—I’m explicit about my boundaries. “We excel here. We’re learning here. We’re not equipped for that.” Boundaries actually build trust because partners know you’re not going to BS them.
When I’m evaluating a potential partner, I do the same thing. I look at their portfolio, but I’m looking for specificity. If their case study says “successful influencer campaign” with vague metrics, that’s not useful. But if they say “Q3 2023, micro-creators in home&garden vertical, 8-week campaign, 2.7% ROAS, here’s the actual brief,” then I know they’ve thought deeply about their work.
I also ask them directly: show me a project where something didn’t work and how you fixed it. That tells me more than 5 success stories.
One tactical thing that’s helped: I now create a simple one-pager for each potential partnership that says: “Here’s what we do best. Here’s what we’re building. Here’s what we don’t do. Here’s how we could complement your services.” It’s honest, it’s clear, and it makes the conversation way easier because we’re starting from the same baseline.
You’re touching on something fundamental here: market positioning vs. market reality.
What I’ve found is that the most credible agencies are the ones who can articulate why they’re good at something, not just that they are. So when you say “we’re strong with Russian brands,” the follow-up should be: “Here’s specifically why. Here are the unique challenges of that market we’ve solved. Here are our benchmarks.” That’s defensible positioning.
The portfolio question you’re raising is real. A beautiful case study tells you they shipped something, but it doesn’t tell you: Was the strategy solid or did they just luck out with a viral trend? Did the execution match the strategy or did they salvage a bad brief with good tactics? Was the client actually happy or did they switch agencies after?
So when I’m evaluating a partner, I’m looking for: (1) specificity in their results, (2) consistency across multiple projects, (3) intellectual honesty about what worked and what didn’t, (4) ability to articulate their decision-making process.
For your positioning piece: I’d recommend owning the Russian/Eastern European specialization fully. That’s actually a valuable differentiator in the US market right now. Position it as “we are the go-to experts for brands wanting to enter or scale in Russian-speaking markets.” Then, for the cross-border partnerships, position your agency as a strategic partner, not a service provider.
The framing matters: “We don’t do everything, but what we do, we do at a level that most agencies can’t match because of our market depth.” That’s honest and compelling.
I love this question because transparency is literally the foundation of everything I do with partnerships.
Here’s what I’ve learned: authenticity is magnetic. When you’re clear about what you’re genuinely great at, the right partners gravitate toward you. The ones who need everything? They’re probably not the right fit anyway.
I’d suggest thinking of your positioning not as “here’s what we can do” but as “here’s who we’re the best match for.” Like, instead of saying “we run campaigns for Russian brands,” you could say “we’re the partner for US agencies that want to successfully navigate the Russian market without hiring in-house,” or “we work with international brands expanding into Russia.”
That way, you’re not listing capabilities—you’re describing the relationship. It’s a subtle shift but it changes everything.
Also, don’t undersell your experience or knowledge. You do have that deep market expertise. That’s valuable. Own it. And when you’re talking to potential partners, ask them a lot of questions about what they need. The conversation should feel like a fit-finding process, not a pitch session.
I’d absolutely be happy to facilitate an introduction between you and some complementary partners I know. Sometimes the best partnerships grow from warm introductions where both sides already respect each other.
From a data perspective, here’s what I look at when evaluating an agency’s real capabilities versus their claimed positioning:
-
Repeatability. One successful campaign could be luck. Five similar campaigns with consistent results? That’s a process. If their portfolio shows one-off wins across totally different verticals with no pattern, I’m skeptical.
-
Specificity in metrics. “Good results” is vague. Actual conversion rates, cost per acquisition, engagement rates, creator retention rates—these tell me they’ve actually measured and optimized. If they can’t articulate specific metrics, they’re not a strategic partner.
-
Market documentation. Do they have documented playbooks or frameworks? If they can show me “here’s how we approach Russian e-commerce differently from US e-commerce,” that’s evidence of genuine expertise. If they just have case studies, it’s harder to know if they can replicate it.
For your own positioning: I’d recommend quantifying what you’re good at. Instead of “experienced in Russian market,” say “we’ve run 40+ campaigns in Russian/Eastern European fashion and beauty, with average 3.4% conversion rate, and we’ve reduced time-to-viral from the typical 6-8 weeks down to 3-4 weeks through X methodology.”
I also trust the portfolio more when it’s accompanied by honest lessons learned. Show me a project that didn’t perform perfectly and explain what you’d do differently. That kind of thinking demonstrates growth and self-awareness.
I’ve been in your exact position, actually. When I was trying to scale our European operations, I had to decide: do we build capability in-house, or do we partner with someone who already has it?
Here’s what I realized: the worst partnerships happen when both sides are hiding something. “We can do this” when you’re not sure. “We’ve got this covered” when you don’t. It creates friction immediately.
The best partnerships I’ve had are ones where I said upfront: “Here’s what we’re great at. Here’s where we need help. Here are our non-negotiables on quality and speed.” Then I asked them the same questions. If they had convincing answers to my gaps and I could clearly help with theirs, we moved forward. If either side was vague, I passed.
For your positioning, I’d lean into the specialization angle hard. The US is flooded with full-service agencies. But agencies with deep Russian market expertise? That’s rare. That’s valuable. Don’t apologize for your niche—celebrate it.
When you’re presenting to potential partners, I’d walk through a recent project: “Here’s what we were asked to do. Here’s what we actually delivered. Here’s why it worked the way it did.” Let them see your thinking process, not just your results. That’s way more powerful than a polished case study.