I’ve been struggling with something that probably sounds technical but is actually messing with how we allocate budget: our ROI metrics from Russia and the US don’t speak the same language, and it’s making strategic decisions impossible.
Let me explain. In Russia, we track conversions, CTR on links, and general engagement. Pretty standard. But when we started running similar campaigns in the US with English-speaking creators, the metrics shifted. Different platforms, different user behavior, different attribution windows. A campaign that looked amazing in Russia (20% conversion rate) looked mediocre in the US (2% conversion rate)—but the US campaign actually generated way more revenue because the average order value was higher.
I started comparing notes with other marketers, and everyone has the same problem. How do you actually set a unified ROI target when the markets operate under completely different parameters? Do you just accept that they’re incompatible and set separate KPI targets for each region? Or is there a way to create a bridge?
Right now, we’re trying to normalize everything to ROAS (return on ad spend) instead of conversion rate, but even that feels like we’re forcing it. The cost per click is different, the customer lifetime value is different, the seasonality is different—it all compounds.
Have you found a way to measure influencer ROI across markets that actually makes sense for budget allocation? Or do you just keep the metrics separate and make decisions based on instinct + data?
This is the exact problem I solved last year, and it required rethinking how we define ROI entirely. The solution isn’t to normalize everything to one metric—that’s actually impossible and misleading. The solution is to build market-specific benchmarks and then track efficiency within each market.
Here’s what I do: for each market, I establish a baseline ROAS over the first 3-6 months. Russia baseline: 4:1, US baseline: 2.5:1 (these are made-up numbers, but you get the idea). Then I set improvement targets relative to each baseline, not absolute targets.
So a campaign that achieves 5:1 ROAS in Russia is a 25% improvement over baseline, and a campaign that achieves 3:1 in the US is a 20% improvement. Now they’re comparable, even though the absolute numbers are different.
The second part is tracking by cohort: instead of just looking at ‘conversions,’ track customer LTV, repeat purchase rate, and average order value separately by market. This reveals whether a ‘lower-ROI’ market is actually higher-value in the long run.
I built a dashboard that handles all this automatically now. It’s saved countless conversations about ‘why is the US campaign underperforming?’ when really it’s performing exactly where it should be given the market context.
You know, I’ve noticed that teams who obsess over making metrics match across markets actually miss opportunities. Instead of trying to force Russia and US data into one model, what if you just… accepted they’re different and built processes around that?
What I mean is: when you’re building partnerships with creators in each market, ask them specifically about their audience’s buying behavior. A Russian creator might tell you their audience is price-sensitive but highly loyal. A US creator might say their audience converts quickly but needs consistent touchpoints.
That intelligence, combined with your data, actually gives you a richer picture than any normalized metric. I’ve seen teams use this approach to build creator mixes tailored to each market’s actual dynamics, and suddenly the campaigns just work better.
Maybe the answer isn’t a unified ROI formula—it’s building regional expertise and trusting your teams in each market to make smart decisions with their regional data.
I’ll be direct: the issue is that ROAS alone doesn’t capture the full picture. You need a multi-dimensional framework.
Here’s what we actually track: ROAS, CAC (customer acquisition cost) by market, LTV, and payback period. ROAS tells you efficiency, CAC tells you cost, LTV tells you value, payback period tells you risk. Together, they’re comparable across markets even when absolute numbers differ.
For budget allocation specifically, I use a blended approach: 40% weight on ROAS, 30% on LTV ratio (LTV/CAC), 20% on trend (is it improving or declining?), 10% on risk (campaign volatility). This lets me fairly compare Russia at 4:1 ROAS with the US at 2.5:1 ROAS because I’m looking at the whole picture.
Also, implement proper attribution modeling if you haven’t already. Multi-touch attribution will show you which touchpoints (influencer, organic, paid) actually drive conversions. This removes a lot of the noise in the data.
The real problem most teams have: they’re measuring ROI too narrowly. Expand the framework, and suddenly everything becomes clearer.
We literally had this conversation two weeks ago with our team. We’ve been running campaigns in Russia, US, and Europe, and the metrics are all over the place.
What we finally did was hire someone specifically to build a unified analytics framework. It wasn’t cheap, but it was worth it. They set up a system where each market has its own baseline and targets, but there’s a master dashboard showing relative performance across all markets.
Now when I ask ‘how are campaigns doing overall?’, the answer isn’t ‘Russia is doing great, US is doing okay’—it’s ‘Russia is 15% above baseline, US is 8% above baseline, Europe is 5% below.’ This actually lets us compare apples to apples.
I’d recommend bringing in someone from outside your team to build this. Your team is too close to the data and the regional quirks. An outside perspective helps you create something that actually works.
We solve this by treating each market as its own P&L with its own targets. Russia campaign has a target ROAS. US campaign has a different target ROAS based on historical performance. Same with CAC and LTV.
What’s helped us: we actually benchmark against other agencies’ public case studies in each market. Not to copy them, but to know what ‘good’ looks like in that specific market. If Russian influencer campaigns typically see 3-4:1 ROAS, and ours are hitting 5:1, we’re winning. If US campaigns typically see 2-3:1 and ours are hitting 2.2:1, that’s different context but still solid.
One more thing that matters: don’t just look at immediate ROI. Track 30-day, 60-day, 90-day ROAS. Sometimes US campaigns are slower to mature but have better LTV. This changes how you evaluate them.
If you want, I can share a template we use for cross-market reporting. It’s not perfect, but it gets the job done and makes budget conversations way easier.
I honestly don’t think about ROI the way marketers do—I just track which campaigns feel successful based on engagement and follower growth. But talking to brands I work with, I hear this problem all the time.
What I notice is that brands who actually succeed with influencer campaigns are the ones who let us create content that’s authentic to our market. Like, a US creator is going to create different content than a Russian creator because our audiences are different. The brands who push us to make ads that look the same across markets usually see worse performance.
Maybe the solution isn’t forcing the metrics to match—it’s accepting that different markets need different approaches, which means different metrics? Just a thought from the creator side.