I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately. We’ve got about twelve people on our team, and we do solid work for mid-market Russian brands. But last year, I connected with a US agency that’s basically three times our size—bigger team, bigger budgets, bigger infrastructure. On paper, it seemed perfect. They had reach we didn’t have; we had market knowledge they needed.
But when we tried to actually work together, something felt off. They wanted to lead everything, which made sense given their size, but it also meant our insights kind of got flattened into their process instead of being genuinely integrated. We’d suggest something, and they’d either do it their way anyway or dismiss it as “not scalable.” Meanwhile, we felt like we were just executing their vision, not actually collaborating.
I think the issue was that we never explicitly talked about how to make the partnership actually work given our different sizes. We both assumed it would just… work. It didn’t.
I’ve learned that this needs to be discussed upfront. How do you split decisions? Who has final say on strategy? How do you handle situations where your team knows something important about the market but the bigger partner has invested more resources? These aren’t comfortable conversations, but they matter way more than they appear to.
The best partnerships I’ve seen across markets seem to work because both sides have clarity on what they’re actually contributing and why the other side needs that contribution. When one side feels like they’re just supporting the other’s vision, resentment builds fast.
Does anyone have a framework they actually use when you’re partnering with an agency that’s significantly bigger or smaller? How do you structure it so both sides feel like genuine partners?
This is real. I’ve been on both sides of this—sometimes we’re the bigger agency, sometimes we’re not. The framework that actually works: decide on leadership by function, not by size. So maybe the bigger agency leads the overall strategy and client relationship because they have the infrastructure. But the smaller agency leads execution on the market insight piece because that’s where their expertise is. Each side has clear ownership. Then you have a weekly sync where both leads are present, and decisions happen collaboratively within each domain. Disagreements still happen, but at least it’s clear who’s supposed to resolve them.
Also—and I can’t stress this enough—you need a written agreement that’s not just legal boilerplate. It should actually describe how you’ll work together. What’s the decision-making process? How often do you sync? What happens if you disagree on strategy? If you don’t write this down, the bigger partner will just default to doing things their way, and the smaller partner will feel resentful. I learned this after losing a good partnership because we never formalized how we’d make decisions.
From a strategy perspective, I’d recommend this: before you start any work together, align on the success metrics that each side cares about. The bigger agency probably cares about revenue or volume. The smaller agency probably cares about building reputation or deepening market knowledge. Both are valid. If you both understand what success looks like for each other, you can design the partnership so everyone wins. If you don’t, you’ll optimize for different things and create conflict.
Also, be honest about capacity. If you’re the smaller agency and you’re already running lean, don’t pretend you can scale to match what the bigger agency expects. If you’re the bigger agency and you’re stretched, don’t over-promise delivery. Misaligned expectations about what you can actually do—that’s what kills partnerships fast.
I think the human element is huge here too. Make sure the actual humans working on the partnership—not just the founders—get to know each other and trust each other. I’ve seen partnerships work where the leaders got along but the teams were siloed and unhappy. And I’ve seen smaller teams feel respected and valued even with a bigger partner because the actual project manager from the big agency treated them as a genuine team member, not a vendor. That relationship is everything.
One practical thing: have monthly or bi-weekly partnerships check-ins separate from project updates. Use that time to ask: ‘How’s this actually feeling for both of us? Are we both getting what we need from this?’ These conversations prevent small frustrations from becoming big problems.
We had this exact situation with a European partner who was much bigger. What saved us was being really explicit about ‘zones of authority.’ We said: ‘You own the relationship with the end client. We own the execution in-market detail. Neither of us makes major moves in the other’s zone without checking first.’ It sounds simple, but it prevented so much frustration because both sides knew their lane.
From a creative side, I’d just add: make sure the smaller partner gets credit for their work. I’ve seen cases where the bigger agency takes all the glory and the smaller team feels used. That kills momentum fast. Public acknowledgment of contributions—in case studies, in client calls, in internal updates—matters way more than people think. It keeps the smaller partner invested.