I’ve been wrestling with a question that doesn’t get asked enough: when do creators actually become advisors in your market entry process versus just vendors executing campaigns?
We started our US expansion thinking we’d have our positioning locked down, find creators who fit that positioning, and have them execute content. But something interesting happened early on—when we actually got into conversations with creators about our offering, they started asking questions we hadn’t fully answered ourselves.
Questions like: “Why would an American consumer choose your product over the existing options?” And “Your positioning feels imported from Russia. What actually resonates with US audiences?” And “Have you thought about how this product adapts to US buying behavior?”
These weren’t complaints. They were intelligent people with their fingers on the pulse of their audiences asking intelligent questions. And it made me realize we were skipping a step.
What we ended up doing: before we committed to a full positioning and campaign structure, we had real conversations with maybe 5-6 US creators about the product, our target audience, and what we were hoping to achieve. Not to hire them yet—but to get their perspectives.
That shaped our actual market entry strategy more than any traditional market research. We learned:
- Our primary positioning wasn’t what would actually move American consumers
- The audience segment we thought was primary was actually secondary
- There were positioning angles we hadn’t considered that creators found particularly compelling
Then, after we had better clarity on positioning from those conversations, we went into the formal creator recruitment process for the pilot.
I think there’s real value in bringing creators in early—not as executors, but as advisors. But I’m curious whether it creates complications later (like, do creators expect equity or ongoing advisory roles?). Or whether it just makes the whole thing more authentic and successful.
For those of you building market entry strategies where creators have a voice: when did you actually bring them in? What was their input worth, and did it change how you approached the market?
Honestly, I love being brought in early. Not because I want to be an advisor—I’m not trying to be a consultant—but because when a brand actually values my perspective on the product and positioning itself, the work is so much better.
Here’s what happens when brands do this right: they come to me and say, “We’re entering your market and we want your honest take on our product and positioning. We’re not hiring you yet—we just want your perspective.” I give them real feedback. And then, when they ask me to create content later, I’m way more invested because I feel like I actually shaped the vision.
When brands don’t do this and just come with a full campaign brief? I’ll execute it, but there’s no magic. I’m following directions, not collaborating.
One thing to watch out for though: make sure you’re actually listening. If a creator gives you feedback and you ignore it, don’t ask them to work on the campaign later. That feels resentful. But if you listen, incorporate some of their thinking, and credit them with influencing the direction? Now you have a partner.
Also—and this matters—if you’re getting valuable strategic input from creators, you should be compensating them for that. Even if it’s a smaller compensation than a full campaign, they gave you time and expertise.
In your case, did you compensate those 5-6 creators for the strategic input, or was it more informal conversations?
This is such a smart approach because it flips the power dynamic in a healthy way. Instead of “we have a product, fit yourself into our vision,” it’s “we have a product, help us understand how to position it.”
From a partnership perspective, bringing creators in early does change the nature of the relationship. But honestly? That’s usually positive. You’re not building vendor relationships—you’re building collaborative ones. And collaborative relationships are stickier and more productive long-term.
I’d suggest being thoughtful about who you bring in early. Don’t just pick creators based on follower count. Pick people who are known for having good strategic insights, who ask smart questions, who understand audience psychology. You want advisors who think, not just content makers.
Also, be transparent about the informal nature of these early conversations. Like, “This is advisory input, it helps us shape strategy, and we’ll compensate you for your time and expertise.” That sets healthy expectations.
What I love about your approach is it creates natural advocates. When creators help shape your positioning, they’re invested in your success. They want your pilot to succeed because it partially reflects their input. That translates into better execution and more authentic content.
Did having creators involved in strategy actually change who you recruited for the pilot campaign?
From a data perspective, I’m interested in whether involving creators early actually correlated with better campaign performance. Because that’s the real metric of whether this approach is valuable, right?
I’d hypothesize: creators who had input into positioning probably produced content that resonated better, had higher engagement rates, and drove better conversion. But I’m curious if that’s actually what you saw.
Here’s what I’d measure: compare performance of content from creators who gave strategic input versus creators who just executed campaigns. Did the advisory-group creators outperform? If they did, then you have a strong case for this being a valuable process, not just a nice thing to do.
Also, I’m curious about this: did those 5-6 advisory creators end up being part of your pilot campaign? Or did you get their input and then recruit a different set of creators? That matters because there’s selection bias—if the creators with good strategic insights also happen to be the ones with the best execution skills, of course they outperform.
What were the actual performance differences, if you’re measuring them?
This makes me want to rethink how we approached EU expansion. We didn’t bring local creators in strategically early. We basically said, “Here’s our positioning, make content around it.” And honestly, the content was fine but it didn’t feel right.
I’m wondering if we would have gotten better results if we’d invested the time upfront in creator advisory conversations. Like, finding 3-4 smart creators in the EU market and literally asking them, “Does this positioning work for your audience? What are we missing?”
Your point about creators asking hard questions is so real. They’re close to audiences in ways consultants and internal teams aren’t. They have pattern recognition about what actually moves people.
One practical question: how did you identify which 5-6 creators to bring in for advisory conversations? Did you look for a particular creator profile (size, content category, engagement quality)? Or did you cast a wider net and just see who was interested?
Also, did you worry about giving away your strategy? Like, sharing your positioning and market entry plans with creators you weren’t yet committed to? Or did that feel fine because you were being transparent about the exploratory nature?
This is strategically sophisticated, and I appreciate the thinking. You’re essentially running a qualitative validation loop before you commit to quantitative spend. That’s smart.
Here’s where I’d push the framework though: there’s a difference between valuable input and noise. Creators give you audience insights, sure. But do they actually understand market entry strategy, competitive positioning, and customer acquisition dynamics? Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
What I’d suggest: be very clear about what you’re asking for in these early conversations. Don’t just ask open-ended questions and hope they say smart things. Ask specifically: “What would make someone in your audience choose our product over [competitor]?” Or “What’s the biggest objection you think Americans would have to this?” Structured questions usually generate more useful input than open fishing.
Also, I’d complement this process with other research. Get 50-100 consumers in your target segment, ask them similar questions. See if creator insights align with consumer data or if they’re outliers. That validation matters.
In terms of timing: early involvement is good, but make sure you’re not letting a small group of creators over-index your strategy. You should have multiple data sources informing positioning before you lock it down.
What other validation did you do beyond creator input before you committed to your US positioning?
I’ve facilitated this exact process for several clients and honestly, it works. Bringing creators in as strategic advisors—compensated, intentional input at the positioning level—usually leads to better execution and faster time-to-value.
Here’s the structure I’d recommend: 1-hour paid consultant call with 5-8 creators. You share positioning, product, target audience hypotheses. You ask for honest feedback. You listen more than you pitch. Most creators will give you valuable input if they feel respected and heard.
Then, the creators who were most helpful and who are excited about your direction become your first recruitment targets for the pilot. They’re already bought in because they shaped the vision.
One tactical note though: make sure you’re not just talking to creators who are already predisposed to like you. Bring in a couple adjacent voices—maybe creators who serve adjacent audiences or who have different perspectives. The contrarian input is often the most useful.
What my experience shows: this process usually surfaces one or two strategic insights that materially change positioning (like you experienced). Those insights alone are worth the time investment. Everything else is bonus.