I’m about to go into a meeting with our investors about expanding our influencer strategy from Russia into the US market, and I’m nervous about how to present this.
They’re going to ask the obvious questions: Why influencers? Why now? What’s the evidence that this will work? How much will it cost? When will we see ROI?
I have a sense of why it makes sense—we’ve had success with influencers in Russia, the US market is similar in some ways but different in others, and we have a real shot at accelerated brand awareness if we execute well.
But “I have a sense” doesn’t work with investors. They want data, precedent, and a clear path to returns.
Here’s what I’m thinking of bringing:
- 3-4 case studies from Russian campaigns that worked (showing past ROI)
- Market research on how US audiences engage with influencer content
- A proposed budget and a projected 12-month ROI
- Names of potential influencer partners I’ve vetted
But I feel like I’m missing something. What’s the thing that actually moves the needle with investors?
Have any of you pitched international expansion of a marketing strategy to leadership or investors? What were the critical pieces they needed to see? What almost derailed your pitch?
You’re close, but I’d reframe it strategically. Investors don’t care about your past successes with influencers in Russia—they care about market opportunity and risk mitigation.
Here’s what I’d add to your pitch:
1. Market adjacency proof:
Show that American audiences respond to influencer content similarly to Russian audiences (or explain why they’re different and how you’ll adapt). Pull data: engagement rates, conversion benchmarks, CAC compared to paid search.
2. Competitive context:
Who are the competitors doing this well? Show that major players in your space are already using influencers in the US. If no one is, explain why you think you have an advantage. Don’t position this as novel—position it as validated by others.
3. The downside scenario:
This is what moved investors for me. I said: “If this underperforms by 30%, here’s what we’ll do, and here’s why we won’t lose money.” Investors respect risk awareness way more than blind optimism.
4. Pilot results or proxy data:
If you can show that even a small test campaign in the US (if you’ve done one) worked, that’s gold. If you haven’t, find similar campaigns from other companies in your vertical and show those.
5. Scalability:
Investors want to know: if this works, how big can it get? Can you scale from $50K to $500K in spend? Show the infrastructure, the vendor relationships, whatever.
The case studies are good context, but lead with the forward-looking stuff. “Here’s what we learned” is weaker than “here’s what the market is ready for.”
One more tactical thing: prepare for the question “Why not just use paid ads instead?” Have a clear answer. For us, it was: “Paid ads are saturating in the US. Influencer content cuts through because it’s trusted. Here’s the CAC comparison: paid search is $X, influencers are $Y, influencer CAC is lower in this vertical.”
That single comparison changed the conversation. Suddenly it wasn’t “Should we do influencers?” It was “Why would we do paid ads?” That’s the mental flip you want.
Anna’s framework is strong. I’d layer in one more thing: the strategic narrative.
Investors respond to stories that connect past success to future opportunity. The narrative should be: “We’ve proven influencer marketing works for us in Russia (evidence: past ROI). The US market has similar dynamics (proof: comparative data). Our team knows how to execute (team background). The TAM in the US is larger (market size). Therefore, we’re taking a proven playbook to a bigger market.”
That’s not fancy, but it’s the logic that moves money.
Also, prepare for the question: “What if we’re just getting lucky in Russia? What if influencer ROI is category-specific?” Have a hypothesis ready about why you think this will work in the US beyond just “we did it in Russia.”
For example: “We think it works because [beauty buyers are driven by peer influence / product x requires education that influencers provide / our demographic skews young and trusts creators]. Here’s data supporting that hypothesis.”
That kind of thinking makes investors comfortable that you understand the mechanism, not just the outcome.
From what I’ve seen, investors also respond well to evidence that you’ve already laid groundwork. Have you talked to potential influencer partners? Have you had exploratory conversations with US agencies?
When I pitched a cross-market initiative, I brought letters of expression from partners saying “Yes, we’d work with you if you expand here.” That tiny signal—“this is wanted, people are ready”—was huge for de-risking the pitch.
It shows you’re not operating in a vacuum. You’ve already validated some assumptions with real people.
Also, if you can show that top talents in the US have expressed interest in working with you, bring that. Investors love seeing that you’re attractive to the talent you need.
I pitched international expansion to investors multiple times. The thing that mattered most was showing a clear, repeatable process.
I said: “In Russia, we built an influencer strategy that followed this playbook: [5 steps]. It generated X% ROI over 12 months. Now we’re going to apply the same playbook to the US market, with these market-specific adaptations: [2-3 things]. Here’s why we think it will work.”
Investors don’t want to see that you’re inventing new strategy for each market. They want to see that you have a scalable, repeatable system that you’re applying to new geography.
Also: be clear about what you DON’T know. I said: “We know influencer marketing works in Russia. We hypothesize it will work in the US. Here’s how we’ll test that before committing the full budget.” That kind of intellectual honesty instilled confidence.
From an agency perspective, here’s what would make me excited if I was an investor: evidence that you can win influencer deals at scale.
I’d show: “We have relationships with X influencers in Russia generating Y ROI. We have preliminary discussions with U confirmed influencers in the US. Here’s their reach, rates, and estimated performance.” That de-risks the whole thing because suddenly it’s not theoretical—it’s “we can actually execute this.”
If you don’t have those relationships yet, that’s a gap you need to close before pitching. Investors will notice and ask: “How will you find and vet influencers in a new market?” If you don’t have a credible answer, the whole pitch gets shakier.