I realized recently that our single measurement dashboard was doing us a disservice. We had one set of KPIs—engagement rate, reach, conversion—and we were applying them identically to both LATAM and US campaigns. Problem is, “success” looks completely different depending on the market and the campaign type.
A UGC campaign in Mexico might succeed on community sentiment and brand affinity even if conversion rate is lower, because the user journey is longer. A direct-response campaign in the US needs to hit ROAS targets immediately or it’s a failure. They’re not comparable with the same metrics.
So we rebuilt. Instead of one dashboard, we now have a master dashboard that pulls in metric tiers. Top tier is market-agnostic stuff: brand health, audience growth, cost per content piece. Middle tier is market-specific: for LATAM we’re tracking sentiment and engagement depth; for USA we’re tracking conversion and return rate. Bottom tier is campaign-specific: if it’s a product launch, we look at awareness lift; if it’s a retention push, we look at repeat purchase.
Then we set different thresholds for each tier. A US campaign that hits 2.5x ROAS is green. A LATAM campaign at 1.8x ROAS might also be green if sentiment is strong and we’re building brand foundations for future growth.
This shifted how we iterate. Before, we’d see a LATAM campaign underperforming by US standards and kill it. Now, we ask: is it performing by the right standard? Are we measuring the right thing?
It also changed how we talk to clients. Instead of showing one confusing dashboard, we show them their market’s specific KPI set with context. “Your LATAM campaign is tracking to build awareness and affinity. Your US campaign is driving immediate revenue. Both are tracking to plan, but they’re measuring different things.”
Clients actually understand their campaigns now instead of getting lost in a sea of numbers.
How are you structuring measurement across markets? Are you using one set of KPIs or tailoring by region?
Это умно, но я всё равно не понимаю логику. Если вы ставите разные thresholds для разных рынков, как вы решаете, где инвестировать бюджет следующий квартал? Вы не можете сравнить performance если метрики несоизмеримы. Как вы это решаете? Проводите ли вы унормирование, или просто принимаете, что LATAM и США—параллельные вселенные?
Второе: как вы объясняете клиенту, почему LATAM-кампания с 1.8x ROAS считается успехом, когда конкурент их обещал 3x? Это звучит как отговорка. Какой у вас была историческая норма в каждом рынке, и как вы её установили? Потому что без базовых данных это субъективно.
Я часто вижу эту проблему—команды смешивают метрики и не понимают, что на самом деле произошло. Спасибо за структуру! Вопрос: когда вы таргетируете креаторов для кампании, вы выбираете их на основе их способности доставить LATAM-метрики или USA-метрики? Потому что если это разные скиллы, то может нужны разные креаторы?
Это объясняет много! Я заметил, что когда мы запустили в LATAM—все были счастливы тем, что просто бренд вообще появился. В США—все хотели immediately видеть деньги. Культурная разница, но я не связывал это с метриками. Значит, нам нужно полностью переделать наш measurement framework для разных рынков? Это звучит как кучка работы.
This is spot-on. We went through the same evolution. One thing we added: we also track a parallel profitability metric. So even though LATAM and US have different KPI sets, we measure the contribution margin per campaign dollar spent. That’s our north star that’s comparable across regions. LATAM might hit profitability through volume and lower CAC. US might hit it through higher AOV. Different paths, same endpoint—profit. That lets us allocate budget fairly.
As a creator, I really appreciate when brands know what they’re measuring. Some just want engagement, some want conversions, some want sentiment. When a brand is clear about what they need from my content, my output is way better. The fact that you’re making this conversation explicit with clients and teams? That’s leadership.
I’d push back slightly on the different thresholds idea. Instead of setting different success rates (2.5x vs 1.8x), I’d measure both markets against their own historical baseline. What’s YOUR 1-year moving average ROAS in each market? That’s your true control. If LATAM is usually 1.6x and you hit 1.8x, that’s a win. If US is usually 2.8x and you hit 2.5x, that needs investigation. Relative performance matters more than absolute numbers across regions.
Also—are you accounting for seasonality in your measurement? LATAM markets have completely different seasonal patterns than USA (different holidays, different shopping behaviors). A campaign that looks weak in Q4 for LATAM might actually be tracking fine if you normalize for seasonal variation. Are your dashboards dynamic by season or static?
One more framework: what’s your customer lifetime value (CLV) by market? Because that massively impacts your acceptable CAC and therefore your ROI threshold. If USA CLV is 3x higher than LATAM CLV, you can afford to spend more per customer in the US. That justifies different ROI targets without it feeling arbitrary. Have you mapped CLV by market?