I’ve been trying to build a unified dashboard for tracking campaign performance across US and LATAM, and I’m hitting a wall. The metrics that matter in one market don’t always matter in the other. US campaigns track conversion like it’s gospel, but in LATAM we’re often optimizing for awareness and engagement first—conversion comes later. Then there’s currency differences, market maturity, platform preferences… it gets messy fast.
We’ve got Google Sheets with a bunch of formulas right now, but I’m never confident we’re actually comparing apples-to-apples. I’ll see a LATAM campaign with 8% engagement rate and a US campaign with 2%, but I have no idea which one actually outperformed.
I’m pretty sure someone’s solved this, but I haven’t found the right framework yet. How are you actually measuring and comparing influencer ROI across these markets? Are you normalizing by market maturity? Geographic performance benchmarks? Or are you just accepting that each market gets its own separate scorecard?
This is great that you’re thinking about comparison, because a lot of teams just run separate campaigns and never actually learn from each other. Here’s what I’ve seen work:
Instead of trying to make one perfect dashboard, some teams use a two-tier system:
- Tier 1: Market-specific metrics (US teams track conversion; LATAM teams track awareness). Each market optimizes for what matters.
- Tier 2: Unified metrics that transcend markets. Usually: Reach, Engagement Rate, CPE (cost per engagement), and Brand Lift.
The Tier 2 metrics are your comparison layer. They tell you which creators performed well cross-market, not which strategy worked better (because strategies should be different).
What this lets you do is share learnings. Like, “Creator X had strong brand lift in both markets—let’s work with them again.” That’s actionable across markets.
I’d also recommend getting quarterly to talk about why metrics look different, not just seeing the numbers. Is the US campaign underperforming because the strategy was wrong, or because market saturation is higher? That context matters.
Okay, this is actually solvable with the right framework. Here’s what we built:
The Unified ROI Framework:
-
Currency Normalization: Convert all spend and revenue to USD using monthly avg exchange rates. This is baseline.
-
Market-Adjusted Benchmarks: Research what “good” looks like in each market. US Instagram engagement is typically 2-4%. LATAM is 4-8% (smaller, more engaged audiences). Thailand might be 3-6%. Create a benchmark spreadsheet by market/platform/content type.
-
Performance Score (0-100): Compare each campaign to its market benchmark, not other campaigns. If US campaign gets 3% engagement (market avg 3%), that’s 50/100. If LATAM campaign gets 6% engagement (market avg 5%), that’s also ~50/100. Now they’re comparable.
-
Actual ROI (if you have conversion data): Revenue / Total Spend (including creator fees + media). This is market-agnostic.
-
Efficiency Metrics: Cost per engage, Cost per acquisition, Cost per video view. Index these against market benchmarks too.
The Real Insight: Don’t try to make LATAM perform like US, or vice versa. Build a dashboard that shows: “Both markets are performing at 55/100 efficiency relative to their benchmarks.” That’s the truth.
What’s your actual goal with the unified dashboard—is it comparison for learning, or deciding budget allocation across markets?
We’re measuring this for our product launches and honestly, we struggled a lot. Here’s what finally made sense:
Define what success actually means in each market before you launch. For us:
- US market (mature): Conversion is king. CPL and ROI matter most.
- LATAM market (emerging for us): Awareness and trial matter. We measure signups and email list adds.
Then, we report them separately but think about them together. Like, US campaign drove 500 conversions at $25 CAC. LATAM campaign drove 2,000 email signups at $2 CAC. Those are different metrics, but together they tell a story about market development.
We also track cohort retention across markets. That’s a universal metric. Did people who came from the US influencer campaign stay? Did LATAM users stick around? This tells you about campaign quality vs. audience quality.
Honestly? Accept that perfect comparison is impossible. Different markets, different stages. What matters is that you can explain why the metrics look different, and whether you’re improving month-over-month within each market. That’s real progress.
We solved this by building a tiered reporting system. Here’s how it works:
Agency-level dashboard (what we report to clients):
- Reach and Impressions (market-agnostic)
- Engagement Rate (indexed against market benchmark)
- Cost per Engagement
- Conversions (if tracked)
- Brand Lift (if measured)
Internal analysis (what we use to optimize):
- Creator performance relative to their own historical avg
- Platform performance by market
- Content type performance by market
- Audience quality metrics (audience overlap, demographic match)
The key: We stopped trying to compare US and LATAM head-to-head. Instead, we compare:
- This month vs. last month within each market
- This creator vs. previous creators in the same market
- This content type vs. other content types in the same market
Then, the business asks: “So which market should we invest more in?” That’s a different question from “Which campaign performed better?” And it’s answerable with a simple ROAS comparison.
I’d recommend: Get your client/internal stakeholders aligned on what “success” means before you build the dashboard. Otherwise you’ll be rebuilding it every month.
What metrics do your stakeholders actually care about?
I have a different perspective here as a creator: I care that brands give me clear metrics for success before I start. When brands say “We’ll measure your performance against benchmarks,” I need to know what those are.
From what I’ve seen, the best campaigns have this: Brand says “For this market, we’re optimizing for X engagement rate and Y audience quality.” I know what I’m aiming for. Then at the end, we review together.
What I hate is when a brand runs me in two markets and then later complains that my performance looked different. Of course it did! Audiences are different! If you had told me upfront what you expected, I could have calibrated my content.
So maybe the real advice is: Make your framework and share it with creators. Transparency around how you measure success makes the collab so much smoother. And honestly, I perform better when I understand the goal.
Also, talk to creators about what’s realistic in each market. We know our audiences. We can tell you what engagement rate is actually achievable.
This is a standard multi-market measurement problem. Here’s the enterprise approach:
Phase 1: Define Metrics by Campaign Stage
- Awareness stage (LATAM focus): Reach, CPM, Impressions, Video Views
- Engagement stage (both markets): Engagement Rate, Saves, Shares, CPE
- Conversion stage (US focus): CPC, CPA, ROAS, CAC
Phase 2: Index to Benchmarks
Obtain market-specific benchmarks for each metric by platform/content type. Index each campaign’s performance as a % of benchmark. Now you can compare indexed scores.
Phase 3: Build Attribution Model
Not all conversions come directly. Some are lagged. US might show immediate ROI; LATAM might show ROI 30 days later as people develop trust. Use multi-touch attribution if you have the data.
Phase 4: Calculate Total MoM (Market-Adjusted ROI)
Total revenue driven / (Creator fees + Media spend + Overhead) = Blended ROAS
Then calculate Market-Adjusted ROAS by applying market penetration weights. If LATAM is 30% of revenue opportunity and US is 70%, weight accordingly.
The Reality: If a campaign in a mature market (US) generates $5 ROI per $1 spend, and a campaign in an emerging market (LATAM) generates $1.50 ROI per $1 spend, that’s not a failure—that’s expected. Both might actually represent “good” performance for their stage.
What’s your current blended ROAS across markets, and what conversion infrastructure do you have in place?