I’m in this uncomfortable position where I’m trying to justify a major expansion into US influencer campaigns to my CFO and CEO, but I don’t have baseline benchmarks yet. We have solid data from Russian campaigns, but when I present US numbers, it’s hard to say if they’re good or bad without context.
The real problem: US influencer ROI benchmarks are industry-dependent, audience-dependent, and platform-dependent. And most of the data I’m finding online feels like either survival bias (people bragging about their wins) or consultant marketing.
I’ve started collecting case studies from other brands doing similar transitions, and I’m seeing patterns, but I’m worried I’m cherry-picking. How do you actually build a credible ROI case for a market you’re new to?
Do you start with conservative assumptions and then prove upward? Do you run smaller pilots and use those to extrapolate? I’m also wondering if there’s value in tapping into a community of professionals who’ve done this transition—people who can give me the real numbers, the real failures, not just the highlight reel.
What’s your system for getting enough evidence to present confidently to leadership?
Okay, this is my lane. Here’s what actually works:
Step 1: Reverse-engineer from industry benchmarks. Don’t try to find a perfect US influencer benchmark. Find benchmarks for your category in US media (whether that’s paid social, display, affiliate, etc.). Let’s say your category sees a 3% conversion rate on paid social. Now work backward: if you need 3% conversion through influencers, what does that mean for influencer selection, pricing, and campaign size?
Step 2: Build a confidence interval, not a point estimate. Show your CFO a range: “Based on industry data, we should expect CAC between $15-$35. Our conservative case assumes $35. Our base case assumes $25. Our upside assumes $15.” This shows you’re thinking, not guessing.
Step 3: Run a small pilot (3-5 influencers, known audience overlap with your Russian market). Don’t go big. Measure everything. Document the hell out of it. This becomes your proxy for the US market while you’re still learning.
Step 4: Create a decision framework, not a ROI guarantee. Tell your CEO: “If conversion exceeds 2%, we scale 3x. If it falls below 1%, we pivot the influencer mix.” This removes the pressure to predict perfectly and puts it on your ability to iterate quickly.
I’ve done this twice now. The second time, I also benchmarked against the cost of what they would have spent on paid ads to reach the same audience. Suddenly, even mid-range influencer ROI looked good because we had a comparison.
You’re thinking about this backwards. Forget benchmarks for a second. Your CFO doesn’t care about industry averages—they care about incremental ROI vs. what you’re already doing.
Here’s the question to answer: “If we take $X from our Russian campaigns and redeploy it to US influencers, what’s the delta in revenue?” Not absolute ROI. Incremental ROI.
That’s much easier to model. You have Russian data. You can estimate that deploying the same $X in the US to influencers should produce at least parity, maybe better, based on US market size and engagement rates in your category.
Then build a phased approach:
- Phase 1: 10% of budget allocation, 90-day test, measure incremental revenue
- Phase 2: If Phase 1 hits 1.2x ROI, scale to 25%
- Phase 3: Scale to target allocation based on performance
This isn’t a “prove the benchmarks” conversation. It’s a “prove this specific capital redeployment” conversation. Much easier to win because you’re not arguing about industry data—you’re arguing about your own money.
Pilot hard. Document obsessively. Then scale on evidence, not faith.
I’m going to add something different here: tap into experienced practitioners. Seriously.
Some of my best clients have gotten clarity by connecting with 3-4 other brands who’ve done this transition successfully. Not competitors—brands in adjacent categories. They share: “Here’s what we thought would happen. Here’s what actually happened. Here’s the benchmark we use internally now.”
That real data, from people with skin in the game, is worth more to a CFO than most published benchmarks. And if you can get those conversations documented—even anonymized case studies—suddenly your confidence case becomes: “Here’s industry average. Here’s what three peers actually achieved. Here’s our conservative model vs. our optimistic model.”
I think there’s real value in building this kind of peer knowledge base. Would be useful for a lot of people in this position.
I went through this. Here’s what moved my board:
-
Show the math visibly. I built a simple model: target customers in US market × average order value × attainable conversion rate = potential revenue. Then I showed: our influencer budget could theoretically reach Y% of target customers at Z cost per reaching. CFO could see the logic, even if the assumptions were rough.
-
Reference what you know works. I said: “In Russia, at this spend level with influencers, we hit X% conversion. US market is different, so I’m modeling conservative and assuming 60% of that performance initially.” This grounds them in your actual history.
-
Get permission to learn. This is the key psychological shift. I didn’t ask for a $500k budget and a guarantee. I asked for $100k and 120 days to build a model. CFO loved it. Much less risky-seeming.
-
Over-communicate learning as it happens. Weekly updates on what’s working and what isn’t. This builds confidence that you’re not just throwing money, you’re building knowledge.
Did we hit every assumption? No. But we hit close enough that by month 4, I had real data to make bigger decisions on.
Honest perspective from running campaigns for brands in this exact position:
Your C-suite doesn’t need perfect US benchmarks. They need three things:
- A clear allocation strategy (how much money, to which channels, why now)
- Early warning signs (what KPIs mean “stop” vs. “go faster”)
- A path to scale (if this works, here’s how we grow it)
I usually present it like: “Here’s what similar categories see in the US (3-5% range). We’re going to test at the conservative end. If we hit 3%+, expansion is obvious. If we hit 1-2%, it’s still worth the learning, here’s why. If we hit below 1%, here’s the pivot plan.”
Most executives are fine with a 120-day learning period if it’s framed as a test, not a full commitment. Frame it that way. Get your pilot data. Then you’ll have real US benchmarks for the next conversation.
I don’t have the finance side, but I can tell you what I see from the creator perspective: brands that succeed internationally are the ones who invest in the right creators first, then figure out the ROI. They don’t skimp on influencer quality just to hit numbers.
So when you’re building your case: factor in that finding and vetting good creators takes time and money upfront. It’s an investment in learning the market, not just in the campaign itself. If your CFO understands that the first campaign is partly about building relationships and market knowledge, not just hitting conversion targets, suddenly the ROI expectations shift in a more realistic direction.
Also, US creators are usually more willing to do case study work or revenue-share deals if they’re early partners with a new brand. That can actually improve your ROI in year one, and it builds partnership depth that pays off in year two.