We’re three months into a partnership between our Russian brand and a US digital marketing agency, and we keep running into the same data problem: our success metrics diverge wildly across markets.
In Russia, we’re hitting conversion targets. CAC is where we expected it. ROAS is solid. The team is happy.
In the US market, everything looks like a disaster by comparison. ROAS is 40% lower. CAC is 60% higher. But here’s the thing—engagement is actually higher in the US, and the audience sentiment is positive. So is it really failing, or are we just measuring wrong?
We keep having these tense calls where the Russian team looks at US metrics and says “this is inefficient,” and the US agency says “you’re comparing apples to oranges, our market is just more expensive and slower-burn.”
They’re probably both right. But that doesn’t help us.
What We’ve Tried:
-
Unified KPIs: We set one ROI target across both markets. Didn’t work—the US never hit it, Russia consistently overperformed, and it just created conflict.
-
Market-Specific KPIs: We said “okay, different targets for each market.” Now nobody’s on the same page about what “success” actually means. The partnership feels fragmented.
-
Hybrid Approach: We’re currently trying to focus on actions instead of outcomes. “Did the campaign ship on time? Did messaging stay consistent?” This helps synchronization but feels like we’re dodging the actual performance question.
The Real Problem:
I think the issue is that we don’t have a framework for connecting bilingual performance without forcing fake alignment or accepting complete fragmentation.
So here’s what I need:
- How do other people handle this? Do you eventually just accept that the same product performs differently and stop trying to force alignment?
- What metrics actually travel across borders, and which ones are pure local variables?
- How do you keep a bilingual partnership feeling like one team when the data tells very different stories?
- And honestly—how do you have the conversation internally where one market is outperforming the other without it becoming a blame game?
This is such a real problem, and I’m so glad you’re naming it. I see this with every cross-border partnership—it’s like they’re working on different planets.
Here’s what I’ve seen work best: layer the metrics. You have three layers:
- Universal metrics (things that should travel: audience growth, engagement rate, content consistency)
- Market-specific metrics (CAC, ROAS, because markets are different)
- Partnership health metrics (communication speed, deliverable timeliness, creative alignment)
When I connect Russian teams with US agencies, I now make them agree on all three layers before they even start. It prevents the “are we winning?” confusion.
The mental shift that helps: Russia and US aren’t “performing differently”—they’re different markets with different operating costs and speeds. Once everyone accepts that, alignment becomes about syncing the process, not forcing identical outcomes.
Would it help to have someone mediate these metrics conversations?
I also think you need a single person on each side whose job is just to translate what the metrics mean across markets. Not strategically—literally translate what “success” means in Russian terms vs. US terms.
Sounds simple, but most partnerships don’t have that role. Everyone just assumes metrics speak for themselves. They don’t.
Okay, so the real issue here is that you’re trying to compare normalized metrics without normalizing for context.
Let me break this down:
Russia metrics:
- CAC: What’s your average?
- ROAS: What’s the baseline for your industry in RU?
- Market maturity: Is this market densely competitive or is CPM still low?
US metrics:
- CAC: Same question
- ROAS: Industry baseline in US (likely 2-3x higher marketing spend overall)
- Market saturation: US is typically more competitive, thus higher CPM
Here’s the thing: if your CAC is 60% higher in the US, that might actually be the market rate. ROAS being 40% lower might be normal for US market density.
What you should be measuring instead: efficiency relative to market baseline. Are you performing 10% better than the industry standard in each market? That’s the real comparison.
Do you have industry benchmarks for your vertical in each market? Because if not, you’re literally comparing blind.
Also—and this matters—what’s your LTV in each market? Because CAC and ROAS are incomplete without it. High CAC can be perfectly acceptable if LTV is also high.
Let me also push back on your engagement observation: “engagement is higher in the US but ROAS is lower.”
That’s telling you something important—you’re getting cheaper engagement (easier to reach) but less conversion-oriented engagement. That’s a messaging problem, not a metrics problem.
This would be my diagnosis:
- Russian audience: qualified at the engagement stage (people engaging are already predisposed to buy)
- US audience: engaging broadly, but lower purchase intent in the engaged segment
If that’s true, your agency’s creative strategy might not be audience-appropriate, OR you’re targeting too broad an audience in the US.
Can you share: what’s the engagement → conversion funnel for each market? That’s where your real story is.
Because if Russia is 5% engagement→conversion and US is 1%, that’s the actual problem, not the ROAS number itself.
Dude, this is exactly what we’re dealing with right now. We expanded to EU and immediately hit the same wall—every market has different unit economics, and comparing them head-to-head just creates tension.
Here’s what actually saved us: we stopped trying to force alignment on outputs and focused on aligning on inputs.
Like, we don’t say “both markets should have 3.0 ROAS.” We say “both markets should have the same quality of creative, messaging consistency, and testing protocol.” Then we let outcomes be what they are.
The conversation changed from “why is US underperforming?” to “are we executing the same strategy in both places?”
Turned out, we weren’t. Once we aligned execution, the outcomes naturally became more reasonable to compare.
How aligned is your execution actually? Like, are you using the same tools, same testing cycles, same reporting cadence?
Okay, so from an agency perspective, I’m going to be direct: most brand-agency partnerships collapse around this exact disagreement.
Here’s what I do before I start:
Pre-engagement conversation: We explicitly discuss market economics. US digital marketing is expensive. Russian digital is cheaper. That’s fact. If the Russian team thinks US performance should mirror Russia, we’re not aligned yet.
I get both teams to sign off on market-realistic targets before we ship anything. “Russia target ROAS: 3.0. US target ROAS: 2.2 (because market CPM is 2.5x higher).” Written down. Acknowledged.
Then, monthly reporting is structured around efficiency vs. target, not absolute comparison.
My question for you: Did your agency push back on unified KPIs from the start, or did they just accept it and then struggle when they couldn’t hit it?
Because if they did push back and you ignored it, you’ve got a communication problem upfront.
Also—how much control does your Russian team have over US campaign execution? If they’re making strategy decisions for a market they don’t understand, that’s your issue.
I’m looking at this from a content angle, and I’m curious: is the creative actually different between markets, or are you running the same ads translated?
Because engagement can be high but conversion low if the creative doesn’t actually resonate with the US audience. The words might translate, but the vibe doesn’t.
I’ve worked with Russian brands trying to sell to US audiences, and the number one issue is that the creative feels “off”—not wrong, just… not quite right for how Americans actually engage.
So my question: did your US agency build new creative for the US market, or are you adapting Russian-market creative?
Because if it’s the latter, your “high engagement, low ROAS” makes total sense. People engage with weird ads. But they don’t buy based on them.