We’ve grown to the point where we’re managing creators and campaigns across Russian and US markets simultaneously, and our operations are starting to feel fragmented. We have people in both markets, we’re running parallel campaigns, we speak two languages, we’re across multiple time zones—and I’m realizing that without deliberate structure, things constantly fall through cracks.
Right now, our workflow is: Russian team manages Russian creators and campaigns, US team manages US operations, and we try to sync via Slack and weekly calls. But the sync points aren’t working well. We’ll brief a campaign in English, translate it for Russian creators, something gets lost in translation, and we end up with UGC that’s off-brand. Or we’ll agree on a strategy in a call and then each team interprets it differently.
I’ve also realized that knowledge isn’t flowing between teams. The Russian team learned something about creator management that could help the US team, but we don’t have a structure to capture and share that. Same with case studies, best practices, even simple things like vetting templates.
And then there’s the bigger question: how do we actually manage subjectivity when taste and judgment are involved? Like, what counts as “on-brand” when two teams in different markets are evaluating content? I need a framework where both teams feel empowered but stay aligned.
I’m not sure if this is a process problem, a communication problem, a culture problem, or all of the above. Has anyone here built a cross-functional team that spans multiple markets and actually keeps things running smoothly? How did you structure decision-making, knowledge sharing, and alignment?
This is an organizational design problem, and it requires systematic thinking.
Start with clarity on decision authority. Define which decisions are made centrally (brand guidelines, strategic direction, case study narratives) and which are delegated to regional teams (creator selection, local campaign tactics, influencer relationships). Once each team knows their lane and has clear criteria for decisions, you’ll have way fewer conflicts.
Second, documentation. You need a single source of truth for:
- Brand guidelines (with regional adaptation rules)
- Creator vetting criteria
- UGC approval standards (including examples)
- Campaign templates
- Case study frameworks
This should be in a shared doc or wiki that both teams can reference and contribute to.
Third, sync structure. Instead of ad-hoc Slack conversations and general weekly calls, I’d recommend:
- Weekly ops sync (30 min, tactical: blockers, schedule, immediate decisions)
- Bi-weekly strategy sync (60 min, deeper: campaigns in flight, learnings, adjustments)
- Monthly knowledge share (90 min, structured: each team presents one learning, updates documentation)
That’s way more efficient than constant communication.
Finally, for subjective judgment (like what’s “on-brand”), build a shared rubric. Instead of relying on individual taste, create a scorecard: Does the UGC fit the brand tone? Does it resonate with the target audience? Is it technically sound? Score each dimension, and you’ve got a defensible framework.
What’s your current decision authority structure? Is there a clear owner for each function, or is it still pretty fuzzy?
I’d add a measurement framework to Mark’s structure. One reason teams drift is because they’re not measuring the same things.
Define your core metrics upfront and make sure both teams track them the same way:
- Creator engagement rates (same calculation in both markets)
- UGC approval rate (first submission vs. revisions needed)
- Campaign ROI
- Turnaround time
- Creator retention
Then measure across teams. If your Russian team is operating at 2.5x ROAS and your US team is at 1.8x ROAS, that’s a conversation. Are you targeting different segments? Having different QA standards? Using different influencers? Knowing the “why” keeps teams learning from each other instead of operating in silos.
I’d also recommend a monthly sync where you share these metrics and explicitly discuss what each team is doing differently and why. That’s how you learn.
For the knowledge-sharing piece, I’d assign someone as a documentation owner—ideally someone bilingual or bicultural who can translate learnings between teams without losing nuance.
What metrics are you currently tracking, and are both teams using the same definitions?
The relationship piece is really important here, and I think it gets overlooked in favor of process.
Yes, you need documentation and clear decision authority. But you also need your teams to actually know and trust each other. When I’ve seen cross-market teams work well, it’s because the people actually have relationships.
Some practical things:
- Have team members from each market do asynchronous introductions. Like, the Russian team records a 5-min video introducing themselves and their work to the US team, and vice versa.
- Do quarterly in-person or virtual team building where it’s not about work—it’s about knowing each other as people.
- Assign cross-market buddies. Like, each Russian team member has a US counterpart they check in with monthly, not just about work but how things are going.
- Celebrate wins together. When a campaign hits ROI targets or a creator relationship turns into a retainer, make sure both teams see it and celebrate it.
Once people actually know each other, the documentation and processes work way better because teams are willing to go the extra mile for each other.
Also, I think your translation issue is actually an opportunity. Instead of trying to translate briefs in a way that loses nuance, what if you had bilingual people co-create briefs? Like, a Russian creator and a US creator and a bilingual strategist all review the brief together before it goes out. That’s more overhead upfront but prevents so much rework downstream.
Do your teams actually socialize beyond work calls? That’s probably worth investing in.
From an ops standpoint, you need a system that’s clear enough to prevent chaos but flexible enough to let teams do their best work.
Here’s the structure I’d recommend:
Day-to-day: Each team owns their market. They manage creators, run campaigns, make tactical decisions. No sign-off needed from the other team unless it crosses into brand/strategy territory.
Weekly: Brief tactical sync—blockers, schedule, asks. 30 minutes max.
Bi-weekly: Deeper sync—campaigns in flight, learnings, any strategy decisions.
Monthly: Knowledge share + strategy planning for next month.
Quarterly: Cross-team retrospective. What worked, what didn’t, how are we actually doing.
For documentation, I’d use a tiered approach:
- Green documents (no change): Brand guidelines, core brand voice, compliance
- Yellow documents (adapt for market): Creator vetting, campaign templates, approval checklists
- Red documents (regional authority): Which influencers fit our brand, what campaigns we’re running this quarter
Each team has authority over red. Yellow is adapted per market using green as the unifying principle.
For subjective calls like “is this on-brand?”: build a rubric, use examples, and have one person make the final call (maybe someone who understands both markets). Reduces endless debate.
Are both teams currently co-located or fully distributed? That affects how you structure communication.
From the creator side, I can tell you what actually works: when I get clarity about what the brand wants and consistency across whoever’s briefing me.
I’ve had Russian teams brief me super clear but with assumptions that don’t translate to US context. I’ve had US teams brief me with way too much freedom and no real boundaries. Both are frustrating in different ways.
So from your creator pool’s perspective, you need:
- Consistent brief format and clarity
- Someone who actually understands the brand voice (not just a translator)
- Clear approval criteria so I know what will and won’t work
- Quick turnaround on feedback (this is more important than perfection)
If your Russian and US teams can align on those things, creators will actually produce better work.
Also, I notice when teams are internally fragmented. Like, if I submit something and I’m not sure which team will approve it, that’s awkward. Make it clear who the approver is and what the criteria are upfront.
That said, I think there’s real advantage to having bilingual creators who can help bridge your teams. They understand both brand voices and market contexts. They’re worth investing in.