We’ve been experimenting with this for about three months now, and it’s way harder than I thought it would be.
The challenge: we’re working with creators in both Russia and the US at the same time. And while we want localized content for each market, we also need the brand to feel like… the same brand. But the thing is, what resonates in Russia—the humor, the pace of storytelling, the visual style—doesn’t automatically work in the US. And we can’t just translate. That feels fake.
We had one week where we shipped UGC content simultaneously to both markets, and honestly, looking back at the feed together, it was kind of jarring. The Russian creators captured this energy and intimacy that the US creators hadn’t quite figured out. But the US content had this polish that made the Russian content feel rough by comparison. Same product, same brand, but completely different feel.
Here’s what we started doing: we created a “brand voice playbook” that’s specific to how we want to sound across both markets. Not the words, but the core principles. Like: “We’re approachable but not cutesy.” “We prioritize customer benefit over slick production.” “We show real people, not just aesthetically perfect people.” Then we share this with creators in both markets and discuss how they would interpret it.
It’s helping, but some days I still look at the content and think, “These almost feel like different brands.”
How are you handling this? Are you accepting that the content will naturally feel different by market? Or are you doing something to create more visual/tonal coherence?
This is actually something we tracked data on, and the insight might help: we measured engagement rates and conversion lift across “high coherence” content (where Russian and US UGC felt visually/tonally similar) vs. “high localization” content (where we let each market’s creators do their thing).
Result? The localized content outperformed by about 18% in engagement and 12% in conversions. BUT—and this is important—when we looked at brand perception metrics (trust, brand affinity, “would recommend”), the coherent content scored higher.
So it’s a tradeoff. We ended up splitting the difference: 60% localized content (market-specific, creator-led), 40% coherent content (where we’re intentional about maintaining visual/tonal consistency).
The 40% coherent stuff? We brief those creators together. Like, we’ll have the Russian creator and US creator on the same call, they can see each other’s work, and there’s this natural collaboration that happens. They push each other toward a middle ground that feels authentic to both of them.
That collaboration actually became our competitive advantage because the creators got excited about it. They started to care about brand alignment in a way they wouldn’t have if we’d just sent them separate briefs.
One tactic: we created a shared asset library. Every time a creator ships content, it goes into a Figma with notes about what worked, what the creative brief was, and what market it’s for. Now when new creators come on, they can see the full body of work. They understand the evolving brand voice, not just a static brief.
This reduced the disjointed feeling by like 60% because everyone’s working off the same reference frame.
I think you’re actually asking the right question, but I’d push on one thing: are you trying to make the content feel coherent, or are you trying to make the brand experience coherent?
Those are different. Content can feel different—even radically different—and the brand can still feel unified if the customer journey is coherent. Does your landing page feel like it’s from the same brand as the UGC? Does the product packaging? Does the customer service?
We worked with a DTC brand that had incredibly diverse UGC—different aesthetics, different tones—but the brand felt incredibly cohesive because their website, email, and overall positioning was so clear. The UGC almost felt like a feature, not a bug.
That said, if you want visual/tonal coherence, here’s what actually works: pick 2-3 non-negotiable brand codes. Not “aesthetic.” Codes. Like: “We always show the product being used, not just posed.” “Our testimonials always start with the problem, not the solution.” “We use natural light whenever possible.”
Those 3 codes become your filter. The Russian creators interpret them one way, the US creators interpret them another way, but the core structure is the same. Feels unified without feeling sterile.
Okay, so from my side, what actually helps is when a brand is REALLY clear about what they’re not willing to compromise on versus what they want to be localized.
Like, I worked with a skincare brand that said: “We love that you’re bringing your own style and humor to this. Don’t change that. But here are three things about how we position the product—don’t compromise on those.” That made it so much easier. I knew where I had creative freedom and where there were guardrails.
I think what happens is, if you leave it too vague (“just make it feel on-brand”), creators in different markets are going to interpret that completely differently. But if you’re specific about the non-negotiables, localization actually strengthens the brand because it’s authentic to each market.
Also—and maybe this is just me—but I actually think some disjointed-ness is okay? Like, real brands have different voices in different contexts. My favorite brands actually feel a little different depending on who’s talking about them. That feels real.
I love this question because it’s really about building a culture of collaboration, not just managing assets.
What if you introduced your creators to each other? Like, once a month, you bring together 2-3 of your Russian creators and 2-3 of your US creators for a call. No agenda. Just space to talk about the brand, what they’re seeing in the market, what’s working.
The magic that happens: creators start to understand each other’s context. They start to see the coherence opportunities themselves. And the next piece of content they create is more aligned because they’re not working in a vacuum.
I’ve facilitated this for a few DTC brands, and it’s honestly been one of the highest-impact things we’ve done. Takes two hours a month. Creates this sense of being part of something bigger.
From a logistics side, I’d also suggest having one person on your team who’s responsible for the “brand narrative” across both markets. Not controlling all the content, but staying in the loop. Seeing patterns. Occasionally saying, “Hey, I notice the Russian creators are emphasizing X and the US creators are emphasizing Y—I wonder if we could bring those together.” That connective tissue matters.
We actually accepted the disjointed-ness for a while and then realized it was actually a feature, not a bug.
When we first looked at our US feed vs. our Russian feed, they looked totally different. I panicked. Thought we’d messed up. But then customer feedback came in, and people were actually more likely to trust us because the content felt authentic to their market. Like, “Oh, these aren’t corporate robots. They’re hiring actual people who get us.”
The one thing we did do: we made the brand equities really clear. Logo placement, color palette, tone of voice. But we let the creators have freedom within that. And honestly? It works better.
My advice: stop trying to make it feel like one cohesive vision. Make it feel like a unified principle that’s expressed differently in each market. That’s real. That’s how global brands actually work.