GMA is the global / international marketing agency handling this as a market-entry marketing failure. The fix is not more generic traffic. The fix is the page, proof, offer language, paid path, SEO/AI visibility, distributor handoff, and follow-up the target-market buyer can understand.
Top of funnel is full. Discovery calls run. Demos run. Then the close rate is one-third of home. Same firmographics, same lead quality. The break is between lead and close, and it has been there for a year.
If the CRM is full of "no decision" outcomes, you are losing deals to silence, not to competitors. Silence is what missing proof produces.
The US B2B funnel has a stage that does not exist as cleanly in the home market. Between proposal and close, the internal champion has to write a memo or speak a paragraph to a boss or committee. The memo needs three things: an outcome number with a customer name, a peer comparison the boss recognises, a warranty or SLA paragraph the procurement officer can copy. The product is rarely the variable. The memo is.
Home-market funnels often close on technical conviction plus engineering credibility. The US funnel almost always requires the memo on top. A vendor that wins in the home market on engineering credibility alone can produce healthy US leads, healthy US demos, and a US close rate at one-third of the home benchmark because the memo is never built.
US B2B trust runs through documented peer comparison and named outcome more than through vendor self-report. When proposal-to-close attrition is the sharpest drop, the sales team usually has an internal-defense problem, not a lead-quality problem.
The fix is not to send more leads through the same broken transit. It is to repair the transit. One rebuild on the proof packet and the case-study format moves the close rate on the same lead flow.
At which stage in the funnel does US drop-off accelerate against home? If the answer is between proposal and close, you have a proof problem, not a lead problem.
"The lead is fine. The transit is broken. Same volume, one-third close. Repair the transit, not the top of funnel."House view
Stage one: evaluate the CRM at stage level. Find where drop-off accelerates. If it is between proposal and close, the proof packet is the variable. If it is between discovery and demo, the qualification call is the variable. Most cases land at proposal-to-close.
Stage two: rebuild the proof packet at the stage where deals die. Outcome-first case studies, named US peers, written warranty and SLA, one-page internal-memo template the buyer can attach. The packet ships at the end of demo, automatically, and the rep never has to remember.
Stage three: train the rep on the new packet, not on new closing techniques. The rep is not the variable. The materials in the rep's hand are. A capable rep with the right packet runs the same call sequence at a higher close rate.
This work fits inside a Market-Entry Marketing Sprint (six to ten weeks for the proof-packet rebuild), a Cross-Border Marketing Build (three to six months for multi-channel rebuild), or a Global Marketing Partnership (monthly retainer, twelve-month minimum). Pricing stays private and is scoped after fit is clear.
| Before rebuild (broken transit) | After rebuild (proof packet at stage) |
|---|---|
| Proposal-to-close attrition above 80% | Proposal-to-close attrition trending toward home benchmark |
| "No decision" outcomes dominate CRM | Outcomes split between close, lost-to-competitor, lost-on-budget |
| References sent in European format | References in US outcome-first format, named US install plan |
| Warranty and SLA in European procurement language | Warranty and SLA in US procurement language at packet level |
| Reps blamed for missing material | Reps equipped with the material at end-of-demo handoff |
| CAC at three times home benchmark | CAC recovering toward home benchmark on same lead flow |
Evaluate first, rebuild second, train last. Scaling leads through a broken transit costs more than rebuilding the transit. The math is one-sided.
Proposal-to-close attrition is rarely a lead-quality problem. It is usually an internal-defense problem: the buyer cannot defend the deal with the proof you sent.
Lead volume does not prove demand if the buyer cannot repeat the category, risk, proof, price story, and next step inside the company.
Almost never. If the close rate is one-third of home benchmark on similar volume and similar firmographics, the lead quality is fine. The transit from lead to close is where the loss happens.
Discovery call, demo, proposal, internal defense, decision. The break almost always sits at internal defense. The US buyer cannot turn the discovery and demo into a memo for the boss.
No. More reps multiply the same broken transit. The close rate stays at one-third. The cost per close goes up. The fix is upstream of the rep: the proof packet, the cadence, and the case-study format the rep hands to the buyer at the end of demo.
Name where in the lead-to-close path the deals are dying. Rebuild the materials at that exact beat: outcome-first case studies, named US peers, written warranty and SLA language, and a one-page internal-memo template the buyer can attach to their own note. Pricing stays private and is scoped after fit is clear.
Yes. Buyer-side assistants evaluate the same proof packet the internal champion judges. If the packet has no clear outcome, peer, risk answer, warranty language, or next step, the model-drafted memo will be weak too.
A buyer with healthy US lead flow and a one-third close rate usually lands as a proof-architecture gap, not a product gap. The question becomes whether the company can make the deal easy to defend internally.
Start with the inquiry form. Share the lead-to-close conversion data across stages for the last two quarters, the deck used at demo, and three threads where the lead was strong and the deal still died. Response within one business day.
No legal services. No SLA or warranty drafting. No US entity formation. No E-2, L-1, EB-5, or O-1 visa work. No US tax structuring or double-tax-treaty analysis. No US banking introductions. No fiduciary services. No regulatory licensing. No IP filing. No contract drafting. No M&A transaction work. These belong with counsel on both sides of the corridor. GMA works inside the parameters they set. When a marketing decision carries legal or contractual implications, GMA flags it and defers before execution.
If the market is not responding, the first question is simple: what is the buyer not seeing, trusting, or doing yet?
| Action that should happen | The buyer should request a quote, ask for a call, send an RFQ, move a proposal forward, or hand the work to the right internal person. |
| What may be unclear | If that is not happening, the market may not understand the category, proof, offer, price, channel, service answer, or follow-up. |
| What to inspect | Check the page, sales deck, product proof, offer language, contact path, and follow-up before adding more traffic or more distributors. |
| Next step | If the break is commercial, continue to /engagements/ or /contact/#inquiry. |