Getting international expansion right

Guest Author: Henrik Kindstedt, XXX, XXX

International expansion has become something of a reflex in the technology sector. Strong domestic growth, a fresh funding round, or board-level ambition quickly turns into pressure to “go global.”

It sounds progressive and signals momentum, but many expansions don’t succeed as intended. This isn’t because of the product, talent involved or market size, but a failure in the correct sequencing of activity.

This isn’t something a marketing or new sales hire can solve. A Chief Revenue Officer’s perspective needs to come from a structural understanding of how demand, trust, and revenue form in a new market and be created for the brand.

The statistic often quoted is that around 70% of international expansions underperform or stall. That figure isn’t surprising when you look at how most companies approach the process. The playbook is predictable - hire a regional leader, build a sales team, announce market entry, invest in visibility, set targets based on home-market performance. On paper, it looks logical, but it’s back to front.

You are effectively asking a newly formed team, with no brand presence, no customer proof points, and no embedded relationships, to replicate outcomes from a market where all of those things already exist. This is where any expansion plan starts to unravel.

The illusion of “land and expand”

There is a persistent belief that hiring senior leadership early accelerates traction. In truth, it often does the opposite.

Experienced regional leaders are incredibly valuable, but only when there is momentum to scale. Without it, they are forced into a hybrid role: strategist, seller, evangelist, and internal justification for their own cost base. That’s not what they’re built for.

Think of it like opening a flagship store in a city where nobody knows your brand. You can hire the best retail director in the world, but if footfall doesn’t exist, performance won’t follow.

A more effective approach is uncomfortable for many boards because it feels slower, but it will ultimately result in faster, more robust outcomes. It means accessing the right expertise early, but not necessarily as full-time headcount. The way to do this is to use advisory, structured market-entry support and fractional leadership to shape decisions before committing to fixed costs with performance targets built in. Pay for insight and activation before payroll.

Market reality VS HQ assumption

One of the most consistent errors I see is assuming that what works in one region will translate cleanly into another. It rarely does.

Market maturity and procurement cycles differ, and risk appetite varies. Regulatory pressure shifts priorities, and even the definition of “ideal customer” can change subtly but significantly.

A US-based ICP may prioritise speed and innovation. A European equivalent may prioritise compliance and risk mitigation.

The same product, positioned the same way, can be perceived very differently.

Yet many organisations treat market validation as a light internal exercise rather than a commercial necessity. From a revenue standpoint, this is high-risk behaviour as you’re effectively forecasting pipeline against assumptions that haven’t been tested in the environment you’re investing in.

The channel question many get wrong

There’s also a structural bias toward direct sales in early expansion. That works in a home market where brand, trust, and relationships already exist. It’s far less effective in a new geography.

Channel isn’t a scaling lever in these scenarios, it’s often the entry point. Partners bring immediate advantages: credibility, access, local knowledge, and implementation trust. Without them, your sales team is trying to create awareness, educate the market, build relationships, and close deals simultaneously.

More importantly, partner engagement is one of the earliest indicators of market viability. If credible partners lean in, the market is signalling interest. If they don’t, it’s an early warning that something isn’t resonating.

Demand before headcount

McKinsey has long highlighted that B2B buying cycles are complex and multi-stakeholder, often extending far beyond initial expectations. In new markets, those cycles lengthen further due to a lack of trust and familiarity. Ignoring that reality is where revenue forecasts begin to detach from actual performance.

This is where many CROs need to take a firmer stance internally, as revenue doesn’t come from presence; it comes from demand. Before scaling payroll, you need evidence of pull, consistent and evidential engagement, early pipeline, partner-led opportunities and initial customer validation. Without this, hiring becomes a bet rather than a strategy.

Counterargument: “Speed wins markets”

Some will argue that speed is everything – throw enough at the wall and some of it will stick. There is some truth in that entering early and investing aggressively will secure market share before the competition. This will only work if the fundamentals are in place, as speed without relevance doesn’t create advantage; it creates inefficiency.

If your positioning doesn’t resonate, your ICP isn’t validated, and your demand engine isn’t working locally, scaling faster simply accelerates burn.

The companies that win internationally are not always the fastest to enter. They are the most disciplined in how they sequence entry.

A more effective model

A stronger approach, from a CRO lens, looks something like this:

• Start with market validation grounded in real buyer behaviour, not internal assumptions.
• Engage partners early to test credibility and access.
• Build demand through consistent, locally relevant engagement.
• Then, and only then, scale leadership and sales infrastructure.

Or, more simply: Create more opportunities than you can handle. Then hire people to handle it.

Final thought

International expansion isn’t about planting a flag; it’s about how to build markets. Get the sequence right, and growth becomes repeatable. Get it wrong, and you’ll find yourself revisiting the same geography in two years, with a newly hired team, explaining why “the timing wasn’t right.”

What next?

If you’re currently planning expansion or already in-market but not seeing traction, ask yourself:

• Do we have proven demand, or are we trying to create it through hiring?
• Have we validated our ICP and messaging locally, or assumed transferability?
• Are partners pulling us into opportunities, or are we pushing alone?
• Is our pipeline constrained by capacity—or by lack of market interest?

If the honest answer leans toward the latter, the next move isn’t more hiring. It’s stepping back and fixing the sequence.

About the Author
Bio

Asset: Use case