Skip to main content

The-Objection-Handler-5.md

“But our board/minister needs to be proud of the website”

Response:
"Absolutely - and they should be. But let’s redefine what pride means.

Which would make you more proud:

  • A website that wins design awards but generates 3 FDI inquiries per month?
  • Or a website that looks professional and generates 25 qualified inquiries per month?

We’re not proposing ugly websites. We’re proposing that pride comes from effectiveness, not just aesthetics.

Think of it like this: Would you rather drive a beautiful car that breaks down, or a reliable car that gets you where you need to go? We build the BMW, not the show car."


“We need video and animation - our competitors have them”

Response:
"I understand the competitive concern. But let me show you something…

[Pull up competitor search rankings]

Your competitor with the impressive video homepage? They rank #18 for [key search term].

This competitor with the simpler site? They rank #2 and get 8x the organic traffic.

Video and animation are great after someone reaches your site. But they don’t help people find you in the first place, and they actually slow down the researchers who are evaluating 10 locations in a morning.

We can include video - but in the right places, supporting the research process, not replacing substance with spectacle."


“Our last website cost €200K - this sounds cheaper, so it must be lower quality”

Response:
"Great question. Let me explain where the money goes differently:

Traditional €200K website:

  • €60K: Custom animations and video production
  • €50K: Bespoke design and multiple stakeholder revisions
  • €40K: CMS customization
  • €30K: Content writing (brand storytelling)
  • €20K: Project management

Investor-grade €75K website:

  • €35K: Investor research and content strategy
  • €25K: Search-optimized content creation with data
  • €15K: Performance-focused development

The difference: We spend money on effectiveness, not decoration. Less on impressing your board, more on attracting investors.

Think of it this way: Would you rather spend €200K on a billboard no one drives past, or €75K on a billboard on the highway?"


“Can’t we just do SEO on our existing site?”

Response:
"We can improve what you have, but there’s a fundamental architecture problem.

Your site is built like a brochure - meant to be read front to back by someone already engaged.

Investor-grade sites are built like a reference library - meant to let researchers quickly find specific answers.

It’s like trying to turn a novel into an encyclopedia. You can add an index, but the content itself is structured wrong.

That said, we can audit your current site and show you exactly what would need to change. Sometimes it’s a rebuild, sometimes it’s a major restructure, rarely is it just ‘add some SEO.’"


“We get most of our FDI from trade shows and relationships anyway”

Response:
"You’re absolutely right that relationships matter - they always will.

But let me ask: What happens before that first meeting?

[Show data]

  • 78% of investors research online before contacting an IPA
  • 60% eliminate locations before making contact based on what they find (or don’t find) online
  • Average investor shortlists 5 locations to contact

So the question isn’t: Trade shows vs digital
The question is: How many potential investors never shortlist you because they can’t find or evaluate you online?

Your relationships close deals. But search visibility fills the pipeline with opportunities you never knew existed.

Trade shows reach hundreds. Search reaches thousands."


“Our stakeholders won’t understand why we’re not going for the impressive design”

Response:
"Let’s give them a better definition of impressive.

Here’s how I’d present it to your board:

'We could build a website that looks impressive to us. Or we could build a website that’s impressive to the VP of Expansion researching locations at midnight.

The first approach makes us feel good. The second approach makes the phone ring.

We’re choosing to be impressive where it matters - in the research phase, when investment decisions are actually made.’

We can also show them the evidence: search rankings, traffic projections, competitor analysis.

Stakeholders respect results. Show them the business case, not just the aesthetic options."


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Clarity-Dilema-0.md

Classic challenge - we’re selling substance (discoverability, relevance to researchers) while IPAs are buying theatre (visual impressiveness). The fundamental issue is that our prospects can’t see or feel the value of being found until after they’ve invested in the strategy that makes them discoverable/findable . The Argument We’re Losing (and Why) When we say “your budget would be better spent on X instead of Y,” we’re: Invalidating their vision - they want to feel proud of their website Making them choose - impressive OR effective Asking them to trust invisible ROI - search rankings feel abstract Speaking a different language - “search visibility” vs “world-class destination” The Reframe: Make “Impressive” Mean What It Should Stop arguing against impressive websites. Instead, redefine what impressive means in 2025 : “Impressive to whom?” The killer question we need to lead with: "Who needs to be impressed - other IPAs at conferences, or the CFO of a €50M manufact...

The-Audit-Framework-2md

THE INVESTMENT VISIBILITY AUDIT Discover where your region appears in investor research We’ll answer these questions about your current digital presence: 1. SEARCH VISIBILITY TEST "Where do you appear when investors search?" We’ll search for: “[Your sector] investment locations [region]” “Cost of doing business [your country/region]” “[Sector] incentives [region]” “Best locations for [your top 3 sectors]” Deliverable: Rankings report showing your position vs 5 key competitors 2. AI ASSISTANT TEST "What do AI research tools say about you?" We’ll ask ChatGPT, Claude, and Perplexity: “What are the best locations in [region] for [sector] investment?” “Compare business costs between [your location] and [competitors]” “What investment incentives are available in [your location]?” Deliverable: Transcript showing if (and how accurately) you’re represented 3. INVESTOR USABILITY TEST "Can a researcher shortlist you in 10 minutes?" We’ll ...

The-Invisible-Investment-Problem-1.md

THE INVISIBLE INVESTMENT PROBLEM Why impressive websites don’t attract investment THE SCENARIO It’s Tuesday, 10:47pm. Sarah Chen, VP of Global Expansion for a €180M precision manufacturing company, has been tasked with shortlisting 5 European locations by Friday’s board meeting. She opens her laptop and types: “best locations for precision manufacturing Europe low energy costs” Question: Does your region appear in her research? THE RESEARCH REALITY 85% of FDI location research now starts online before any agency is contacted. Professional investors follow a predictable path: PHASE 1: DISCOVERY (Week 1) Search engines: “best locations for [sector] [region]” AI assistants: “Compare business costs between…” Industry reports that cite online data LinkedIn articles and third-party analysis PHASE 2: SHORTLISTING (Week 2) Deep-dive into 8-10 location websites Looking for: costs, incentives, workforce data, infrastructure Scanning, not reading - need answers in 10 minu...