Complex B2B Deals Stall When Sellers Skip the Business Case

A seller can persuade an IT buyer that their cybersecurity product is the best fit. However, the deal may still stall when the proposal gets to the executives. The buyer gets the technical benefits. But those approving the budget need to know what business problem the investment solves, how much that problem costs, and why it needs attention now. When sellers don’t provide those answers, internal champions find it hard to justify the purchase. 

Adam Goebel, Founder of Gateway Technology Advisors and former Vice President of Sales at RedZone Technologies, has spent more than two decades in technology sales. His experience in managed IT and cybersecurity reveals how easily technical needs can become disconnected from business priorities. These priorities often determine the future of a B2B purchase. 

“When we lose deals and we're not bridging that gap, most of the time it's not because we lost to a competitor. It's because they simply didn't do anything,” Goebel says. A Harvard Business Review study looked at over 2.5 million sales conversations. It found that 40% to 60% of deals ended without a sale, even though buyers wanted to purchase. Goebel believes poor discovery is one reason deals stall. It leaves buyers without a clear business case or the internal agreement they need to move forward.

The real business problem gets lost in the product pitch

Goebel describes a familiar exchange: an IT leader asks about product X, and a vendor responds with product Y and a list of reasons it's better. Both sides may spend weeks comparing options. But they often don’t prioritize explaining why the buyer needs to change anything. “A lot of the industry trains buyers to shop for tools,” Goebel says. The feature conversation might please the person evaluating technology, but it doesn’t help when they have to ask their company for funding.

Goebel starts with a different set of questions: “What's actually broken? What's driving you to change? How bad is it?” A request may come after repeated downtime, breach exposure, an audit finding, or a denied insurance renewal. Each gives the seller a business consequence to investigate.

“You keep pushing until there's a number attached,” he says. If outages led to the search, the seller can find out how often they occur, what work gets interrupted, and the cost of the disruption. A proposal built on those findings gives the buyer a reason to address the problem now. Without them, keeping the existing system may look like the cheaper choice.

A technical win can still fail the budget test

Putting a cost on downtime or other business risks gives the IT buyer a stronger case when the proposal reaches executives. The technical buyer focuses on performance and reliability. In contrast, executives look at how the purchase impacts operations. They also assess whether a cheaper option is available and how long they can afford to wait. “There's almost a language barrier between IT and executive leadership,” Goebel says. Both groups know their own responsibilities, but they ask different questions about the same investment.

“They're asking expense-level questions because, in their mind, it's viewed more as an expense than a strategic line item,” he explains. Sellers who quantify the cost of the underlying problem can help a champion explain why the investment should be a priority for the organization. 

Goebel sees that tension clearly in rural healthcare. Cybersecurity spending competes with funding for patient care. “Dollars do matter,” he says. Protecting patient data, meeting compliance requirements, and keeping services running all support the provider's mission. But leadership still needs a solid reason to allocate limited funds. A feature comparison alone is unlikely to secure approval.

A deal can hinge on someone the seller never meets

A strong business case still has to survive the buying committee. Many people influence these complex deals.  Forrester's 2026 research shows an average B2B purchase includes 13 internal stakeholders and nine external ones. Each person has their own priorities and concerns. This makes it harder for the main contact to get agreement within the organization.

“So I don't think about it as trying to keep momentum. I think about who needs to be involved,” Goebel says. He wants sellers to find key stakeholders early. Next, they should learn what each one needs to know before approving the investment. “A lot of times the person saying no is somebody we've never even talked to before,” he says. The champion might face an objection that the product demo didn’t address.

Sellers need to equip their internal champions to justify the purchase to stakeholders they may never meet. Finance may need to know the cost of ongoing downtime. Operations might need to grasp the disruption from implementation. Leadership may want to identify which risks to address first. As Goebel puts it, champions need to explain “how this impacts them and how it addresses what's important to them.” If the wider group can't agree on the need, a promising opportunity can still end without a purchase.

A credible roadmap gives hesitant buyers a reason to move

Once the buying group understands the business problem, it still needs a realistic plan for addressing it. Goebel favors “a prioritized roadmap, a clear sequence.” This connects the risks found in discovery to steps the organization can evaluate and fund. Buyers facing tight budgets may be more able to approve a phased response than a sweeping purchase they can't afford.

Goebel also avoids using a list of vulnerabilities to frighten customers into acting. “Here's where you're at, and here's a practical roadmap to get where you need to be,” he tells them. Clear priorities give the internal champion a plan to present to decision-makers, including the costs and consequences of delaying action. Without that shared understanding, a buyer can want the product and still end the deal without making a decision.