How to Choose a US Market Entry Partner: The Due Diligence Framework

The Seven Due Diligence Questions

Before committing to any market entry partner, ask these seven questions and evaluate the quality of the answers:

1. What is your documented time-to-first-enterprise-meeting? Any programme worth considering should be able to answer this with a specific number, not a range or a 'it depends.'

2. Can you provide three reference clients in my sector? References are the only reliable signal of programme quality. If the programme cannot provide references, it has not done the work.

3. What is your relationship with the city government and state agencies? Government relationships are the highest-value and hardest-to-replicate component of a market entry infrastructure.

4. What happens if I don't get a meeting in 60 days? The answer reveals whether the programme has accountability mechanisms or just aspirations.

5. What is your fee structure, and what does it include? Programmes that charge a flat fee for 'access' without specifying what that access includes are selling hope, not infrastructure.

6. Do you have in-market staff, or do you rely on a network of freelancers? In-market staff with deep local relationships are worth ten times the value of a freelancer network.

7. What is your exit strategy for companies that are not a fit? A programme that accepts everyone is a programme that serves no one well.

Red Flags to Watch For

Several patterns consistently indicate a low-quality market entry programme:

Vague outcome claims ('we help companies succeed in the US market') without specific, documented results. Any programme that cannot cite specific companies, specific outcomes, and specific timelines is not a serious market entry infrastructure.

Over-reliance on events and networking. Events are useful for brand building; they are not a substitute for warm introductions to qualified buyers. A programme that primarily offers 'access to our events' is not a market entry programme — it is an event company.

No accountability mechanisms. If the programme does not have a clear process for what happens when outcomes are not achieved, it has no incentive to achieve them.

No sector specialisation. A programme that claims to serve every sector equally well serves none of them well. Genuine market entry expertise is sector-specific.

What Startup Runway Offers

Startup Runway's due diligence answers: documented time-to-first-enterprise-meeting of 21 days; references available from 24 completed soft landings; direct relationships with the City of Richardson, the State of Texas, and the US federal government; a 90-day accountability framework with specific milestones; a transparent fee structure; in-market staff with 10+ years of local relationship building; and a clear qualification process that ensures we only work with companies we can genuinely serve.

We do not accept every company that applies. The Readiness Index™ is a genuine qualification process, not a marketing funnel.

Why the Market Entry Advisory Market Has a Quality Problem

The US market entry advisory market has expanded dramatically over the past decade. Every accelerator, coworking space, government agency, and private consultant now offers some version of a landing programme. The quality variance is enormous — and the consequences of choosing the wrong partner are severe.

The most common failure mode is a programme that has genuine relationships in one sector or one city, but claims to serve all sectors and all cities equally well. A programme that has strong relationships with healthcare enterprise buyers in Boston will not be able to replicate those relationships in the government technology sector in Texas. But the marketing materials will not tell you this.

The second most common failure mode is a programme that was excellent five years ago but has not maintained its relationship network. Enterprise relationships require active maintenance — regular meetings, referrals, and reciprocal value. Programmes that are not actively working their network will find that their introductions are received with less warmth than they were previously. The only way to detect this is through recent references.

How to Evaluate References Properly

References are the most reliable signal of programme quality — but only if you ask the right questions. The standard reference call question ('would you recommend this programme?') produces a uniformly positive answer because people who had negative experiences rarely agree to be references.

The questions that reveal actual programme quality are:

How many enterprise meetings did you get in the first 30 days? If the answer is zero or one, the programme's relationship network is not as strong as claimed.

What was the quality of the introductions — were the buyers pre-briefed and genuinely interested, or were they doing the programme a favour by taking the meeting? Cold introductions dressed up as warm ones are a common failure mode.

Did the programme deliver on its specific commitments? Ask the reference to describe what the programme committed to deliver, and then ask whether it delivered. The gap between commitments and delivery is the most reliable indicator of programme quality.

What would you do differently? This question surfaces the hidden costs and friction points that references will not volunteer unprompted.

The Hidden Costs of the Wrong Partner

The financial cost of choosing the wrong market entry partner is significant — but the non-financial costs are often larger.

The opportunity cost of 12 months with a weak programme is 12 months of market share that a competitor is capturing. In fast-moving technology markets, 12 months of delay can be the difference between market leadership and market irrelevance.

The credibility cost is harder to quantify but equally significant. US enterprise buyers have long memories. A company that approaches a buyer through a channel that the buyer does not respect, or with a pitch that is not calibrated to the buyer's specific needs, will find it difficult to re-approach that buyer with a better pitch later.

The team cost is the most underestimated. Founders who spend 12 months in a programme that is not generating results become demoralised, and demoralised founders make poor decisions. The psychological cost of a failed market entry attempt — the self-doubt, the team friction, the investor pressure — is not reflected in the programme fee but is very real.