This is one of the first questions we hear from overseas-headquartered B2B leaders thinking about the U.S. market. It is also one of the most misunderstood.
Most companies expect a clean answer. A percentage. A benchmark. A rule they can apply and move on.
That approach rarely works in the U.S.
Marketing spends here is not about fairness or averages. It is about how quickly you need to earn trust in a crowded market where buyers are skeptical, informed and not especially patient.
You will often see marketing budgets described as a percentage of revenue. Industry surveys reinforce this thinking, including well-known research showing marketing budgets hovering around 7 to 8 percent of overall company revenue for large enterprises.
That data is useful. It is also incomplete for companies entering the U.S.
Those benchmarks reflect organizations that already have:
Overseas-headquartered companies expanding into the U.S. usually have none of those advantages. Applying the same percentage too early often leads to under-investment, slow traction and frustration that “marketing is not working.”
The issue is not execution. It is an expectation.
Before discussing numbers, we need to clarify intent.
Early-stage U.S. marketing is rarely about immediate lead volume. It is about:
When companies skip this phase and focus only on cost efficiency, they often end up spending less and getting even less back.
Marketing costs in the U.S. are shaped less by industry and more by context. In our experience, the biggest drivers are:
None of these show up in a simple percentage calculation.
Rather than starting with a single benchmark, we encourage companies to think in phases. Below is a simplified view of how marketing investment often looks for overseas-headquartered B2B companies entering the U.S.
These ranges are not rules. They are directional indicators. The key is that early phases often require a higher relative investment, not a lower one.
Recent research done by Gartner shows marketing budgets flattening at around 7.7 percent of company revenue, with many CMOs reporting budget pressure and a push toward productivity through data and AI.
This insight matters for two reasons:
However, it would be a mistake for overseas companies to interpret this as guidance to keep spending low.
Those CMOs are optimizing existing machines. Most companies entering the U.S. market are still building one.
Cutting agency support or over-relying on AI before foundational work is done often removes interpretation, not waste. Tools do not replace understanding of U.S. buyer behavior.
We rarely see companies fail in the U.S. because they spent too much on marketing early. We frequently see them stall because they spent too little, spread it too thin, or expected immediate returns from activities designed to build trust over time.
Common symptoms include:
In many cases, the market is not the problem. The investment strategy is.
Instead of asking “How much should we spend?” we suggest reframing the discussion internally:
Marketing spend should answer those questions, not satisfy a benchmark.
Marketing budgets are not moral decisions or accounting exercises. They are strategic signals.
For overseas-headquartered B2B companies entering the U.S., the goal is not to match what others spend. It is to invest enough to be taken seriously in a market that rewards clarity, consistency and credibility over time.
If the question feels uncomfortable, that is usually a sign it is the right one to ask.
