Evidence — Index Building

Buying Committee Confusion Index

The decision this evidence supportsIs this B2B message clear enough to support paid acquisition and enterprise sales — before more budget goes behind it?

Benchmark in preparation. This index measures Buying Committee Alignment Score and Interpretation Spread. The rubric and method below are live — send us an artifact to be in the first cohort.
01 Expected failure patterns
Strong product description, weak business consequence Pages explain what the product does but not what it changes for the economic buyer.
Clear to the functional buyer, opaque to the economic buyer The person who signs sees cost without translated ROI.
What this means

Paid campaigns may generate interest from users but stall when the buying committee expands. A homepage that reads well to one role can quietly fragment the deal across the rest.

How we measure

We simulate the people who decide: CEO, CFO, CMO, technical buyer, and end user. Each reads the same homepage, ad, and pricing page and tells us what they think the company does, what it costs them, and what they would object to. PitchKitchen shows a homepage can be unclear. We show a homepage can create four different companies in the minds of four different buyers.

Interpretation Spread: Not just "the page scores 72". The CMO sees a campaign tool, the CFO sees cost without clear ROI, the technical buyer sees an integration problem, and the end user does not know why they would change their workflow.

Role recognition Does this person feel the page is speaking to them?
Problem recognition Do they understand the problem being solved?
Value translation Can they translate the promise into their own KPI?
Trust formation Does the promise sound credible to them?
Objection generation What objections surface immediately?
Category clarity Is it clear what this is and what to compare it to?
Decision path Do they know what to do next?
Committee alignment Do the different roles build a compatible picture of the solution?