Objections

Prepare convicted answers for common objections IAG receives during the biz dev sales process.

Handling Objections: AAA Framework

AAA stands for our approach to handling objections - at IAG we:

Acknowledge - Show that you heard the concern without immediately agreeing or becoming defensive. 

Ask - Understand What the objection actually means.

Answer - Respond to the actual concern using relevant information from the conversation.

Handling Objections: Acknowledge statements

Show that you heard the concern without immediately agreeing or becoming defensive. 

Examples: 

• “I hear you.” 

• “That makes sense.” 

• “I understand why you would want to think through that.” 

• “That is a fair concern.” 

Handling Objections: Ask Q’s

Understand what the objection actually means. 

Examples: 

• “Can you tell me more about what is giving you pause?” 

• “Is the primary concern the investment, timing, or something else?” 

• “What information would help you evaluate this?” 

• “When you say it feels expensive, what are you comparing it against?” 

• “What would need to change for this to feel workable?” 

Handling Objections: Answer (preface) Q’s

Respond to the actual concern using relevant information from the conversation. 

Before challenging a belief or offering a reframe, ALWAYS ask permission: 

• “Would you be open to another perspective?” 

• “Do you mind if I share how I am looking at it?” 

• “May I challenge that assumption?” 

• “Would it be helpful if I reframed that?” 

NOTE: Use examples, analogies, stories, or business comparisons when they improve understanding. 

Objection: “The Investment Is Too High” 

Suggested response options: 

• “Price is the price you pay today vs the cost is what you pay years down the line when XYZ becomes a way bigger issue. You’re going to pay either way - you’ll just pay years down the road or you’re going to pay the one time price today which is this $X.” 

 

• “Which one are you more comfortable paying - the one time price of $XX paid across XX months or the cost you will incur every single month for not solving this?” 

 

• “The wrong question whether can you afford it. The right question is are you going to let this stop you – or are you going to get resourceful on how you can make this happen to get closer to XX-goal.” 

Objection: “We Need More Time” 

Suggested response option: 

• “You don’t need time, you need information and quality time. We have about ten minutes so what do you say we use the last ten mins to help you make an educated decision?” 

Objection: “We don’t have a timeline for our brand growth goals.”

That makes sense, especially when you’re still figuring out what the next season looks like. The only thing I’d gently push on is this:  

• Not having a timeline doesn’t mean the business is standing still.  

• Customers are still forming opinions.  

• Competitors are still moving.  

• Marketing and operations gaps are still either helping or hurting the brand.  

Recalibration Q’s:

1. “What makes it difficult to define a timeline right now?”

2. How are you deciding when the right time to address growth will be?

Reclose:

• Based on the gaps you’ve described, I would recommend the [Marketing Growth Engine/Full Brand Growth Engine].

• Would it be unreasonable to map out the first phase now and keep the longer-term maintenance/optimization timeline flexible? 

Objection: “We just want to see what sticks.” 

I get that. Testing is important.  

The only risk is when “seeing what sticks” turns into spending time, energy, and money without a clear read on why something worked or didn’t work.  

Our work always starts with an opportunity discovery phase - this doesn’t replace testing.  

It makes testing smarter.  

Instead of throwing ten things at the wall, we identify the highest-probability moves first based on your customer journey, positioning, digital presence, operations, and local market. 

Questions to ask:  

• “How are you currently deciding what is worth testing?” 

• “What would you need to understand before you could feel confident that you’re testing the right things?” 

• “Would it be a bad idea to narrow the testing to the highest-probability moves before investing more time and money?” 

Objection: “Can we wait until things slow down?” 

• That makes sense. It sounds like capacity is a real concern.  

• The only thing I’d gently point out is that slower seasons are usually when brands have more space to fix the things that busier seasons expose.  

• Waiting can make sense, but only if there’s a clear reason and timeline.  

Questions to ask:

• What would realistically need to be true to make this feel like a better time?  

• If nothing changes between now and then, do you think the same issues will still be there? 

• Ok given that and the XX-goal you want to move towards, which option do you want to move forward with - IAG’s full brand growth engine or IAG’s marketing brand growth engine?

Objection: “We Tried Something Similar and It Did Not Work”

• “I get that. It sounds like that experience made you cautious about investing in something that could lead to the same result. What specifically didn’t work the last time? 

• It sounds like the goal wasn’t necessarily the problem. The issue was that the previous approach lacked ___, ___, and ___. 

• Given what was missing last time, which approach feels more likely to produce the outcome you want: addressing only the immediate marketing need, or addressing the larger systems contributing to it?” 

Objection: “I Need to Speak With My Spouse/Partner” 

It sounds like their input is important before you can make a final decision.

Recalibration Question:

• How do decisions like this typically get made between you?

• What would you need to feel clear on before deciding which direction makes the most sense?  

Re-close Question:

• Would it be a bad idea to bring them into a brief follow-up conversation so they can ask their questions directly?

• Would it be helpful if we narrowed the decision down together before you talk internally, so you’re not trying to compare two very different scopes from scratch? 

Objection: “I Am Afraid It Will Not Work / We’ve worked with marketing people before and didn’t see results.”

“I hear you. It sounds like the biggest concern is investing your time, money, and trust without knowing whether the outcome will be different. 

• What specifically feels most likely not to work? 

• What has happened in the past that makes this feel risky? 

It sounds like you’re not necessarily against moving forward. You need to feel confident that ___ will be addressed before making the investment. 

• Would it be a bad idea to walk through exactly how our process addresses that risk before you decide?” 

Re-close After Addressing the Concern(s) Q’s

After answering an objection, do not leave the conversation unresolved. Confirm whether the concern has been addressed. 

Questions may include: 

• “Does that help clarify the concern?” 

• “How are you feeling about it now?” 

• “Is there anything else preventing you from moving forward?” 

• “With that in mind, which option feels more aligned?” 

• “What feels like the right next step?” 

• “Would you prefer to move forward with Option A or Option B?” 

• “Would it be helpful to schedule a final conversation with the other decision-maker?” 

Use a collaborative tone. Suggested language: 

“My role is not to force a decision. It is to help you evaluate the opportunity clearly. Based on everything we discussed, what feels like the most appropriate next step?”

Steps IAG takes to solidify the decision (once all objections are addressed)

1. Set Realistic Expectations 

“This work will require participation and follow-through from both teams. It will not create an overnight result, but with consistent implementation, we should begin building meaningful progress over time.” 

 

2. Reinforce Their Ability to Succeed 

“You already have a strong foundation. Our role is to help your team organize, strengthen, and consistently apply what is needed for the next stage.” 

 

3. Future-Pace the Engagement 

Explain what will happen next: 

• Agreement 

• Initial payment 

• Onboarding 

• Kickoff meeting 

4. Maintain Rapport During Administration 

Do not become silent or transactional while completing paperwork. 

Continue guiding the client: 

• Explain what they are reviewing 

• Confirm key details 

• Answer questions 

• Clarify next steps 

• Reinforce the working relationship 

Objection: “We don’t have the budget for this right now.” 

That makes sense. It sounds like the concern is whether this investment is financially responsible right now, not whether the growth problem exists. 

Recalibration question:  

• What part feels hardest to justify? 

• What is the business currently paying for the problems you described through lost time, inconsistent demand, missed repeat visits, or operational friction? 

Permission-based reframe:  

• Would you be open to another perspective? The decision is not only the price of the Growth Engine.  

• It is also the cost of continuing to operate with the same constraints. 

Re-close:  

• Would it be a bad idea to compare the cost of inaction with the investment before deciding no?  

Objection: “Why do you need our revenue or POS information?” 

Before we talk about monthly scope, would it be unreasonable for us to understand [XX-Brand]’s gross revenue range and review high-level POS trends? 

Not because we need to get invasive —  

• But because I don’t want to recommend a scope that sounds good on paper, and is either too light to move the needle or too heavy for where the business actually is. 

• What we’d be looking for is customer behavior, ordering patterns, repeat purchase opportunities, peak windows, store-by-store performance, and where community engagement could actually support growth. 

This level of transparency from XX-Brand allows our team to give you better realistic recommendations. 

• (if they freeze)  

• And I want to acknowledge this can feel sensitive. 

• It may feel like, “If we show you the numbers, are you going to use that to push us into a bigger package?” 

• That’s not what I want this to feel like. 

• The reason I’m asking is actually the opposite —  

• I want to protect you from investing in something that isn’t realistic to where your business’s brand growth is currently operating at. 

(if they still say we need to talk) 

• Totally fair. 

• Would it feel more comfortable if we started with a range instead of exact numbers? 

• Even understanding the annual gross revenue range for each shop gives us enough context to avoid unrealistic monthly range of brand growth investment recommendations. 

Objection: “I’m not sure how much I should be investing monthly. I need to look at our financials” 

I think part of the challenge is that “monthly budget” can feel arbitrary if we don’t anchor it to the business goal. 

When brands use a percentage benchmark for marketing, community engagement, or growth work, it is usually based on gross revenue, not net profit. 

The general breakdown is: 

• Baseline visibility: around 5% of gross revenue 

• Steady growth: closer to 7–10% of gross revenue 

• Aggressive growth: 10%+ depending on how much traction the brand is trying to build 

So if the goal is just to maintain light visibility, that sits in one category. 

But if the goal is to strengthen customer retention, build local partnerships, and create a repeatable community engine, that is more of a steady growth investment. 

Recalibration Question:  

• How are you currently deciding what the business can invest to reach the growth outcome you described? 

Reclose Question: 

• If your goal is XYZ, which path feels more aligned with what the business needs: the Marketing Growth Engine or the Full Brand Growth Engine?  

Objection: “Do you know how much the monthly would look after the initial buildout? I’m concerned we wouldn’t be able to afford it.” 

That is a fair concern. 

It sounds like you do not want to invest in building the Growth Engine and then discover that the business cannot responsibly sustain the support needed afterward. 

We would never want the ongoing phase to feel like a surprise. We can provide a realistic planning range before the engagement begins, but we would not want to give you a final number today without knowing what level of support the business will actually need after implementation. 

The ongoing scope depends on several factors, including: 

• How consistently the team adopts and uses the new systems  

• The level of owner and leadership participation  

• How the Growth Engine performs once it is operating in real conditions  

• Which systems require additional reinforcement or refinement  

• How much strategy, execution, accountability, and performance management IAG still needs to provide 

At least 30 days before the buildout is complete, we will review the performance of the systems, team adoption, remaining gaps, and the level of support needed. We will then present our recommended ongoing scope and investment so you have enough time to evaluate the options and make a financially responsible decision. 

Reframe 

• Would you be open to another way of looking at it? 

• The buildout creates the Growth Engine, but the optimization period is what helps ensure the systems are adopted, measured, strengthened, and able to support the growth outcome you want. Ending immediately after buildout would mean transferring full responsibility to your team before we have had enough time to see how the systems perform in practice. 

Reclose Question: 

• Would it be unreasonable to treat the buildout and optimization as two connected phases, while finalizing the exact ongoing scope once we have real performance data? 

Objection: “We only have $2k - $3k a month.” 

• I appreciate you being transparent with that. 

• Based on what we’ve discussed, I don’t think $2K–$3K/month is aligned with IAG-led strategy work. 

• And I would rather be honest about that than force-fit our process into a number that would compromise the work. 

• At that range, you may be looking for an approach that doesn’t require as much depth and strategy - but that is not the approach or product IAG offers. 

Question to ask: How are we supposed to build a two-location community growth strategy at that budget without cutting the parts of the work that make it effective 

Objection: “Can you hand out parts of your scope to our team?” 

Totally fair question. It sounds like you want to keep your team meaningfully involved and avoid outsourcing work they may already be capable of supporting. 

IAG’s Growth Engines are not structured as a collection of disconnected deliverables. The strategy, messaging, content, community engagement, customer experience, and—in the Full Brand Growth Engine—operations and team systems are designed to reinforce one another. 

We can absolutely collaborate with your team. What we need to protect is clear ownership of the strategy-critical work, quality standards, and performance accountability so the engine does not become fragmented during implementation. 

That may mean IAG retains ownership of the strategy and highest-impact components while we define specific areas your team can support under our direction. 

Recalibration Question:  

• What are you hoping to accomplish by moving parts of the scope to your internal team? 

Reclose Question: 

• Based on the outcome you want, does it make more sense for us to protect the complete recommended scope, or build a clearly defined collaboration model that keeps IAG accountable for the overall result? 

Objection: “Can we just start with social media?” 

We can absolutely support social media.  

I just wouldn’t want to start by producing content if the positioning, customer journey, or community strategy hasn’t been clarified yet.  

Otherwise, we risk making your brand more visible without making it more compelling, more consistent, or more repeatable.  

The opportunity discovery phase of our workflow helps us make sure social media is tied to growth, not just activity.  

Question to ask:

• Would you want social media to be treated as content output, or as part of a larger growth system?  

 

Objection: “Can you just give us recommendations without the opportunity discovery phase?” 

We can always share high-level observations.  

But responsible recommendations require context.  

The reason we built the audit is to make sure our recommendations are grounded in the actual customer experience, brand position, operations, and business priorities.  

Question to ask: Would you rather have quick ideas now, or a clearer diagnosis that helps prioritize what’s actually worth acting on first? 

Objection: “We’re not ready for a full engagement.” 

Completely understand. It sounds like you may agree that these growth gaps need to be addressed, but the overall commitment feels larger than what the business is ready to take on right now.  

When you say “not ready,” what feels like the biggest concern: the investment, the timeline, your team’s capacity, or the amount of change involved?  

Our Growth Engines are comprehensive, but that does not mean every part is implemented at once. We sequence the work so the highest-priority systems are addressed first, then build and optimize the remaining components in a manageable order.  

What I would not recommend is removing strategy-critical parts simply to make the engagement feel smaller if those are the same parts required to reach the outcome you described.  

We can phase the work without weakening the solution. 

Recalibration Question:  

• What part of the engagement currently feels too large for the business to responsibly take on? 

Re-close:  

• Given that these issues are already affecting [specific business outcome], which feels more responsible: beginning the recommended Growth Engine in phases or allowing the same gaps to continue until the business feels completely ready? 

Objection: “Can we do something smaller first?” 

We can definitely talk through what a smaller first step could look like.  

It sounds like you may want clarity, but at a lower level of commitment.  

The main thing I’d want to protect is making sure whatever we do is still useful enough to guide decisions.  

Question to ask:

• When you say smaller, do you mean smaller budget, smaller scope, or smaller timeline?  

Follow-up question:

• What outcome would still make a smaller first step feel worth it? 

Objection: “Can we white label IAG’s work or keep IAG’s name off the marketing and operational efforts?” 

Totally fair question. It sounds like you want to make sure the event feels like it is coming from your brand, not like IAG is taking over the moment. 

That is actually aligned with how we think about community engagement. The client brand should be the hero. 

Where I’d be careful is fully white labeling work that IAG is creating, structuring, coordinating, or strategically leading. Community engagement is not just event labor for us. It is part of our methodology and brand growth strategy. 

So instead of white labeling, what I would recommend is subtle co-branding. Your brand stays front and center, and IAG is included as the community engagement or strategy partner. 

Calibrated question:

• How would you want us to acknowledge IAG’s role in a way that still keeps your brand as the center of the activation? 

(if they continue to pushback) Objection: “We just don’t want it to look like we hired an outside firm.” 

• That makes sense. It sounds like the concern is perception — you do not want the community to feel like the relationship is manufactured or outsourced. 

• I agree with that. The activation should feel authentic to your brand. 

• The way we avoid that is not by hiding IAG. It is by making sure IAG’s role is positioned correctly. We are not the face of the event. We are the strategy and community engagement partner helping bring it to life. 

Calibrated question:

• Would it feel better if IAG was credited more subtly in the collateral rather than positioned as a public-facing host? 

Objection: “Can you guarantee revenue results?” 

I completely understand why you would ask that.  

It sounds like you want to make sure this is tied to real business growth, not just marketing activity.  

We are very intentional about not making unrealistic revenue guarantees because sustainable growth depends on multiple factors working together.  

What we can confidently say is that IAG helps strengthen the areas that most commonly impact long-term growth: customer retention, brand clarity, repeat behavior, customer experience, operational consistency, and visibility alignment.  

The brands that typically see the strongest results are the ones where there is strong collaboration and consistency between both sides.  

Recalibration Question:  

• What kind of result would make this feel successful to you?  

• Are you looking for immediate revenue lift, stronger repeat behavior, clearer positioning, or a foundation for longer-term growth? 

Reclose: 

• Based on your goals, I’d recommend this [XX-brand growth engine]. When would you like to start? 

Objection: “We need to see revenue first before investing.” 

I hear that. It sounds like you want stronger financial evidence before committing resources to growth.  

When you say you need to see revenue first, is the concern that the business does not currently have the cash available—or that you are not yet confident the investment will produce a meaningful return? 

Those are two different concerns, and I want to make sure we address the right one.  

The challenge is that waiting for additional revenue does not address the positioning, marketing, customer-retention, customer-experience, or operational gaps that may be preventing that revenue from growing. 

The Growth Engine is designed to build and strengthen the systems responsible for generating and sustaining growth. We cannot responsibly guarantee a specific revenue result, but we can establish the baseline, priorities, performance indicators, and optimization process needed to measure whether the systems are moving the business in the right direction. 

Recalibration Question 

• How are you currently determining whether a growth investment is worth making? 

Reclose 

• Which feels more financially responsible: beginning the recommended Growth Engine with clear measurements and milestones, or continuing to absorb the cost of [specific problem] while waiting for revenue to improve first? 

• Based on your goals, I’d recommend XX-growth engine. When would you like to start? 

Objection: “We’ve never worked with a consultant before.” 

I actually appreciate you saying that. If you have never worked with a consultant before, the process can feel a little unfamiliar because it is different from hiring an employee, a freelancer, or someone who is just executing tasks. 

A consultant’s role is not just to “do more work” for the business.  

It’s to help diagnose what is happening, identify what needs to change, prioritize the right next moves, and guide the business through a stronger decision-making process. 

For IAG specifically, our role is to bring an outside strategic lens to your brand growth system — marketing, customer experience, operations, community engagement, and the way those pieces connect. 

Recalibration Question:

• What feels most unfamiliar to you about working with a consultant? (e.g. the process, the pricing, the level of involvement) 

Objection: “We already know some of our problems.” 

I believe that. You understand the business, your team, and your customers better than anyone. 

It sounds like you already have strong instincts around what is not working, and you do not want to invest in someone simply repeating what you already know. 

The value of IAG’s Growth Engine is not just identifying problems. It is determining whether the issues you see are the root causes or symptoms, understanding how they affect one another, and building the systems needed to solve them in the right order. 

Knowing that marketing is inconsistent, customers are not returning, or the team lacks alignment is an important starting point. The larger work is turning that awareness into clear ownership, implementation, measurement, and consistent follow-through. 

Recalibration Question:  

• What has prevented the business from fully solving the problems you already know about? 

Re-close 

• If the challenge is no longer identifying the problems, but solving them in the right order and making the improvements sustainable, would it be unreasonable to move forward with the recommended Growth Engine? 

Objection: “What other food brands have you done the Full Brand Growth Engine for besides Rolling Pin?” 

That’s a fair question. Rolling Pin is the first food brand where IAG has led and integrated the complete Brand Growth Engine across marketing, customer experience, operations, and team systems from end to end. 

I also want to distinguish that from the experience behind the engine. The specialists IAG brings into the work—including our food operator, food photographer, food stylist, and other strategic partners—have produced results for food brands within their individual areas of expertise. 

What is new with Rolling Pin is not the expertise itself. It is IAG bringing those capabilities together under one strategy, one set of priorities, and one accountable growth system. 

My role is to diagnose how the different areas of the business affect one another, assemble the right expertise, and make sure the work functions as one engine rather than a collection of disconnected vendors. 

Reframe: 

• Can I offer a different perspective? 

• It sounds like the concern is not whether each specialist knows their discipline.  

• It is whether IAG can successfully integrate those disciplines into one coordinated outcome for your brand. 

• That integration is precisely IAG’s role. Our value is not simply having access to a photographer, stylist, marketer, or operator. It is knowing what the business needs, in what order, how those areas influence one another, and how to hold the complete process accountable to the growth objective. 

Re-close 

• If we demonstrate the relevant expertise behind every part of the engine and how IAG will coordinate it for your brand, what else would prevent you from moving forward? 

Objection: “Why can’t we just hire someone cheaper?” 

You definitely can. The difference is that most lower-cost support starts with execution — posting, content, or basic marketing tasks.  

Our process starts with diagnosis.  

We’re looking at what’s actually limiting growth before we recommend what to execute.  

If you already knew exactly what needed to be done, execution-only support might be enough.  

But if there’s still uncertainty around positioning, customer behavior, operations, or community strategy, that’s where IAG is more valuable.  

Question to ask:

Do you feel like your brand needs more execution right now, or more clarity around what should actually be executed first? 

Objection: “Our growth is mostly coming from our product and our space.” 

That makes sense. It sounds like the quality of the product and the experience of the space are already giving customers a strong reason to visit. 

That is an important advantage, and we would not want to replace or dilute what is already working. 

The question is whether the product and environment are only creating the initial attraction—or whether the business has intentionally built the systems that turn that attraction into repeat visits, deeper loyalty, referrals, and long-term customer value. 

Growth Engine Reframe:  

• A strong product and beautiful space can create a compelling first impression. The Growth Engine is what helps the business consistently convert that first impression into customer behavior. 

• That includes how the brand communicates its value, how customers experience each visit, what gives them a reason to return, how the team reinforces the brand promise, and how the business stays relevant after the novelty of the first visit fades. 

• The Marketing Growth Engine helps amplify what makes the product and space valuable and turn it into stronger customer acquisition, engagement, retention, and advocacy. 

• The Full Brand Growth Engine goes further by ensuring the customer experience, operations, service standards, and team execution consistently deliver on the promise that attracted the customer in the first place. 

Recalibration Question:  

• How are you currently turning the strength of the product and space into repeat customer behavior? 

Re-close 

• If the product and space are already creating the initial attraction, would it be unreasonable to build the Growth Engine that turns that strength into more consistent repeat visits, loyalty, and scalable growth? 

Objection: “Most of our growth is word of mouth.”

That is a very strong signal. It sounds like customers already experience enough value that they want to recommend the business naturally.

We would not want to replace that. Word of mouth is one of the strongest foundations a brand can have.

The question is whether the business currently understands why customers advocate, how consistently it happens, and how to strengthen it without making it feel manufactured.

Recalibration Question:

o   How predictable is word-of-mouth growth from one month to the next?

o   How would you replicate the same level of advocacy across another location, a larger team, or a different market?

Re-close:

o   If customers already want to advocate for the brand, would it be unreasonable to build the systems that make that advocacy easier to trigger, easier to repeat, and easier to scale?