Case File / Buying Committee
Your funnel convinced the CISO.
Four more are blocking the deal.
CISOs, CFOs, IT Directors, Legal, and Procurement don't share a buying threshold. They share a deal.
Every cybersecurity SaaS funnel I've reviewed is built for one of them.
One unanswered question stalls the deal for a quarter. That gap surfaces somewhere between month eight and month twelve. Usually in a retrospective nobody wanted to run.
There's a faster way to find it.
→ Get My Buying Committee Gap Map
Diagnosis
The funnel was built for the CISO.
Your product won the evaluation. Then the CFO wanted a breach-cost number nobody had built. The IT Director raised deployment concerns nobody had addressed.
Sound familiar? It's a pattern. Not a one-off.
Legal was waiting on documentation that never arrived. Procurement was waiting for all of them. The deal sat in committee for another quarter.
One deal. Four stalled inboxes. Zero decisions.
On a $150K ACV contract, one quarter of committee silence is $37,500 in recognized revenue sitting in someone's inbox.
Most enterprise funnels in this space have more than one deal in that state.
5Buyer roles in the deal
1Unanswered question stalls it
8–12Months to find out in most stalled enterprise cycles
Enterprise cybersecurity buying is political coordination disguised as software evaluation.
The CISO evaluated the product. Everyone else is evaluating their own risk.
Four different buyers. Four different conversations — and most funnels treat them as one.
The CFO question I hear most: what does a breach cost against what this contract costs? Nobody on the sales team built a number for that before the committee meeting.
In most funnel audits, IT Directors are the most flexible of the five. Show them a deployment story that already works somewhere like their stack, and the objection closes itself.
Legal's most common blocker is a missing SOC 2 report. It's rarely the only document they need, but it's almost always the first one.
Six months of deal. One PDF.
Procurement moves last, once everyone else has aligned. The vendor that builds that alignment into the funnel is the vendor that closes.
I build the copy that gives each decision-maker a reason to stop waiting.
CISOs get threat intelligence. CFOs get a breach-cost number. IT Directors get the deployment story. Legal gets the documentation. Procurement gets a clear path to sign.
Deals close because the committee runs out of reasons to wait.
Three teardowns show exactly how that gets built. Different problem. Different committee gap. Same five people in the room.
Portfolio
Three Revenue Problems. One Company. Fully Documented.
Three conversion systems built around Wiz, after Google's $32B acquisition closed in March 2026.
This is spec work. The acquisition is real. The revenue problems it created are real. The systems built to solve them are untested in a live engagement. That's stated here, not in an asterisk.
What it shows: how I map a revenue problem to the specific committee gap creating it, then build the copy system that closes it — with the diagnosis documented alongside every asset. The reasoning is attached. The thinking is checkable.
Teardown 1: Post-Acquisition Narrative Control · Wiz · Spec Teardown
Designed to place Wiz's acquisition story in front of a renewing customer's CFO and board chair before a competitor's displacement script does.
Before: Palo Alto and CrowdStrike activated the same week the acquisition closed. Both ran coordinated scripts inside active renewal accounts. Three objections on every call: Google lock-in, founding-team drift, year-two pricing pressure. A CISO can handle that script. Their CFO hearing it first cannot. The gap: no pre-built narrative for the non-CISO stakeholders already receiving competitor outreach on the same deal.
After: A hero-page rewrite for existing customers and warm pipeline, two comparison pages positioned around the deployment gap neither competitor can close, and three stakeholder email sequences (CISO, CFO, IT Director) routing to one 20-minute acquisition briefing.
→ See how the acquisition story gets ahead of the competitor's script
Teardown 2: Enterprise Conversion Funnel · Wiz · Spec Teardown
Designed to move a six-person enterprise buying committee from POC to signed contract inside a 6-to-12-month cycle, without losing anyone to procurement silence.
Before: One landing page. One sequence. One message for a room with six different agendas. Demos happen. POCs run. Deals stall in procurement because one person's question never got answered.
After: Three persona-specific landing pages (CISO, CFO, IT Director) routing to the same POC, a cloud-security ROI calculator so the CFO has a breach-cost number before procurement asks for one, and a 7-email sequence across 38 days — each touchpoint timed to when that specific concern actually surfaces.
→ See how the committee funnel sequences each gap
Teardown 3: Competitor Conquesting Kit · Wiz · Spec Teardown
Designed to win the search the moment a buyer types "[competitor] vs Wiz," before they land on the competitor's version of that page.
Before: "Wiz vs Prisma Cloud" is a consolidation question. "Wiz vs CrowdStrike" is an endpoint vendor extending into cloud. "Wiz vs native cloud tools" is a buyer questioning whether they need a dedicated CNAPP at all. Same channel. Three different conversion problems — and one page trying to answer all of them.
After: Three comparison pages that each name the gap the competitor can't close, five battlecards for the sales call, and two case-study frameworks — all routing to a coverage audit that shows the prospect exactly what their current tool is missing.
→ See how three comparison questions get three different answers
The Diagnostic · Free · 48 Hours
The Buying Committee Gap Map
Know which of the five buyers your current funnel converts — and which ones it loses — before spending another dollar on traffic.
What you send: Your three highest-traffic conversion assets. Homepage, landing page, or email sequence. Ten minutes of your time. More assets shared means more committee gaps identified.
What I do: Map each asset against the five buyer types that shape a deal at this stage. Flag which buyers each piece actually convinces. Name what each unconvinced buyer still needs to move — in their specific language, not the CISO's.
What you get back: A buyer-by-buyer breakdown of your funnel's current gaps, and the specific proof each unconvinced buyer needs. In writing. Within 48 hours.
48hTurnaround, in writing
5Buyer types mapped
A direct read of your specific funnel. Your specific gaps. Before any dollar changes hands.
→ Get My Buying Committee Gap Map
About
Mark Nacua — Multi-Stakeholder Conversion Copywriter
I've read the portfolios. Most B2B copywriters in this space know the vocabulary. The buying committee doesn't care.
I'm Mark Nacua. I write direct-response conversion systems for B2B cybersecurity SaaS, built for committees where the CISO's approval is necessary but not sufficient.
The first time I audited a cybersecurity funnel that stalled at procurement, the gap wasn't in the product or the pricing. It was in the copy — built entirely for one buyer, in one language, for one set of concerns. The other four had no reason to move.
Every engagement starts the same way: map who's blocking the deal and what they need to stop waiting. Then build the copy that delivers it.
A cybersecurity deal runs on five personas. The titles shift by organization. The questions don't. That's the problem I work on.
"If it doesn't move a specific buyer closer to yes, it's out."
That's not a philosophy. It's what the research process produces.
The research starts with the people blocking the deal, not the product page. A CISO describes a security gap in different words than a CFO describes a financial risk. Copy written in the CISO's language on the CFO page reads like it was written for someone else — because it was.
The CFO can tell. So can Legal. So can the IT Director who has to justify the deployment to their ops team.
The pattern repeats in every cybersecurity SaaS funnel I audit: built for the CISO. It shows in the language, the proof, the CTAs. The other four know.
Each asset closes one gap. You measure it in your pipeline.
→ See What's Possible For My Funnel
Services & Pricing
What Gets Built. What It Costs.
Pricing is public because vague proposals waste time. One closed enterprise deal in cybersecurity SaaS typically runs $80K to $200K in ACV. The engagements below are scoped against that math.
Committee Gap Sprint — Diagnostic-Led Sprint
$8,000–$22,000 · 3–5 Weeks
One diagnostic. Four situations where the committee gap shows up most: a competitor in the room, ABM into named accounts, a lead magnet stalling before the demo, or a new product launch. Same diagnostic every time: find the actual question, then build what answers it.
→ Start My Sprint
Full-Funnel Messaging Overhaul — Flagship
$25,000–$38,000 · 8–10 Weeks
Every decision-maker. Every asset. One coordinated architecture rebuilt around who actually has to approve the contract today. Starts with a single messaging architecture document: positioning, buyer language by role, competitive differentiation. Homepage rewrite, product and solution pages, About page, two to three case studies, and all downstream sales and ad assets built from the same architecture.
→ Start My Overhaul
Product Launch Campaign — Package
$15,000–$22,000 · 5–7 Weeks
A launch window is 7 to 10 days. Homepage hero refresh, one new product landing page with multi-buyer proof, customer and prospect announcement sequences (3 to 5 emails each), LinkedIn and Google ad sets, sales enablement one-pager, and demo script update.
→ Plan My Launch Campaign
ABM Campaign Assets — Package
$12,000–$18,000 · 4–6 Weeks
8 to 12 LinkedIn ad variations by role and vertical. One account-personalized landing page. 7-email multi-touch sequence across CISO, CFO, and IT Director tracks inside the same account. Sales one-pagers for 3 buyer roles, ROI calculator copy, and BDR outreach templates.
→ Build My ABM Campaign
Lead Magnet to Demo Funnel — Package
$10,000–$16,000 · 4–5 Weeks
Lead magnet content (10 to 20 pages) written to educate and qualify simultaneously. Gated landing page, 7-email nurture sequence, demo request page, demo confirmation, no-show recovery, and post-demo objection sequences.
→ Build My Demo Funnel
Single Stakeholder Landing Page — Entry Point
From $3,500
One role. One conversion problem. One page. If a single buyer is the actual bottleneck, this fixes it without a bigger engagement. Mention the role in your brief.
→ Scope My Page
Monthly Retainer — Ongoing
From $7,000/mo
One engagement fixes what the gap map found. A retainer keeps it converting as your product, your competitors, and your buying committee evolve. Scope and cadence set on the call.
→ Discuss My Retainer
How Payment Works
PayPal is the primary method. Half up front, half on delivery — or full payment up front if that's simpler. Revisions continue until your team signs off on the deliverable. Scope, timeline, and terms confirmed on the call. Rates above are starting ranges. Final investment depends on scope.
FAQ
You've published spec teardowns, not paid client results in cybersecurity. Why should I trust that as proof?
You shouldn't treat it as client-results proof, because it isn't that. It's proof of how I think through a revenue problem: how I'd diagnose a committee, choose what to build, and explain why. I don't have paid cybersecurity results yet. The acquisition is real. The strategy built around it is untested. I'd rather show you exactly how I think than pretend otherwise.
How fast do you ramp on our product, market, and buying committee?
I start with your reviews (G2, Gartner Peer Insights, Trustpilot) and map your current funnel against the five buyer types before writing a line. That research runs in parallel with the first drafts, not before them, so it doesn't add dead time to the timeline above.
What's your guarantee if the funnel doesn't perform?
No guarantee tied to pipeline or revenue. Too much of that sits outside the copy: your sales team, your product, your market. What's guaranteed is scope. Revisions continue until your team is willing to put the deliverable in front of a buying committee, and the second half of payment isn't due before that.
Why publish pricing instead of scoping on a call?
A vague scoping call is usually a way to find your budget ceiling before naming a number. I'd rather you see the range up front, so the call is about fit, not a negotiation you can't benchmark against anything.