Opening a business in the USA It could be the right decision — or a costly mistake, depending on the context and timing of the business.
There is a recurring error in the discourse on internationalization:
to treat opening a business in the US as a universal solution.
It is not.
Starting a business in the United States can be an extremely smart decision.
But it can also be a premature, expensive, and strategically wrong decision.
It all depends on a question that few business owners answer honestly:
Will this structure accelerate the business—or merely fuel expectations?
The difference between one thing and another defines whether expansion turns into growth or waste.
The case in which it made sense.
Imagine a Brazilian company that specializes in B2B services.
She has already validated her model in Brazil.
It has a clear stance.
It can sell with predictability.
It has a structured sales process.
It already serves customers with higher-value tickets.
And he realized that part of his offering solves a real pain point in the American market as well.
Furthermore:
Is there already some demand or sign of demand outside of Brazil?
The company is able to communicate clearly using international standards.
There is a framework to support adaptation, testing, and presence building.
There is leadership capable of managing expansion with focus.
The objective in the US is clear.
In this scenario, opening a company in the US can make a lot of sense.
Why?
Because the structure begins to fulfill a real strategic function:
to facilitate operation
organize contracts
increase credibility
to enable growth planning
to develop commercial and institutional relationships.
To maintain a presence consistent with the company's ambition.
I.e:
The company doesn't open first and then figure out what to do.
She opens it because she already knows what she needs to build.
In this case, the structure is not fantasy.
It's infrastructure.
What was certain about this type of case?
When starting a business made sense, there were usually five elements that were well resolved.
1. Market clarity
The company knew who it wanted to sell to.
I wasn't trying to speak to "everyone in the US".
It had a niche, a pain point, a specific area of focus.
2. Objective value proposition
It wasn't a company simply saying it had quality.
It was a company capable of responding:
what we do
for whom
what problem did we solve
What impact do we generate?
3. Operational capacity
The current operation could support growth.
The company wasn't entering another country carrying internal disorganization with it.
4. Box and breath
There were resources to support the input cycle.
Because expansion rarely yields immediate returns.
5. Entry Thesis
Perhaps that's the main point.
There was a clear logic to it:
Why enter?
where to attack
how to sell
what to validate
What to build in 6, 12, and 24 months.
Without that, presence becomes improvisation.
The case where it didn't make sense.
Now the other side.
Imagine a company that still relies heavily on the founder for sales.
There is no predictable business process.
It has no clear position.
It is still adjusting its offering in the local market.
Demand was not validated in the US.
And he wants to open an American company to "go international".
In this scenario, the opening tends to be premature.
Why?
Because the company is trying to use geography to solve strategic problems.
She believes that:
The structure will automatically generate credibility.
The market will respond simply because the operation is in the US.
Starting a business already represents expansion.
The American customer will recognize the value without much adaptation.
None of this is guaranteed.
In practice, what usually happens is the following:
the company opens
the formal part is organized
a beautiful speech is created
networking is done
one participates in events
Content is published.
superficial conversations arise.
and the sales aren't coming in
Not because the US "doesn't work".
But that's because the company entered the market without a foundation to convert presence into revenue.
What was wrong with this type of case?
When starting a business didn't make sense, there was usually one or more of these problems:
1. The company did not yet have commercial maturity.
If it's not already selling consistently in its home market, it's unlikely to sell better in a more competitive environment.
2. The objective was poorly defined.
Many enter seeking "presence," "image," or "international structure.".
But without a clear economic and strategic objective, expansion loses direction.
3. The offer was not adapted.
The service or product made sense in Brazil, but it hadn't been repositioned to fit the purchasing logic of the American customer.
4. Lack of focus
The company entered the market wanting to serve multiple segments simultaneously, without a clear Ideal Customer Profile (ICP), a specific proposal, or a defined acquisition mechanism.
5. The decision was emotional.
This issue is more common than it seems.
Sometimes a company doesn't enter the market because it's already ready.
She joins because she wants to feel like she's on another level.
But strategic vanity comes at a high price.
Core learning
Starting a business in the US made sense when it was the result of a pre-planned strategy.
It didn't make sense when it was used as a psychological shortcut to appear global.
That's the difference.
Prepared companies use the structure to accelerate a plan.
Unprepared companies use the existing infrastructure to compensate for a lack of planning.
And the market notices this quickly.
What should the entrepreneur evaluate beforehand?
Before deciding to open a company in the US, I would evaluate these questions with brutal honesty:
Is there already clear demand or concrete evidence of demand?
Does the company know exactly who it wants to serve?
Is the value proposition clear and sharp?
Does the current model already offer some degree of predictability?
Is there enough funding to support the process?
Is there a way to deliver without compromising quality?
Is the goal to sell, scale, structure, capture, or position?
Is there a real entry point for this thesis, or is it just hype?
If these responses are weak, perhaps the company doesn't need to go public yet.
Perhaps you need to do this first:
adjust positioning
validate market
organize operation
define niche
build a commercial narrative
design input process
And this is not a delay.
That's strategic intelligence.
The mistake that destroys the most value.
The biggest mistake is not opening a company in the USA.
The biggest mistake is opening one without knowing what that structure needs to produce.
Structure, by itself, does not create:
demand
trust
authority
differentiation
sales
She can handle all of that.
But it doesn't replace any of that.
Conclusion
When did it make sense to open a business in the US?
When there was maturity, a clear thesis, focus, and genuine commercial intent.
When didn't he?
When the decision stemmed from haste, vanity, or an attempt to anticipate an expansion that wasn't yet ready to happen.
Ultimately, internationalization isn't about "having a company in the US".
It's about building a business that can transform international presence into results.
And that difference changes everything.
A US Small Business Administration This reinforces the point: understanding the market before acting is what separates a successful expansion from a lost investment. This is also what we discussed in... Our internationalization readiness checklist.
