The global EdTech market surpassed $254 billion in 2024 and is growing at 13.4% annually, but selling to educational institutions remains one of the slowest and most complex commercial processes in the B2B market. Universities and private schools across LATAM are under increasing pressure: they must digitize their academic offering, retain students in a highly competitive environment, and demonstrate ROI from technology investments to increasingly demanding boards.
The institutional buyer is not just one person: it includes the president or rector, the academic director, the CTO or IT lead, the finance department, and often the faculty members who ultimately determine whether the tool will actually be used. Navigating that process without a structured sales strategy consumes time and resources with no guarantee of results.
.jpg)
In educational institutions with more than 5,000 students, the approval process for technology purchases averages 347 days from the first meeting to contract signature. Not because of bad intentions, but because of structure: technical evaluation committees, legal review, board approval, and often formal bidding processes. Sales teams that do not map that process during the first week lose control of the cycle and end up waiting without influence.
Only 30% of EdTech implementations achieve consistent daily faculty usage during the first year. The remaining 70% face resistance ranging from lack of familiarity to active rejection. The issue is not pedagogical: faculty adoption was never included within the scope of the sales proposal. EdTech companies with the highest renewal rates include an adoption plan in their proposal, complete with training, usage metrics, and a dedicated point of contact during the first 90 days.
In most private educational institutions in LATAM, 80% of the next year’s technology budget is defined between August and October. Companies prospecting in January or February are not late for the previous year, they are late for the planning process. The EdTech pipeline that closes starts 9 to 12 months earlier: the first conversation happens when the decision-maker is still thinking about what they need, not after they have already decided what to buy.
Technology buying committees in education frequently include professors or academic coordinators with informal veto power. 44% of EdTech projects that pass technical and financial evaluation stall because an academic subcommittee raises concerns. Those concerns are almost never about the product itself: they are about losing autonomy, the burden of learning something new, and fear of being exposed in front of students. Identifying these profiles during the sales process and designing a specific strategy for them is not optional.
“Up to now, Siete has generated an average of forty-five sales meetings per month. As a result, Leaf grew 50% year-over-year compared to the first quarter of 2023. The team has delivered everything on time and flawlessly. The quality of the results, daily communication, and professionalism of their work are impressive.”
“Thanks to Siete’s efforts, Belia saw an improvement in the volume of qualified leads, weekly qualified meetings, and sales pipeline. The team delivered everything on time and paid close attention to detail and availability, communicating through virtual meetings. Their commitment impressed the client.”
“Siete has helped the Universidad de Monterrey secure growth in qualified leads, organize meetings with potential clients, expand the sales pipeline, and identify opportunities for the sales team. Overall, the team has met the client’s needs, and their fast and accurate responsiveness has stood out.”
By anchoring the conversation to a consequence with a deadline. Educational institutions rarely create urgency internally, but they do have external deadlines: semester launches, accreditation renewals, annual budget closures, or the launch of a new academic program. Connecting your solution to one of those events transforms an endless evaluation into a project with a start date. The question that opens that conversation is: “What needs to be working before the next academic cycle begins for this to have real impact?”
Not by competing on price, but by changing the metric. Google Classroom is free in licensing, but it has real costs in setup, internal support, integration with academic systems, and especially in what it cannot do: learning analytics, competency tracking, and accreditation reporting. 67% of institutions using free tools have someone in IT dedicated to building what those tools do not provide out of the box. Quantifying that hidden cost changes the conversation from “free vs paid” to “real cost vs real cost.”
Yes, if you work with the right level of anticipation and understand the difference between influencing planning and responding to a public tender. Companies that win contracts with public institutions are not competing in open bids: they build relationships with technical and academic departments 12 to 18 months before the process officially opens. By the time the tender arrives, they are already the default option in the evaluator’s mind. Prospecting without that anticipation means competing in conditions where you have already lost.
SIE7E. Copyright © 2026. All rights reserved.
