[an error occurred while processing this directive] (none)[an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive]
[ Alumni - Management - Feedback - With Frills - Frames ]
DISCLAIMER: Any opinion expressed by a contributor is to be considered his/her own personal opinion, not the opinion of any other swiss-list member, the swiss-list website managers or the swiss-list committee.
I will second these points, with strong emphasis and more ideas on the
concept of "home market".
Home market: traditionally, people refer to the home market as the one in
which the company was originally started. Where the founders are. Where the
IP came from, etc. From that, companies typically see their direct
environment as their starting market, which then makes it very difficult to
cross the chasm (reference to G. Moore's book), but this time in terms of
geography. Language is different, the culture and therefore the marketing
is different, purchase cycles, currencies and methodologies are different, etc.
So, my argument is the following: companies need to pick a "home market".
It should not be assumed it is the same as "home base". Read again: it says
"home MARKET", the place that you consider your home in terms of marketing,
sales, customers. Do your homework, then pick one. The best one for your
product or service, one that will allow you to generate sufficient sales
and profits to allow you to later move to other ones. One that will
generate enough growth, even on paper, to justify an equity investment. One
Then do everything to support this choice. Find local sales people, build
your sales material to match that culture, in their language, work with
partners that know this place, and analyze competitors already entrenched
Of course, it's not easy. Initial customers are best found close by. It's
easier when you can drive to see them every day in the beginning. But
really, if you don't do it now, is it really going to be easier later, when
you have an ongoing operation to maintain, one that is potentially not
profitable because of the low volumes, but one that already requires all
your attention, support and follow-up?
I've been wondering about this for a while. I wish we could find some way
to validate this theory by analyzing successful companies' behavior to see
if there's a match.
Startup mailing list
Received on Thu Feb 17 2005 - 13:52:20 PST