We Are Ready.
How Should We Enter?

Being ready for international expansion is one decision. Deciding how to enter a foreign market is another.

In the first article of this series, I looked at what needs to be true before a startup or scale-up makes a serious commitment to international expansion. The conclusion was deliberately different from the usual "go global when you reach X revenue" advice. Readiness is not a milestone. It is a combination of capabilities, resilience, market knowledge and relationships that gives the company enough room to learn and adapt.

But let's assume you have done that work. You have identified a market that makes strategic sense. You have a proposition that can travel. Your leadership team understands that the assumptions that worked at home may not work elsewhere. You have enough resources to explore the opportunity without putting the existing business at unacceptable risk.

Now what?

This is where another common mistake appears. Being ready to expand does not mean that you should immediately build a full-fledged company in the new market, with local premises, a local team, infrastructure and a complete operating structure. You do not need to build a full-fledged company in a foreign market on day one. But you do need a deliberate way to learn what it will take to operate there. That distinction shapes almost every decision that follows.

I have watched a lot of companies arrive at this point genuinely ready, and then quietly undo that readiness by treating entry as a single, large, irreversible step instead of something they could learn their way into.

1. Entry Is a Process, Not an Event

International market entry is often described as if there is a single moment when a company "enters" a country. You establish a legal entity. You appoint a distributor. You sign your first customer. You open an office. You launch the local website. But none of those things necessarily means that you understand the market.

A startup can establish a legal entity in another country and still know very little about how customers buy, how competitors position themselves, who actually influences purchasing decisions, which relationships matter, or how long it takes to build trust. That is why I prefer to think of entry as a process rather than an event. The first step does not have to be the biggest step. In fact, for many startups and scale-ups, it should not be.

There is a practical reason for this. Your first activities in a new market should give you something more valuable than revenue alone: they should give you information that changes the quality of your next decision.

That might come from conversations with potential customers. It might come from a pilot project. It might come from working with a local partner. It might come from understanding a regulatory requirement that was not obvious from your initial research. The point is not to delay commitment indefinitely. It is to make commitment proportional to what you actually know.

This becomes particularly important for early-stage companies. They have fewer resources to absorb mistakes, and management attention is usually one of their most constrained resources. A founder who spends six months trying to build an operation in a market that turns out to require a completely different sales model has not simply lost money. They have also taken time and attention away from the company they were already building.

Late-stage startups and scale-ups face a different version of the same problem. They may have more capital and people, but that can create a false sense that they can simply throw resources at a new market. More resources make a larger commitment possible. They do not necessarily make the commitment right. The most expensive mistakes I saw here were rarely the reckless ones. They came from committing to a full local structure before the market had shown the company which structure it actually needed.

The better question is:What is the smallest meaningful commitment that allows us to learn what the next commitment should be?

That is a very different way of looking at market entry. There is one situation where founders are especially tempted to skip all of this, and it is worth naming. When a foreign market looks familiar, similar language, comparable customers, a business environment that resembles home, the instinct is to assume it will behave like home and to move quickly and confidently.

Researchers call the trap that follows the psychic distance paradox. Markets that feel familiar have the potential to become a bigger problem as companies assume they already understand them. Distant, obviously foreign markets tend to get more respect and more careful study. Familiar-looking ones can get assumptions instead. And the differences that do exist, in how people buy, whom they trust, and how decisions are actually made, are exactly the ones nobody thought to check. A market that looks easy is not an exception to the idea that entry is a process. It is where treating entry as a process matters most.

2. Choosing How to Enter

Once you accept that entry is a process, the next question is not simply "Which entry mode should we choose?"

It is: How much control do we need, how much risk can we absorb, and how much do we still need to learn?

There is no universally superior way to enter a foreign market. For some businesses, direct sales from the home market may be enough to establish an initial presence. For others, a distributor or agent may provide access that would take years to build independently. A strategic partnership may make sense where local relationships or technical capabilities are important. In some cases, licensing or a joint venture may be appropriate. And for companies that need significant control over customer experience, intellectual property or operations, establishing a local entity and building an internal team may eventually be the right answer. For a later-stage company with the resources for it, there is also acquisition: buying an established local player can compress years of relationship-building into a single transaction, though it imports that company's problems along with its position.

The important word is eventually.

The right entry structure depends on the company, the market and the nature of the proposition. Underneath all of these options sits a single trade-off. The more control you take, the more you commit and the more you put at risk, but the more you also learn at first hand and the more of your product and knowledge you keep protected. The less control you take, the faster and cheaper the entry, but the more your understanding of the market reaches you second-hand, filtered through whoever holds the relationships. Every entry mode is a position on that spectrum, and the right position is the one that matches how much you still need to learn.

A software company selling a relatively standard product may be able to serve customers remotely. A company selling complex industrial equipment may need local installation, service and technical support. A regulated health technology company may face requirements that make a simple cross-border sales model unrealistic. A business whose value depends heavily on relationships and trust may need local representation long before it needs a local office.

There is another consideration that founders sometimes overlook: what exactly are you giving up when you hand part of the market relationship to someone else?

A distributor may give you reach, but less control. An agent may give you local access, but still require substantial support from your team. A joint venture can provide capabilities and relationships that you do not have, but it also introduces another party into important decisions.

None of this means that more control is automatically better. A startup with limited resources can sometimes achieve far more through a capable local partner than it could by trying to build everything itself. The question is whether the arrangement gives you enough control over the things that matter most, while keeping the commitment at a level the business can support.

This is particularly important when the company has something that is difficult to transfer or explain. Technical knowledge, customer relationships, implementation capability and specialised processes may be central to the value proposition. In those situations, the entry model needs to protect not only the product, but also the knowledge and relationships that make the product valuable.

So rather than asking, "Should we use a distributor?" I would ask: What do we need the local partner to do, what do we need to retain ourselves, and what do we need to learn before we give that partner more responsibility? That question is much more useful.

3. Digital Does Not Mean Frictionless

Digital businesses have an obvious advantage when entering foreign markets.

The product can often cross borders without physical infrastructure. Customers can sign up from anywhere. Sales conversations can happen remotely. Marketing can be delivered digitally. In some cases, the company can generate international revenue without establishing any physical presence at all. That is a genuine advantage. But it can also create a dangerous illusion.

The fact that your product can cross a border does not mean that your business can operate there without friction.

The technology may be global. The customer is not. A software product may be available in another country within a few hours, but the customer may still expect local support. Enterprise buyers may require references from their own market. Procurement processes may be different. Data and regulatory requirements may be different. Payment arrangements may be different. Trust may take longer to establish. And in many sectors, the people around the transaction matter as much as the transaction itself.

Who introduces you? Who recommends you? Who understands the procurement process? Who can explain why a customer is hesitating? Who knows which industry association matters? Who can tell you that the person you have been talking to is not actually the person who makes the decision? These are not technology problems. They are market problems.

This is why digital entry should be seen as one possible way of starting the process, not as proof that the process is complete. For an early-stage startup, digital entry can be an excellent way to test demand without making a major investment. For a scale-up, it can be an efficient way to extend an existing model into new markets. But at some point, the company needs to understand what happens around the digital product.

Where does trust come from? Where does the customer relationship live? Where does support come from? Where does market knowledge come from? And what happens when the customer needs something that cannot be solved through the product itself?

These questions are particularly important because the answer often determines whether the company eventually needs local people, partners or infrastructure. The product may travel easily. The business around the product may not.

4. A Local Partner Can Open the Door. They Cannot Run Your Strategy.

This is where many startups make one of their most consequential entry decisions. They find someone local. The person knows the market. They have relationships. They know potential customers. They speak the language. They understand the sector. They seem enthusiastic about the product.

So the company signs an agreement and starts expecting the partner to build the market. Sometimes it works. Often, it does not. The problem is not necessarily the partner. The problem is the assumption that finding a local partner means the company has solved its market-entry problem.

A good local partner can do things that an overseas startup would struggle to do alone. They can open doors, provide credibility, identify opportunities, explain how customers think and introduce the company to relationships that would otherwise take years to develop. But there is a difference between access to a market and understanding a market. If the partner owns the customer relationship completely, the startup can become dependent on someone else's interpretation of what is happening. Customer feedback is filtered. Opportunities are filtered. Problems are filtered. Sometimes even the company's understanding of its own performance becomes dependent on what the partner chooses to report.

That creates a difficult situation. The company may be generating sales, but learning very little; and learning is one of the most valuable things a young company can gain from its first period in a foreign market. Over the years, I have sat with founders who were pleased with their sales figures and could not tell me why a single one of those customers had bought. The partner held the relationships; the company held invoices and very little understanding of the market underneath them. This is why I would not treat the local partner as a substitute for market knowledge.

You may still need someone who understands the market well enough to help you assess the partner, interpret what you are hearing, challenge assumptions and decide whether the relationship is actually taking you in the right direction. That support does not necessarily have to be internal. For an early-stage startup, building a full local market team may make little sense. An experienced external adviser, industry expert or trusted local resource can sometimes provide the perspective that the company does not yet have internally.

The important thing is that the company remains capable of asking its own questions. Is the partner reaching the right customers? Are the customers the ones we actually want? Is the proposition being positioned correctly? Are we learning why customers buy or why they don't? Is the partner building a market for us, or simply responding to existing demand?

And perhaps most importantly: What would we need to know before giving this partner more responsibility or making a larger investment ourselves?

That last question connects to an idea worth naming: affordable loss. Instead of deciding what to commit based on the return you are hoping to earn, you decide in advance how much you can afford to lose if your assumptions turn out to be wrong. Before committing significant money, people and infrastructure to a new market, you should have a reasonably clear view of what you could lose if those assumptions fail. Not because you can predict every risk. You cannot. But because better market knowledge can make the downside more visible. If you know what you do not know, you can design the first step around those uncertainties. If you do not, the company can end up making a large commitment simply because the opportunity looked attractive on paper.

An attractive market and an excellent product still leave a gap if you have no credible route into the relationships that actually move business there. A door held open from the outside is not the same as knowing your way around the room. The partner can open the door. But, you still need to understand what is happening on the other side.

5. Test Before You Commit

There is a point in every international expansion decision when research stops being enough. You can study the market. You can speak to experts. You can commission reports. You can analyse competitors. You can build financial models. You can interview potential customers. All of that matters. But eventually you have to interact with the market itself.

You cannot research your way into certainty. This is where controlled experimentation becomes useful. The first customer can teach you something that ten market reports cannot. A pilot can reveal a problem that nobody mentioned during interviews. A failed partnership conversation can tell you something about how the industry actually works. A regulatory discussion can change your understanding of what a viable business model looks like.

That does not mean entering recklessly. It means designing the first commitment so that it produces learning as well as commercial value.

A pilot should not simply be a small sale. It should answer an important question. A local partnership should not simply generate leads. It should help you understand whether the partner's network and capabilities are actually relevant. A first hire should not simply fill a role. It should help you understand whether the business really needs a permanent local capability. This is where the logic of affordable loss becomes practical.

You should know, before you start, what you are prepared to invest in learning and what level of loss would still leave the company in a healthy position. That number will be different for an early-stage startup and a late-stage scale-up.

An early-stage company may need to protect its core business very carefully because one failed market experiment can consume a meaningful part of its runway. A scale-up may be able to invest substantially more, but that does not mean it should. The fact that the company can afford a large experiment does not make a large experiment the best experiment.

The objective is not to minimise commitment forever. It is to earn the right to make the next commitment.

The first step should give you better information. Better information should improve the next decision. The next decision may justify more investment, a different partner, a change to the proposition or a different operating model. Sometimes it may tell you that the opportunity is not what you thought it was. That is useful information too. This is why I would resist the idea that international market entry should follow a rigid sequence such as "pilot, distributor, office, local team". Different businesses will need different paths.

The principle is more important than the sequence: Learn enough to justify the next commitment rather than trying to predict the entire market before you enter it. So the first commitment is not really a test of how much you already know. It is a test of how quickly the company can turn contact with the market into judgement it can act on. And that brings us to the real objective of entry.

6. From Outsider to Insider

A company can have a customer in a foreign market and still be an outsider. It can have a distributor and still be an outsider. It can have a local entity, an office and employees and still be an outsider.

Physical presence is not the same thing as market understanding. When you first enter a foreign market, you naturally see it from the outside. You rely on reports, introductions, assumptions and other people's knowledge. You are trying to understand who matters, how decisions are made, what customers value and which relationships actually influence business. Over time, that can change.

You begin to understand why customers behave differently from what you expected. You learn which partners are genuinely useful. You develop relationships that lead to other relationships. You begin to understand the informal rules that do not appear in official market reports.

You stop asking only, "Who can sell our product?" You start understanding who actually shapes the market. That is the transition from outsider to insider. You can usually feel when a company has crossed that line. It stops asking me who it should be talking to, and starts telling me who really decides, and why.

It is also why networks matter so much in international expansion. For a young company, relationships are not simply a source of sales. They are a source of knowledge, credibility, access and context.

A customer can teach you how the market buys. A partner can show you how the industry operates. An adviser can challenge your assumptions. An industry relationship can introduce you to people you would never have found through a database. And over time, these relationships can become part of the company's own understanding of the market. That is the point at which international expansion starts becoming more than international sales. The company is no longer simply trying to sell into a foreign market. It is beginning to understand how that market works from the inside and becoming part of the network that makes it work.

That does not happen overnight. Nor does it require a full local organisation on day one. It requires the company to be deliberate about what it wants to learn, who it needs to learn from and how much commitment each new piece of evidence justifies.

So, how should you enter?

There is no universal answer.

The right entry approach depends on what you are selling, who you are selling to, how the market works, how much control you need, what resources you have and, most importantly, what you still do not know. For an early-stage startup, the first objective may be to establish whether the market is commercially viable without putting the core business under pressure. For a late-stage startup or scale-up, the question may be different. You may already have international customers and a proven business model. The challenge may be deciding where deeper local investment will create enough additional value to justify the cost and complexity. But the underlying principle is the same.

Do not confuse entering a market with building a full operation in that market. Start with a commitment that is meaningful enough to generate real learning. Use partners and relationships where they genuinely give you an advantage, but do not outsource your understanding of the market. Pay attention to what the first customers, partners and interactions are telling you. Then increase your commitment as the evidence improves.

Entering well does not mean removing uncertainty before you start, because you cannot. It means keeping each commitment small enough that the market can correct you before the cost of being wrong becomes serious. And ultimately, the goal is not simply to establish a presence in another country. It is to understand how the market works from the inside and gradually become part of the network that makes that market work.

That is when market entry starts becoming international expansion.

Selected Sources

• Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J.-E. (2009). The Uppsala internationalization process model revisited: From liability of foreignness to liability of outsidership. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(9), 1411–1431.
• Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J.-E. (1977). The internationalization process of the firm: A model of knowledge development and increasing foreign market commitments. Journal of International Business Studies, 8(1), 23–32.
• Yamin, M., & Kurt, Y. (2018). Revisiting the Uppsala internationalization model: Social network theory and overcoming the liability of outsidership. International Marketing Review, 35(1), 2–17.
• Prashantham, S., & Balachandran, G. (2009). Local bridging ties and new venture internationalization: Exploratory studies in Bangalore and Cambridge. In Internationalization, Entrepreneurship and the Smaller Firm, 166–190. Edward Elgar.
• Acedo, F. J., & Jones, M. V. (2007). Speed of internationalization and entrepreneurial cognition: Insights and a comparison between international new ventures, exporters and domestic firms. Journal of World Business, 42(3), 236–252.
• Autio, E., Sapienza, H. J., & Almeida, J. G. (2000). Effects of age at entry, knowledge intensity, and imitability on international growth. Academy of Management Journal, 43(5), 909–924.
• Cavusgil, S. T., & Knight, G. (2015). The born global firm: An entrepreneurial and capabilities perspective on early and rapid internationalization. Journal of International Business Studies, 46(1), 3–16.
• Welch, L. S., & Luostarinen, R. (1988). Internationalization: Evolution of a concept. Journal of General Management, 14(2), 34–55.
• O'Grady, S., & Lane, H. W. (1996). The psychic distance paradox. Journal of International Business Studies, 27(2), 309–333.
• Tippmann, E., Ambos, T. C., Del Giudice, M., Monaghan, S., & Ringov, D. (2023). Scale-ups and scaling in an international business context. Journal of World Business, 58.
• Collinson, S. C., & Holden, J. (2005). Decision-making and market orientation in the internationalization process of small and medium-sized enterprises. Management International Review, 45.