Where Should We Enter?
Choosing the Right International Market

In two companion pieces, "Before You Go Global: Is Your Business Ready for International Expansion?" (https://therealbasaran.com/articles/is-your-business-ready-for-international-expansion.html) and "We Are Ready. How Should We Enter?" (https://therealbasaran.com/articles/how-should-we-enter.html), we explored the foundations of going global. The first asked if your domestic core is stable and if your team has the emotional bandwidth for a new border. The second examined entry mechanics, showing how to balance risk and control before committing heavy capital.

Between those discussions lies a critical question founders ask me more than almost any other: "Where should we actually go?"

It is a deceptively simple question, and it is usually answered in one of two ways.

First is the path of chance opportunities. An inbound inquiry from Brazil, a casual chat at a trade show, or a university classmate offering to open doors in Tokyo. It feels natural, low friction, and exciting.

Second is the path of the spreadsheet. Your team builds a matrix, drawing on data from public databases. You rank countries by GDP, population, and business-environment indexes, including legacy tools like the World Bank’s discontinued Doing Business project and its successor, Business Ready (B-READY). You weight the columns, hit enter, and wait for a mathematical winner.

While both approaches are sensible starting points, each is incomplete. Chance opportunities scatter capital across fragmented markets before you build operational momentum. Conversely, the spreadsheet creates an illusion of precision. It ignores the fact that a market's theoretical size bears little relation to your practical ability to win customers.

So, how do we choose?

The answer lies in a thoughtful matching process. We must balance structural potential with your team's concrete capabilities, networks, and operational realities. For a startup, the goal is not to find the largest market on the planet, but to identify the most compatible, accessible beachhead.

The Attractiveness Trap: Sizing Up Potential versus Addressability

Let us start with the attractiveness trap. This is the natural tendency to equate raw market size with actual addressable opportunity.

Classic planning models routinely ranked destinations by national GDP or population. If you sell enterprise software, you want the largest economies. But entering a country simply because it is large or fast-growing carries a significant risk of margin erosion and operational strain.

Highly attractive national markets draw intense competition. In a massive, crowded market, you compete against entrenched domestic players with more capital, stronger brands, and established relationships. For a young venture with limited brand equity, this can drive customer acquisition costs to unsustainable levels.

To assess a market accurately, we must separate overall market size from true addressable opportunity. Market size is the raw size of the economic prize. True addressable opportunity represents the ease of accessing, serving, and winning those buyers. It accounts for product adaptation, payment localisation, regulatory variations, and trust.

A market with massive size but low customer accessibility introduces extreme operational complexity. If local buyers expect extensive, bespoke customisation rather than a standardised solution, the localised cost of adapting your business model to serve them can easily wipe out your margins.

Studies of early-stage high-technology ventures suggest that products requiring significant client-specific modification are associated with a lower likelihood of exporting. Every line of code you have to rewrite for a single customer in France is a line of code you are not writing to improve your global product core.

Slicing Context: Country as the First Filter, Subnational as the Second

When we think about international expansion, we naturally think in terms of countries. We talk about investing in the UK or expanding to Dubai. But for a young, technology-driven venture, treating the nation-state as a single, homogenous block can be a dangerous oversimplification.

To choose wisely, we need a multi-layered approach. The country-level analysis is your first screen; focusing below the country level on specific regional hubs is where you find your actual home.

The Country Filter: Establishing the Legal and Regulatory Baseline

The nation-state is a necessary first screen because sovereign laws, tax systems, and regulations act as hard boundaries. You cannot bypass local laws, regulatory requirements, or tax regimes.

For technology-based startups, this country-level screen is especially vital when it comes to intellectual property protection. Young firms tend to avoid markets where intellectual-property protection appears weak. They simply do not have the financial runway or the legal departments to monitor contracts or fund foreign litigation to protect their proprietary assets.

Furthermore, entering a jurisdiction whose legal system mirrors your home country, such as expanding from one common-law system to another, can significantly reduce contracting and administrative friction. These are boundaries you must respect; analyse them first.

Focusing on Hubs and Ecosystems

Once you clear regulatory and legal hurdles, the real unit of choice is often a city, region, or localised ecosystem. Crossing a national border changes the legal and regulatory rules. Yet, customers, talent, and business networks vary dramatically within that border, making country averages highly unrepresentative of localised realities.

In software, US federal averages tell you very little about your prospects; your real focus may be San Francisco. If you look at biotech in the UK, your focus is Cambridge. These innovation clusters are the actual incubators of specialised talent and localised knowledge.

In the digital age, we often hear physical distance is dead. But research suggests a different reality. While the internet allows standardised, low-value transactions to spread across locations, specialised, high-value, and complex activities remain concentrated in specific urban hubs. Sharing complex and tacit knowledge still benefits from physical proximity and face-to-face interaction. This is why knowledge-intensive foreign investments cluster heavily in specific global cities.

However, entering a high-density cluster is not a silver bullet. Startups must navigate a delicate balance. While moderate density provides access to talent and knowledge spillovers, hyper-dense hubs can trigger resource crowding and intense local competition. Talent wars, high turnover, and skyrocketing rents can rapidly drain your capital runway. In these situations, targeting adjacent or less congested secondary hubs, like Bristol instead of central London, may sometimes offer a better strategic trade-off.

It is worth pausing on the subnational landscape. Founders often assume that renting space in a technopark or innovation district is a shortcut to entering a functioning ecosystem. But a label is not evidence of active connections. Some parks offer excellent networks, shared facilities, and proactive management that accelerate local integration. Yet, others provide weak services, failing to create connections and leaving young ventures paying premium rents for promised value that never materializes. Before signing a lease, talk to current tenants, verify actual collaborative outcomes, and ask for concrete examples of successful introductions. We cannot assume all technoparks are inefficient, but we must verify what we are buying before we commit.

Importantly, this subnational focus is conditional. If you are a digital platform with localised network effects (meaning your value relies on localised user communities, such as ride-sharing or marketplaces), you often need to evaluate and sequence expansion city by city. You must rebuild your user base on the ground in each new urban node you enter, rather than serving them through one cross-border network. But if you are selling standardised software with global network effects, where users can serve themselves and gain value by connecting to a single, global network, detailed subnational cluster targeting is far less critical. You can rely primarily on national-level filters.

The Access and Win Equation: Network Position and Human Frictions

A market can look exceptionally attractive on paper, and the subnational clusters can be overflowing with talent. But none of that matters if your company lacks a practical, viable path to access that potential. This is the second half of the decision equation: matching locational potential with your firm-specific ability to win.

Understanding Network Insidership

In modern international business theory, we no longer view markets as static geographic territories. Instead, we view them as integrated networks of trust-based relationships.

The revised Uppsala model shifts part of the focus from foreignness to outsidership: being outside the relevant business network may be as consequential as cultural or geographic distance. If you are a complete outsider to the relevant networks of customers, suppliers, and partners in the host country, you may struggle to gain trust, information, and commercial access.

For relationship-intensive B2B models, remote digital marketing is rarely enough to bridge this gap. You must find a way to secure network insidership.

How do you do that? You look for relational bridges.

• Smart Money: You can leverage your investors. Specialised venture capital firms with global portfolios can act as vital scouts, utilising their active investments and board seats in the host country to introduce you to local networks, directly reducing your contact deficits.
• Client-Following: You can follow your existing customers. Many B2B startups enter their first foreign market because a major domestic client has expanded there, dragging the startup along into the host-country network. This client-following strategy can offer a relatively low-risk path to immediate insidership.
• Inward-Outward Connections: You can leverage your suppliers. Your prior import routines, technology licensing-in, and relationships with foreign suppliers can act as natural relational pipelines to help you launch outward sales.

If your venture operates a standardised, self-service transactional model, network insidership is less dominant. These firms can often transact remotely via digital channels without deep, relationship-specific local trust.

The Human and Cognitive Fit

Beyond corporate networks, your ability to win is heavily constrained by human limits. We must look at two often-overlooked factors:

1. The Hassle Factor: Logistical and administrative travel frictions are not minor details. Visa processing delays, long transit times, poor flight connectivity, and local security hazards exert a powerful negative drag on international operations. The original hassle-factor study examined corporate decisions across 131 foreign investment locations, showing that these hassles cause executives to systematically shun highly attractive, high-potential locations. Applying these findings to early-stage founders is a practical inference, but a vital one, as smaller teams have even less capacity to absorb personal travel friction.
2. The Familiarity Bias Paradox: It is incredibly common for founders to prioritise culturally or linguistically similar markets because they feel safe and familiar. For example, American scale-ups routinely expand to the United Kingdom, assuming that because they share a language, the expansion will be frictionless. This is a dangerous cognitive trap. A more distant market is not inherently safer. But visible differences can prompt more careful preparation, while perceived similarity can encourage managers to skip due diligence. Under the illusion of similarity, managers frequently assume that they can copy and paste their domestic playbook into the new market, neglecting essential due diligence and failing to anticipate deep operational differences in local tax codes, payment infrastructures, and employment laws.

Startups versus Large Corporations: Shared Dynamics, Sharper Constraints

A common assumption in the startup community is that young, agile ventures are governed by entirely different economic laws of internationalization than large, established multinational corporations. It is a comforting narrative, but it is incorrect.

Both startups and large corporations face the same underlying strategic trade-offs between risk and control. Both must deal with the liabilities of foreignness and outsidership, and both may experience an initial performance penalty after entering a new market.

The difference is not the economic laws; the difference is your margin for error.

Large multinational corporations possess deep financial buffers. If an expansion goes poorly, they have the capital to absorb losses and buy their way into local networks. Startups, on the other hand, operate under strict resource limits, meaning less cash, fewer people, and less room for error. You do not have the runway to fund years of foreign losses, nor middle management to coordinate a complex international network.

In a young startup, your executive team is your primary operational bottleneck. If you, as a founder, are spending substantial cognitive and physical energy flying back and forth to resolve administrative and operational frictions in a high-hassle market, you are being pulled away from core product development and customer discovery at home. This means your core business loses leadership attention and product momentum.

Furthermore, startups are highly vulnerable to the fact that trust, local knowledge, and operating routines cannot be built instantly just by spending faster. Organisational learning has physical, temporal limits. You cannot compress the time it takes to build trust with local customers or understand local business norms simply by throwing capital at the problem. Trying to enter multiple distant, diverse markets simultaneously overstretches your limited managerial attention, introducing severe coordination challenges and operational drag.

Because you cannot rely on scale or vast financial resources, you must substitute internal asset ownership with external network leverage. You must use your organisational flexibility to discover specialised global niches and collaborate with local partners, utilising co-creation alliances to manage risk and keep your fixed costs low.

A Practical Diagnostic: The Five Things I Would Look At

To translate these academic insights into a practical tool for your leadership team, I recommend moving away from rigid, multi-criteria numerical scoring sheets. They often create a false sense of security. Instead, evaluate your potential markets through five qualitative, connected dimensions of matching.

These are the five things I look at when advising scale-ups on their location decisions:

1. The Core Regulatory and Legal Fit

First, we look at the boundaries. Does the country possess a stable regulatory framework and an IPR regime to protect your technology core? If you are in a regulated financial-services category, could an applicable EU passporting regime reduce the need for separate authorisations in each member state? Does entering this market require extensive regulatory approvals that will drain your capital runway before you can make a single sale?

2. The True Addressable Customer Profile

Second, look beyond gross market size. Is there a pool of sophisticated buyers in your niche who value your core proposition without demanding extensive customisation? If your business model relies on a standardised, recurring subscription SaaS model, do local buyers share that cultural payment expectation, or are they highly resistant to recurring credit card charges?

3. The Relational Bridge Availability

Third, how will you bridge network outsidership? Do you have relationship bridges to leverage for immediate trust? This could be a venture capital investor who has active portfolio companies in the target city, a domestic corporate client who is expanding there and wants to drag you along, or a key foreign supplier who can introduce you to local distributors. If you have zero relationship bridges and are entering as a complete stranger, your path to commercial viability will be significantly longer and more expensive.

4. The Localisation and Customisation Premium

Fourth, evaluate the cost of local adaptation. This is not just translation, but the backend administrative and technical complexity of clearing local tax, data residency, and billing gates. Can your core product be replicated with minimal changes, or will the localised engineering overhead eat your margins? The more custom work a target market requires of your core business model, the lower your probability of cross-border survival.

5. Can Our Leadership Team Absorb the Mental and Logistical Strain?

Fifth, guard your executive bandwidth. Does your team have prior professional experience in the target country to help ease administrative and cultural friction? What is the travel toll? Constant long-haul travel can pull your lean leadership team away from your domestic core. When founders spend their energy resolving operational friction abroad, they lose product momentum at home, starving the core business of the vital innovation it needs to survive.

From Desk Assumptions to Experiential Validation

Effective market selection is not a one-time linear decision. It is an active, exploratory skill that moves systematically from desk theory to on-the-ground evidence. Here is the sequence I recommend:

Step 1: The Desk-Based Exclusion Screen

Desk research is highly useful, but its primary value is exclusion, not inclusion. Use database screening to filter out countries with prohibitive political risks, volatile currencies, hostile tax regimes, or weak intellectual property protections. This narrows your pool of candidates to a manageable shortlist. Public investment agencies, such as the UK Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade (BIST), the Netherlands Foreign Investment Agency (NFIA), and SelectUSA, are useful starting points for gathering practical information and establishing early introductions. These agencies should be treated as starting inputs for your shortlist, rather than as sources of independent strategic validation or substitutes for customer evidence and direct fieldwork. Ultimately, no government portal can replace on-the-ground customer discovery.

Step 2: Reviewing Your Existing Connections

Look inward at your existing network. Audit your supplier, investor, and client networks to see if you have any pre-existing relationship bridges to the shortlisted countries. A warm introduction from an investor or supplier is worth a hundred cold emails.

Step 3: On-the-Ground Discovery

Once you have identified a potential regional hub, conduct on-the-ground discovery. Do not rely on third-party reports. Talk to local experts, advisors, and early adopters in the target cluster to unearth the hidden costs of local adaptation and compliance.

Step 4: Small-Scale Reversible Experiments

Under high uncertainty, the best way to choose a market is to let the market choose you. Instead of dedicating heavy capital to predictive country forecasting, deploy low-barrier transaction pilots or minor-scale local projects. These act as inexpensive, small, reversible tests that buy evidence before a larger commitment, generating the localised experiential knowledge you need to evaluate actual willingness to pay before committing significant assets.

Step 5: Commitment and Scaling

Only when you have verified demand and relational accessibility through on-the-ground transactional evidence should you begin allocating significant capital, hiring localised personnel, and establishing high-control operational structures.

If you would like to explore the specifics of how to structure your entry vehicle once you have selected your target market, I encourage you to read our companion piece on entry modes, "We Are Ready. How Should We Enter?" (https://therealbasaran.com/articles/how-should-we-enter.html).

Conclusion

Choosing which international market to enter is one of the most consequential decisions your leadership team will make. But it is a decision that must be guided by operational reality, not by the superficial allure of large GDP figures or psychic similarity.

Ultimately, the appropriate geographic unit of analysis is not fixed. Whether you evaluate opportunities nationally or focus on subnational clusters and global cities depends on your business model and on the spatial distribution of your target customers, talent, partners, regulations, and complementary assets.

By looking honestly at your own network bridges, protecting your executive bandwidth from unnecessary logistical hassle, and validating your assumptions through low-cost, reversible trials on the ground, you can navigate the international expansion journey with confidence, preserving your capital for true, sustainable growth.

Moving From Assumptions to Evidence

Moving from abstract database screening to reliable market evidence is a challenging phase of international growth. Our advisory practice works with scale-up leadership teams to design low-cost market-validation pilots, helping you replace initial assumptions with validated customer behaviours on the ground.

Selected Sources

• Albahari, A., Barge-Gil, A., Pérez-Canto, S., & Landoni, P. (2023). The effect of science and technology parks on tenant firms: a literature review. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 48, 1489–1531. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-022-09949-7
• Almor, T., & Sperling, C. (2004). Anchor firms and the internationalization of high-tech start-ups: A business-eco-system view. International Studies of Management & Organization, 34(1), 10–28.
• 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.
• Beugelsdijk, S., & Mudambi, R. (2013). MNEs as border-crossing multi-location enterprises: The role of discontinuities in geographic space. Journal of International Business Studies, 44(5), 413–426.
• Bürgel, O., Fier, A., Licht, G., & Murray, G. (2000). Internationalisation of High-Tech Start-Ups and Fast Growth: Evidence for UK and Germany. ZEW Discussion Paper No. 00-35.
• Calvelli, A., & Cannavale, C. (2019). Internationalizing Firms: International Strategy, Trends and Challenges. Palgrave Macmillan.
• Coeurderoy, R., & Murray, G. (2008). Regulatory environments and the location decision: Evidence from early foreign market entries of new-technology-based firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(4), 670–687.
• Dierickx, I., & Cool, K. (1989). Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive advantage. Management Science, 35(12), 1504–1511.
• Fernhaber, S. A., Gilbert, B. A., & McDougall, P. P. (2008). International entrepreneurship and geographic location: An empirical examination of new venture internationalization. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(2), 267–290.
• Goerzen, A., Asmussen, C. G., & Nielsen, B. B. (2013). Global cities and multinational enterprise location strategy. Journal of International Business Studies, 44(5), 427–450.
• Hisrich, R. D. (2015). International Entrepreneurship: Starting, Developing, and Managing a Global Venture. Sage Publications.
• Hunt, R. A., Song, Y., Townsend, D. M., & Stallkamp, M. (2021). Internationalization of entrepreneurial firms: Leveraging real options reasoning through affordable loss logics. Journal of Business Research, 133, 194–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.055
• Jiang, R. J., Beamish, P. W., & Makino, S. (2014). Time compression diseconomies in foreign expansion. Journal of World Business, 49(1), 114–121.
• 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.
• 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.
• Kelly, N. (2023). Take Your Company Global: The New Rules of International Expansion. Westchester Publishing Services.
• Krist, M. (2012). Intangible Resources and the Internationalization Process. Springer.
• Leamer, E. E., & Storper, M. (2001). The economic geography of the Internet age. Journal of International Business Studies, 32(4), 641–665.
• Liedholm, E., & Röström, A. (2024). How Swedish digital and technology-based firms in the fintech sector shape their motives and patterns in their early internationalization process. Umeå School of Business, Economics and Statistics, Master's Thesis.
• McDaniel, A., & Wehage, K. (2022). Global Class: How the World's Fastest-Growing Companies Scale Globally by Focusing Locally. Matt Holt Books.
• O'Grady, S., & Lane, H. W. (1996). The psychic distance paradox. Journal of International Business Studies, 27(2), 309–333.
• Prashantham, S., & Balachandran, G. (2009). Local bridging ties and new venture internationalisation: Exploratory studies in Bangalore and Cambridge. In M. V. Jones, P. Dimitratos, M. Fletcher, & S. Young (Eds.), Internationalisation, Entrepreneurship and the Smaller Firm: Evidence from Around the World (pp. 166–184). Edward Elgar Publishing.
• Schotter, A., & Beamish, P. W. (2013). The hassle factor: An explanation for managerial location shunning. Journal of International Business Studies, 44(5), 521–544. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2013.7
• Stallkamp, M., & Schotter, A. P. (2021). Platforms without borders? The international strategies of digital platform firms. Global Strategy Journal, 11(1), 58–80.
• Stallkamp, M., Hunt, R. A., & Schotter, A. P. J. (2022). Scaling, fast and slow: The internationalization of digital ventures. Journal of Business Research, 146, 95–106.
• Vásquez-Urriago, Á. R., Barge-Gil, A., Rico, A. M., & Paraskevopoulou, E. (2018). The influence of Science and Technology Park characteristics on firms’ innovation results. Papers in Regional Science, 97(2), 253–280. https://doi.org/10.1111/pirs.12253
• Welch, L. S., & Luostarinen, R. K. (1993). Inward-Outward Connections in Internationalization. Journal of International Marketing, 1(1), 44–56.
• Yang, M., & Gabrielsson, P. (2017). Entrepreneurial marketing of international high-tech business-to-business new ventures: A decision-making process perspective. Industrial Marketing Management, 64, 147–160.