07 — Market Entry Sequencing (the scored model)
Goal: decide which markets, in what order — using a transparent weighted score, not gut feel. This is also the input to the automated decision engine.
Scoring rubric
Six criteria, weighted by how much they drive sustainable, efficient revenue. Each market is scored 1–5 (5 = most attractive). "Inverse" criteria are scored so that less load = a higher score.
| Criterion | Weight | What it captures |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue potential (WTP × account density) | 30% | How much money is realistically here |
| Data & localization readiness | 20% | Do we already have language/data coverage? (18 langs / 24 countries today) |
| Strategic / home-region advantage & speed-to-land | 15% | Existing presence, references, speed |
| Competitive intensity (inverse) | 15% | Less entrenched competition = better |
| Regulatory / compliance load (inverse) | 10% | GDPR/residency burden to sell |
| Cost-to-serve / operational feasibility (inverse) | 10% | Field-sales cost, support hours, partners needed |
Scores (illustrative, benchmark-anchored — see doc 02)
| Market | Rev (30%) | Data-ready (20%) | Home adv (15%) | Comp⁻¹ (15%) | Reg⁻¹ (10%) | Cost⁻¹ (10%) | Weighted | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SEA | 3 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4.05 | 1 |
| India | 3 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3.95 | 2 |
| US | 5 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 3.60 | 3 |
| W. Europe | 4 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3.25 | 4 |
| Japan/Korea | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3.20 | 5 |
| Middle East | 3 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 2.95 | 6 |
| LATAM | 2 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 2.50 | 7 |
(Weighted = Σ score×weight. Live, recomputable version in
frameworks/market-scoring.csv and Deliverable B.)
The 3-wave entry plan
The score says "home first," but absolute revenue says "don't ignore the US." We reconcile both: defend and deepen the home region first (fast, cheap, high data-readiness), then attack the highest-value market, then broaden.
Wave 1 (0–9 months) — Deepen SEA + India (home advantage)
- Highest data-readiness and lowest cost-to-serve; we already cover these languages/markets.
- Motion: Growth-led with Essentials to widen the funnel; PLG-assisted; partners optional.
- Goal: reference logos, dense category/taxonomy packs, prove land-and-expand mechanics.
Wave 2 (6–18 months) — Attack the US (highest revenue per logo)
- Lower blended score (tough competition, no home advantage) but highest WTP and where global CPG HQs sit — landing a US HQ pulls through other markets via the same account.
- Motion: sales-led Enterprise + PLG funnel. Invest in field sales here specifically.
- Goal: anchor ACV, validate Enterprise tier + integrations + compliance selling.
Wave 3 (18–30 months) — Broaden: W. Europe + Japan/Korea
- W. Europe: compliance/residency already built for US enterprise → turn GDPR into a selling point. Japan/Korea: partner/channel-led to control the high service overhead.
- Goal: geographic diversification of revenue; partner playbook proven.
Later / opportunistic — Middle East, LATAM
- Enter via inbound or partner only; revisit when score improves (data-readiness, account density).
Why this sequence is defensible
- Speed & efficiency first: Wave 1 markets are cheapest to win and already supported → fast references, low CAC.
- Value next: Wave 2 puts the expensive sales motion only where ACV justifies it.
- Leverage compounding: compliance built for the US is reused in Europe; partner model built for Japan is reused in MEA. Each wave makes the next cheaper — exactly what the market pack + automation enable.