In a recent discussion I had at a meeting of which I am a non-executive member, the eternal discussion of
whether priority should be given to monetization or to reach and internationalization
was brought up. The debate centered around the question of whether or not the exit perspectives of the venture (of which I am also a shareholder) would increase or decrease, depending on whether the business model was first proven, at the detriment of international reach, or whether monetization should be allowed to lag because entry into several international markets at once would be a priority.
To me, this debate simply has the wrong starting point. While it is true that exit markets, such as the stock market or the M&A market, are - just like any other market - subject to buyer preference analysis, and while there is some credit to the claim that understanding the decision making “fashions” of typical M&A acquirers does help you in setting the price of your venture at exit,
timing towards such an exit market is more of a gamble than a company strategy.
In my experience, having now gone through two boom and one bust phases, the best strategy for a company to pursue is to
create a viable business model that creates value for customers that customers are prepared to pay for.
This may not always be the “sexiest” portrayal a startup can give itself (as opposed to: we are the next Facebook), but to paraphrase the old saying about design following function or form following function-
PR and the Elevator Pitch should follow the strategy and not the other way around.
This is why I literally get angry at classic venture capital thinking that sees company strategy solely in the dimension of “How will this fit my exit market? How can I sell this story to an acquirer?”. I would always strongly advise any founder
to have a clear and separate vision of their business model that cannot be influenced or swayed, save by the customer
and to work relentlessly on proving and creating that.
Incidentally, succesful American start-ups have often proven that this is the best strategy since they have always focused on gaining size and growth in their home markets before over-focussing on internationalization. In general, this has given them the size and clout necessary to, if need be, acquire whoever it was in a landscape within a specific market. It is true, that this does not always work and that some local markets have been lost even for giants such as Yahoo! and E-bay because they haven’t gone local on time, but conversely there is no known example of a company that went for reach without a viable business model and survived.
Eventually, you do have to pay the bills.
So if you do have to reach several international markets at once (because you are in a European market with too small a home market or because your board is adamant or because you have that peculiar megalomania that most entrepreneurs - including me - indulge in, I would advise the following order or priorities in formulating your company strategy:
1) Define your Business Model
2) Prove it by acquiring your reference customer base
3) Identify the growth factors in your business model with respect to paying customers
4) Identify the multipliers or incumbents in other international markets
5) Internationalize on a sales / business model driven basis by acquiring reference paying customers in those markets
The perceptions of your target exit markets can change faster than you can change the positioning of your company.
But a functioning business model and a continuous revenue stream are two realities that a) always let your survive independently of your VC backing and b) always find an acquirer.
Where there is a business model, there always eventually is an exit market.
