marketing, growth, target-marketSo lets say I started a location based software in San Francisco. (Which is a mobile app.) The app is kind of pointless when there is no one around you that is using it.
So should the target market be like San Francisco->San Jose->Oakland->Sacramento->Los Angeles->Nevada->Arizona (Kind of grow like you would when conquering the world in war games)
Or should it jump across large markets like San Francisco->Los Angeles->New York->Chicago->Houston->Philadelphia
What are the advantages and disadvantages of both methods?
Edit:
Case example Uber jumped across large markets. That kind of business needs more physical infrastructure so it logical for them.
I like the idea of “Risk” for startups…
However, I think your answer is most likely to be follow the users. If you create a great buzz in SF, your users don’t only stay there, and their friends are spread wider. If you go city to city, you’re riding the experience curve down, but if you go person to person then the friction is lower still.
Depending on your app, some of that data may come to you anyway, but if not, you want to see how you can build geographic data on your users and their social graphs. If it’s a ton of work starting a new geography (e.g. you need boots on the ground building goodwill and partnerships) then this will help you narrow the choices. If it’s less onerous, then it may be that you can launch new cities whenever your reach in that place tips over some threshold.
The latter approach I term “wildfire marketing.” That is, you light a fire one place, and watch how the sparks fly. When you see some repeated sizzling anywhere, go help it along. In time, it’ll either spread all by itself.
All content is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.