When two markets are on the shortlist, the faster-growing one usually wins the argument. Growth is easy to see, easy to chart and easy to defend in a boardroom. It is also only one input into whether a market is a good place to start.
The question is not simply how fast a market is growing. The more important consideration is what it costs to capture that growth, and whether the brand is positioned to do so. A market can grow quickly and still be hard to access through regulation, thin in distribution infrastructure, crowded with competitors, or unable to leave an acceptable margin once the product has travelled through the full value chain. Fast growth is also visible to every other brand, which can raise competitive pressure rather than reduce it. And a high growth rate can simply reflect a small starting base.
The commercial consequence is capital committed early, on regulatory work and partner building, in a market that may take longer to repay it than a slower one the brand could actually serve. The faster-growing market looked better on one measure and worse on the ones that determine execution.
The opposite error is just as real. Dismissing a fast-growing market because it looks complicated is also a decision made on instinct. "A closer look" means weighing growth against the cost and difficulty of serving it, not ruling the market in or out on a single number.
What executives should reconsider is the role growth plays in the decision. It is a reason to examine a market properly, not a reason to enter it.
Samana Insights' Market Prioritisation Framework (Framework 01) is a structured method that scores and ranks potential Asian markets before capital, resources or partnerships are committed to any one of them. Market growth is one of several dimensions it weighs, set against how accessible and executable each market really is for the brand.
Explore how the Market Prioritisation Framework helps executives compare markets on more than growth.
