Target Market Selection for Founders

Why Founders Target Familiar Markets

Past observation: Why do we always target the same group of people? (25-35, office workers, internet-native)

Realized it makes sense because this group is:

Most mobile/internet native — can adopt easily
Most approachable — you can actually reach them
Most familiar — you understand their pain points

Same pattern with "young founders building for founders, investors, freelancers."

The Familiar vs Unfamiliar Trade-off

Familiar markets:

Faster feedback loops
Lower distribution cost
Deep empathy, less risk of building wrong thing
But: crowded, echo chamber risk, competing with 50 other apps for same 10k users

Unfamiliar markets:

Underserved precisely because fewer founders know them
Higher switching cost once you're in (moat)
But: harder to access, slower to learn, easy to build wrong thing

Challenge to "quick feedback" argument:

Fast feedback ≠ good signal. Friends share your assumptions, might be too nice.
Limited resources is actually an argument AGAINST crowded markets — can't outspend incumbents.
Access is learnable, taste isn't. Can spend 3 months in a new industry. Can't easily manufacture contrarian insight in saturated space.
Survivorship bias: We remember Notion, not the 500 dead note-taking apps for knowledge workers.

Solutions for Navigating Market Selection

Adjacent markets, not foreign ones — One step away from what you know. Some access, some empathy, less competition.
Follow a person, not a market — Find one champion user with a burning problem. They become your access point.
Earn the right to an insight — What do you know from your specific experience that most founders don't? The market follows the earned secret.
Constraint-based filtering — Pick business constraints (B2B vs consumer, self-serve vs sales-led, price point) to narrow the space without knowing the "right" market.
Time-boxed tours — 2 weeks each exploring 3 markets. Talk to 5 people in each. Feel the difference between "interesting" and "I understand this."

Market Adoption Patterns

Three main patterns for how tools spread:

Pattern 1: Pro → Mass (top-down)

Start with experts, simplify later.

Figma (senior designers → everyone)
Linear (senior eng teams → more teams)
GitHub (developers → broader)

Why it works: Pros validate quality, set taste, become evangelists. Credibility before expansion.

Pattern 2: Mass → Pro (bottom-up)

Start simple, add power features.

Canva (non-designers → competing with Adobe)
Notion (personal → teams → enterprise)
Dropbox (individuals → enterprise)

Why it works: Users bring it to work. Grow with them.

Pattern 3: Democratize Pro Tools

Make expert tools accessible to the middle.

Webflow (code-level control without code)
Stripe (payments without enterprise deals)
Shopify (e-commerce without dev teams)

Why it works: Huge underserved middle — people who want pro results without pro overhead.

How to Choose Your Pattern

Go pro-first when:

Stakes are high — Mistakes costly (finance, security, healthcare). Need expert validation.
Credibility is the product — Output needs to be trusted. "Used by top designers" matters.
Complexity is unavoidable — Workflow requires learning. Pros invest time; casual users won't.
You need revenue early — Pros pay. Consumers expect free.

Go mass-first when:

Network effects are core — Tool gets better with more users (communication, marketplaces).
Virality is built in — Users naturally share or invite (Calendly, Loom).
Core value is instant — No learning curve. Value obvious in 30 seconds.
You can monetize at scale — Freemium, ads, or cheap seats that add up.

Go "democratize pro tools" when:

Clear gap exists — Pros have tools, everyone else has nothing.
Complexity can be abstracted — Hard part hidden behind good UX.
Price is the barrier, not skill — People want pro results, can't access pro tools.

The founder-fit lens:

Can you actually reach and sell to pros? Do you have credibility?
Can you build for mass distribution? Do you know how to grow consumer products?