How to Research Your First Export Market

A country can be an attractive destination and still be a poor first market for your product. A large population, an enthusiastic visitor, or a trade-show invitation tells you little about whether the right customers can find, buy, receive, and use what your Montana business makes.

Research turns that broad opportunity into a question you can answer. It does not need to become an endless report. A useful first investigation identifies a small number of candidate markets, collects comparable evidence, and establishes what must be learned before the business commits more money.

In the Built in the WEST interview with Justin Bilyeu, the conversation at 14:01–17:39 describes trade research and local contacts as ways to make market entry more deliberate. This guide develops a repeatable research process from that idea. Its examples are editorial exercises, and its official resources should be rechecked when you make an actual market or purchasing decision.

1. Ask a question narrow enough to research

Begin with a product and customer, rather than an entire country. “Should we sell in Asia?” is too broad. “Can our replacement component reach independent equipment-service businesses in a selected market at a workable delivered price?” gives the research a purpose.

Write the decision you expect to make when the investigation ends. You might select one market for customer conversations, postpone a country because required adaptations are unclear, or request a more detailed professional assessment. Research does not have to produce an immediate go decision to be useful.

Create five questions:

1. Who would buy this specific offer, and what problem would it solve?
2. What evidence suggests those customers purchase comparable products?
3. Through which channel could the business reach them?
4. What requirements and costs could prevent a viable sale?
5. What must a low-risk first test demonstrate?

The International Trade Administration's market-research guidance recommends examining demand, competition, landed cost, and market conditions. Use that framework to organize your questions, then make the investigation specific to your own offer.

Keep a boundary around the work. One employee spending two afternoons can prepare an initial comparison; that person cannot credibly settle every technical, regulatory, commercial, and financial question. Mark what the first round will answer and what needs another specialist or a later stage.

2. Make the product description consistent

Trade data becomes less useful when the product changes between searches. Begin with the offer sheet from Part 1: material, function, physical characteristics, customer, and intended use. If you make several products, investigate the leading candidate separately before combining the results.

The Market Diversification Tool tutorial uses six-digit Harmonized System product identifiers and asks whether you are a new or current exporter. Its workflow also lets you choose the markets to compare. Prepare that information before running a search.

Treat the code used for research as a question to verify when uncertain. The right research grouping does not, by itself, establish the correct export filing, tariff treatment, or legal classification for a shipment. Ask an appropriate expert when the product is difficult to categorize.

Record the code, description, reason for selection, and who checked it. If the category includes many products unlike yours, note that limitation next to the results. A large trade flow in a broad category may tell you where to investigate without proving demand for your particular design.

For software and services, be especially careful. The tool's official FAQs say its data covers goods; an associated physical product can sometimes be explored as a proxy. A proxy is a clue, not a measurement of the service's own demand. Explain the relationship you are assuming and test it with actual customer evidence.

3. Use trade data to produce a shortlist

Run an initial comparison, save the results, and record the settings and date. If you change the countries or weights, save a separate version. Otherwise, a later score may look like a market change when it actually reflects a different search.

The Market Diversification Tool combines indicators to compare potential markets, while describing its results as a starting point rather than a complete market assessment. Use its ranking to guide your questions, not as automatic permission to choose the country at the top.

For each candidate, examine the underlying information you can access. Ask whether demand appears persistent, whether the product grouping fits, and whether an unusual period may distort the picture. Separate a data observation from its commercial interpretation. “This category has a substantial import flow” and “our workshop can profitably serve these customers” are different statements.

Build a shortlist that is small enough to investigate properly. Three candidates is a practical editorial starting point for the exercise in this guide. It is not a universal rule. A business with a serious inquiry in one country may reasonably investigate that lead first while retaining another option for comparison.

Do not eliminate a market solely because it has incomplete data, or promote one because it has an appealing score. Record the information gap and ask whether another reliable source or direct conversation can resolve it at a reasonable cost.

4. Compare Canada, Japan, and Taiwan with the same questions

The podcast discusses several international markets, including Canada, Japan, and Taiwan. They are useful examples for a comparison worksheet, but no country in this guide is declared the best destination for all Montana businesses.

Use one row for each candidate and the same questions in every row. That consistency prevents familiarity with one country from substituting for evidence. A nearby market still deserves investigation; a distant one should not be rejected solely because it feels unfamiliar.

For Canada, Japan, and Taiwan alike, ask the same buyer and channel questions before drawing conclusions. Do not assume that shared language, a trade-office introduction, or positive associations with Montana settles the economics of the offer.

Use the Country Commercial Guides directory to locate the relevant country resource. Look for material appropriate to your product and channel, record the guide's date, and identify which questions it answers. Broad country guidance should inform, rather than replace, product-specific verification.

5. Test the delivered offer, not just the factory price

A price that works at your workshop door may not work for a buyer receiving the product abroad. Build a preliminary cost picture that makes the responsibility for each step explicit. You are investigating viability, not issuing a binding quote.

Start with the product price and ask about packaging, inland transport, international transport, handling, insurance where relevant, and destination charges. Duties, taxes, fees, and channel margins may affect the buyer's actual economics. Have qualified providers confirm the relevant items for the proposed shipment and selling arrangement.

Avoid inserting guessed rates to make the worksheet feel complete. Write “quote needed” or “treatment to confirm” and assign someone to obtain the answer. Keep the provider, quotation date, validity period, and assumptions alongside any number you do use.

Then test the customer's alternative. What could the buyer use instead, and what would justify choosing your offer? The answer may involve service, fit, reliability, replacement parts, or a specific feature. “Made in Montana” can support a story, but the product still needs a credible reason to win the purchase.

Look for the cost that could change the decision. A modest translation requirement may be manageable; a major product redesign may require a different plan. Put the most consequential unknown first so the team does not spend weeks researching smaller details around an unresolved obstacle.

6. Turn desk research into customer questions

Reports and tools can identify a promising direction. Direct conversations can reveal how a purchase actually happens. Prepare questions that encourage a prospective buyer, advisor, or channel participant to describe the market rather than merely compliment your product.

Ask what buyers use today, which specifications matter, how suppliers are evaluated, who authorizes a purchase, and what causes a buyer to change vendors. Ask about the practical expectations around instructions, service, replacement parts, minimum order sizes, and response time. Request explanations, not an endorsement of your preferred conclusion.

Keep the interview small and purposeful. Five well-chosen questions may produce more useful detail than a long presentation followed by “Would you buy this?” When someone raises a concern, record it as evidence to investigate. Do not immediately explain it away.

Separate role and perspective in your notes. A distributor may have a different view from the end user. A trade advisor may explain a process without being able to verify a particular customer's willingness to pay. Record who said what, their role, the date, and what follow-up would test the statement.

You may also need a structured research or introduction service. Use Export Montana as a referral starting point, bring the questions you already developed, and ask which current service could address the remaining uncertainty. Do not assume an introduction constitutes partner verification.

7. Work through a hypothetical market comparison

Imagine an invented workshop making specialized repair stands. This example is hypothetical; its choices are not findings about Canada, Japan, or Taiwan. The owner prepares three blank market sheets and begins with the same offer, cost assumptions, and research questions for each.

The first round produces different evidence, not a winning flag. One sheet has a credible buyer inquiry but unresolved delivery costs. Another has useful category data but no confirmed channel. The third includes an introduction opportunity, while the product's required adaptations remain unclear.

Instead of assigning precise-looking scores to weak information, the owner labels evidence as documented, preliminary, or missing. The next action for the first market is a delivery estimate. For the second, it is a conversation about the purchasing channel. For the third, it is a technical requirements inquiry.

After those tasks, the workshop might choose a modest pilot in one market, request deeper research in another, and pause the third. No actual country is assigned any of those outcomes here. The lesson is that the business advances the option with the most defensible next step, rather than the country with the most exciting general story.

This also keeps the pilot honest. Its objective could be to validate the buying process or demonstrate acceptable delivery economics. The owner does not need to promise a large sales result before learning whether the basic offer works.

8. Create a decision sheet with a stopping rule

Summarize the research in a document short enough for the owner and team to use. For each market, include the customer, key evidence, unresolved barrier, next test, approximate resource commitment, and decision date. Link to the underlying reports rather than copying pages of background into the summary.

Add a stopping rule before enthusiasm takes over. For example: pause the pilot if no workable channel is identified, if a required adaptation exceeds the current project budget, or if delivery assumptions remain unresolved at the decision review. These are internal criteria you choose, not industry standards or legal thresholds.

Use confidence labels carefully. “Documented” means you have a source for a stated fact; it does not mean every consequence has been settled. “Preliminary” should identify what still needs confirmation. “Missing” should lead to a task or a decision to stop, rather than remaining permanently on a checklist.

Keep a research log with source URL, publication or dataset period, access date, relevant observation, and limitation. That habit matters when a future article, sales presentation, or application uses the findings. It lets another person distinguish what the source actually showed from what your business inferred.

Your deliverable is a decision, a next experiment, and a record of why. It is not a large folder whose conclusions no one can explain.

9. Use the dated research and application resources

Source review: The ITA tools and public research resources linked here are research starting points. This guide does not assert an application deadline for using the publicly accessible research pages. Check each paid service's current scope, fee, scheduling, and terms before ordering it.

If you want STEP support for an eligible U.S. Commercial Service activity, the official Montana activity page requires application at least 30 days before the service. Current funding availability and your project's activity-period eligibility remain unconfirmed until the program answers those questions. Follow its official application link; a visible portal does not establish an available award.

Recommended planning dates: A business starting November 2, 2026 could aim to complete its first desk comparison by November 13 and hold a decision review on November 20. These are illustrative internal targets, not agency deadlines or guaranteed research-service dates. Schedule direct conversations according to actual availability and move the review when material evidence is missing.

For your next working session, choose one offer and write five research questions. Open the Market Diversification Tool guide, document the inputs, and create your first comparison sheet. Then identify the single unanswered question most likely to change the decision. That is the question to take to the appropriate advisor or service.

Continue the series: Previous: Apply for Montana STEP support · Next: Plan a trade show that earns its cost · Series guide.