Hacker News Reader

Comment by alephnerd | Hacker News Reader

Circular Transactions mean something else and are orthogonal to this conversation.

That said, the reality is that the 70th percentile of household income nationally is a little over $130K [0] and the US is a country with a population of around 341 Million people.

Therefore, you can have a self-sustaining consumer market with around 100 Million Americans who are members of households earning above $130k a year - you would end up with a significantly larger TAM than targeting the bottom 70%.

Most skilled (SWE, Accounting, Law), semi-skilled (Automation Engineer, Mechanic), civil service (Police, Teachers, Local government employees, Military), and union employees all marry people within this strata and remain in that strata.

[0] - https://dqydj.com/household-income-percentile-calculator/

View on HN

Doesn't this mean you get siloed economies? That is, the people below the 70th percentile have their own (maybe multiple) ecosystems? Quite similar to india1,india2 and india3 in the late 2010s. This should bring about income mobility right?

Exactly! And yes - you are seeing the developing of a concept similar to India or China 1/2/3 in Western markets now.

The reality is, America1 or France1 has tastes and sensibilities closer to India1 or China1 instead of America3. As such, there's no point targeting America3 or France3, because it doesn't dramatically grow your TAM the same way India1 or China1 could.

This is why Walmart and Amazon began pivoting heavily into the India and China consumer market in the mid-2010s.

The India 1/2/3 concept that Blume Ventures came up with is a modified version of a similar mental model we used to analyze China back in the 2000s and 2010s which itself is was forked from the principle of market segmentation.

Why doesn't it make sense to target america2,3 though? What's a reason that wouldn't also apply to india2,3?

It's the same principle why India1 doesn't target India2 or India3 - it negatively impacts brand positioning for marginal gain.

That's why you find different companies targeting different subsegments of a market globally.

Additionally, we do live in a globalized world, so a brand that is at the lower rung in one market may try to upscale their value by targeting the upper portion of another market. You see this with Walmart which targets America2 but uses a different strategy to target China1 (Sam's Club China) and India1 (Best Price, Flipkart).

Conversely, a China1 or India1 brand can also try and successfully build market share in America2 and America3 in a manner that an America1 brand wouldn't want to do due to brand prestige implications. This is why you see SHEIN and Temu's popularity amongst America2 and America3 or Wellspun becoming the primary supplier for textile goods for Walmart and TJX.

I guess, the idea is that you cannot target both America1 and America3 with the same product. Take into account that America3 doesn't have a lot of disposable income in the first place, and going after a similar target audience in another country becomes a much more sensible choice than trying to expand into a different audience in your own.

> What's a reason that wouldn't also apply to india2,3?

If I understand correctly, it would also apply to India2-3, that's why nobody's proposing that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com