A US-sized story should explain how a proven customer problem expands, while preserving the evidence that customers already pay for the solution. If Kojo must redraw the company to satisfy the market-size question, he is replacing evidence with a larger claim.
In 2009, Airbnb’s prospects still looked uncertain. Brian Chesky, Joe Gebbia and Nathan Blecharczyk had launched in San Francisco, but investors could reasonably wonder how many people would pay to sleep in a stranger’s home.
Paul Graham had accepted the founders into Y Combinator. In his essay “Airbnb,” he recalls asking what was happening in New York, where the company’s users were concentrated. The founders were still running the business from California.
Graham’s advice was direct: go to the users.
They flew to New York, met hosts and photographed their listings. It was narrow, manual work. It did not resemble the operating model of a global technology company. Yet those visits brought the founders closer to the transaction they needed to understand.
The company’s larger story came later. First, the founders learned why a real booking happened.
The question hidden inside the market-size question
At 4:17, an investor asks Kojo how the company becomes large in the United States. The meeting is nearly over. Kojo already has Ghanaian customers paying him to solve a costly problem, but that answer suddenly feels too small for the room.
He has two choices.
He can redraw the company around a US customer he has not served, buying a bigger total addressable market with assumptions. Or he can defend what he knows, then show which parts of that knowledge might travel.
The pressure encourages founders to confuse market size with geographic distance. A company sounds larger when the pitch moves from Accra to New York. The underlying business may become less credible with every mile.
The useful question is more exact: what does the Ghanaian customer pay to stop happening?
A delayed approval, an unreconciled payment, a missed order and a week of manual follow-up each create different expansion paths. “African businesses need automation” offers no testable path at all. Kojo needs to name the costly event, the buyer who owns it and the reason that buyer approves the invoice.
That is the starting point for a market argument.
Build the large story from the paid event
I would put three columns on a page before changing the pitch.
The first column contains facts from current customers: who pays, what breaks without the product, how they handle it today and what triggered the purchase.
The second contains assumptions about expansion: which buyer behaves similarly elsewhere, which part of the workflow survives a new market and which local conditions may change the sale.
The third contains tests: conversations, paid pilots or product usage that could turn each assumption into evidence.
This prevents one attractive slide from quietly becoming a new company.
Suppose the customer in Ghana pays because a broken approval step holds up work and creates a direct financial cost. Kojo can investigate whether the same event exists in Lagos, Berlin or Atlanta. He should avoid claiming those markets behave identically. Procurement, integrations, regulation and the person controlling the budget may differ.
The expansion story becomes credible when it follows the mechanism: a repeated costly event, an identifiable buyer and a product that can solve the problem without rebuilding itself for every account.
I saw the same tension in Kojo’s broken approval step. The immediate operational problem mattered because paying customers were already exposed. A market-size slide cannot erase that signal.
What Kojo can say before the meeting ends
Kojo does not need to reject the investor’s premise. He needs to separate what he has proved from what he plans to test.
A defensible answer could sound like this:
“Our strongest evidence comes from Ghanaian customers who already pay us to remove this specific cost. We believe the same buyer problem exists in larger markets, but we have not proved the US motion yet. Our next step is to test whether the buyer, urgency and product requirements remain consistent before we change the roadmap.”
That answer leaves some uncertainty visible. Good. The uncertainty was already there.
It also gives the investor something useful to evaluate. They can challenge the proposed test, introduce relevant buyers or decide the current market is outside their investment model. Kojo leaves with information rather than a promise he must spend the next twelve months fulfilling.
That last risk deserves attention. A pitch can become a commitment inside the founder’s head long before it becomes one inside the company. The team starts prioritising US-facing features, rewriting the website and taking calls with prospects whose workflows have little in common with the customers keeping the lights on.
Kwame’s billion-dollar story examines that cost directly. The dangerous part of a large narrative is the work it authorises after the meeting.
Protect the evidence while testing the ambition
Airbnb’s founders did not prove a global market by describing every city they might enter. In 2009, they went to New York and worked closely with the small concentration of users they already had. Paul Graham’s account matters because the global outcome was still unknown when that decision was made.
Kojo’s equivalent move is to stay close to the paid event.
Before the next investor meeting, he can write down the smallest expansion claim his evidence supports. Then he can name the next claim and the cheapest credible test for it. If the test fails, the Ghanaian business remains intact. If it succeeds, the market story grows by one piece of evidence.
At 4:17, he does not need to choose between ambition and Accra. He needs to show how one paid problem earns the right to travel.
Comments
No comments yet.