The Innovator's Dilemma by Clayton Christensen describes how new entrants, often with simpler and less expensive offerings, can challenge established businesses by initially targeting underserved segments of the market, eventually displacing incumbents as they improve and move upmarket.
By concentrating on a single metro, our belief is that a developed self-sustaining ecosystem where supply (growers), servicers (contractors), and end customers (homeowners) transact seamlessly across our tech-enabled platform creates the greatest outcomes. That density created network effects, trust loops, and logistical efficiency that would’ve been impossible with a spray-and-pray national rollout.
Ironically, that same focus often gets misread by investors who over-index on scale metrics or geographic footprint. But as this piece smartly notes, atomic networks look small—until they’re not.
An ecosystemic approach requires immense complexity in its solution to support all within it. The measure should therefore be the balance within all the components in equal growth there within. What kpi that falls under is beyond me, but I'm sure VC nomenclature will grasp it soon enough.
Great post Sonia! Clearly illustrates how successful marketplaces start hyper-focused before expanding. I'm curious - at what point do you recommend founders shift from deepening their atomic network to expanding outward? Is there a specific signal or metric that indicates the right moment to pursue adjacent networks, or is this more art than science?
Great question! I think ideally you have an understanding of unit economics and payback period before launching a new geo, for category expansion it’s a little harder to say — ideally you can get pretty far in your initial market before needing to get into new categories for growth. There it’s more of a growth / ROI question— can you grow more / faster by investing in current market or in a new market.
There’s lots of nuance here— we can expand in a future post with examples!
By concentrating on a single metro, our belief is that a developed self-sustaining ecosystem where supply (growers), servicers (contractors), and end customers (homeowners) transact seamlessly across our tech-enabled platform creates the greatest outcomes. That density created network effects, trust loops, and logistical efficiency that would’ve been impossible with a spray-and-pray national rollout.
Ironically, that same focus often gets misread by investors who over-index on scale metrics or geographic footprint. But as this piece smartly notes, atomic networks look small—until they’re not.
An ecosystemic approach requires immense complexity in its solution to support all within it. The measure should therefore be the balance within all the components in equal growth there within. What kpi that falls under is beyond me, but I'm sure VC nomenclature will grasp it soon enough.
Great post Sonia! Clearly illustrates how successful marketplaces start hyper-focused before expanding. I'm curious - at what point do you recommend founders shift from deepening their atomic network to expanding outward? Is there a specific signal or metric that indicates the right moment to pursue adjacent networks, or is this more art than science?
Great question! I think ideally you have an understanding of unit economics and payback period before launching a new geo, for category expansion it’s a little harder to say — ideally you can get pretty far in your initial market before needing to get into new categories for growth. There it’s more of a growth / ROI question— can you grow more / faster by investing in current market or in a new market.
There’s lots of nuance here— we can expand in a future post with examples!