What Separates Viable Targets from Attractive Ones
In Part 1 of this series, we argued that the real constraint on U.S. agricultural export growth is not supply or ambition—it is uncertainty about where to invest. Headline demand figures can obscure structural barriers, and promotional dollars, once committed, are difficult to redirect.
Recognizing that market selection matters is straightforward. Doing it well is harder.
Most commodity boards have access to some version of a prioritization model. Import volumes, GDP growth, tariff schedules, and population trends are readily available. The challenge is that these inputs, while necessary, often produce nearly identical shortlists across commodities and across years. The same markets consistently rise to the top.
That convergence should be a signal, not a comfort. When every competitor is using the same inputs and reaching the same conclusions, market choice becomes less strategic and more default.
Attractive Markets Are Not Always Winnable Markets
Standard screening frameworks serve an important purpose. They eliminate clearly unviable options and establish a defensible starting point for discussion. Where they fall short is in distinguishing between markets that look attractive in aggregate and markets where the U.S. can realistically build and sustain share.
That gap is where misallocated export investment tends to occur. A market can be large, growing—and relatively open—and still be a poor strategic fit for a particular commodity board. The reasons vary, but several patterns emerge repeatedly.
Entrenched incumbents.
Established suppliers in many markets have spent years building commercial, logistical, and personal relationships with importers and distributors. Displacing them requires more than competitive pricing. It requires a credible reason for buyers to accept transition risk.
Channel concentration.
National import statistics rarely reveal where growth is concentrated. If incremental demand sits primarily in channels where U.S. product is uncompetitive or margins are thin, the real opportunity is narrower than headline numbers suggest.
Specification alignment.
What a market imports and what buyers prefer are not always the same. Packaging formats, labeling standards, unit sizes, and product specifications vary by region and by end use. When U.S. supply does not align naturally with those preferences, adaptation costs can erode the commercial case.
Operational and regulatory friction.
Tariffs capture only one layer of access. Phytosanitary requirements, certification processes, documentation protocols, and port efficiency frequently shape outcomes more than published duty rates. These factors influence supplier selection in practical, day-to-day ways.
None of these dynamics are visible in high-level screening models. Yet they often determine whether sustained growth is plausible.
Moving From Screening to Strategic Assessment
The distinction between screening and assessment is more than terminology.
Screening asks: Which markets deserve consideration?
Assessment asks: Where can we build and defend a position?
Answering the second question requires integrating trade data with competitive benchmarking and on-the-ground intelligence.
In practice, a defensible assessment typically addresses several dimensions at once.
Addressable demand, not total demand.
A market importing $500 million annually may offer only a fraction of that volume in segments where U.S. product is competitive on quality, format, and delivered cost. Identifying that realistic wedge—and understanding its trajectory—is more informative than citing aggregate totals.
Supplier dynamics.
Knowing who supplies a market is straightforward. Understanding why they hold that position is more complex. Are incumbents protected by long-term contracts? Do they compete primarily on price, reliability, or specification compliance? Are buyers actively seeking diversification? These factors determine whether entry represents expansion or displacement.
Decision pathways.
Purchasing authority varies across markets and channels. In some contexts, importers drive specification. In others, end users or institutional buyers exert greater influence. Procurement cycles, minimum volume requirements, and supply reliability expectations shape which suppliers are credible options.
Operational feasibility.
Transit times, cold-chain infrastructure, documentation requirements, and port reliability collectively determine whether a market can be served consistently at scale. A theoretically open market can prove impractical in execution.
These considerations do not eliminate uncertainty. But they do reduce avoidable surprise.
A Clear View of Competitive Position
One of the most valuable (and often most uncomfortable) steps in market assessment is a candid evaluation of where U.S. supply holds real advantage. U.S. agricultural products are widely associated with consistency, food safety standards, supply reliability, and traceability. In many markets, these attributes are meaningful differentiators. In others, they are simply expected.
In cost-sensitive segments, price may outweigh other factors. In markets with strong domestic production or established regional trade flows, U.S. product may enter as an alternative rather than a preferred supplier.
Effective assessment does not assume advantage. It tests it—market by market, segment by segment.
This discipline is not pessimistic. It is clarifying. Boards that understand precisely where U.S. supply is competitive can concentrate resources accordingly, rather than dispersing them across marginal positions.
Why the “Next Ten” Markets Deserve as Much Attention as the Top Five
There is a natural gravitational pull toward the largest and most visible export destinations. These markets often have established relationships, existing promotional infrastructure, and familiar demand signals. They are also, almost by definition, the most contested.
Some of the more durable opportunities sit further down conventional rankings—in mid-sized or underpenetrated markets undergoing structural change.
These markets often share common characteristics:
- They are commercially meaningful but not saturated with competitors.
- They are experiencing shifts in consumption, distribution, or policy that create openings for new suppliers.
- They contain identifiable segments where U.S. attributes align with emerging buyer priorities.
Identifying and validating these opportunities requires a willingness to look beyond conventional rankings—and an analytical approach that can distinguish emerging viability from speculative potential.
Allocation Is the Real Outcome
Ultimately, the purpose of rigorous market assessment is not to produce a report. It is to inform allocation…of budget, of attention, and of organizational capacity.
Commodity boards operate with finite resources and finite bandwidth. Every market chosen represents another market deferred. Over time, the quality of these decisions compounds. Well-targeted investments build relationships and institutional knowledge. Poorly targeted ones consume resources without establishing durable position.
Boards that consistently make sound allocation decisions tend to revisit assumptions, integrate field intelligence with trade data, and adjust course when evidence changes. Market prioritization becomes an ongoing strategic process rather than an annual exercise.
Toward Defensible Decisions
Export market assessment cannot eliminate uncertainty entirely. Global trade conditions remain dynamic. The objective is not total certainty, but strategic defensibility: the ability to articulate clearly why certain markets merit sustained investment and others do not.
That standard matters for governance. It matters for stakeholder confidence. And it matters for the long-term credibility of export promotion as a strategic tool.
In Part 3 of this series, we will examine how competitive positioning within selected markets influences outcomes, and how boards can align strategy with the realities buyers face. For questions or feedback, or to preview the rest of this forthcoming series, contact Bill Lucken, Partner at The Martec Group
