23 Years Between Markets

This July marked 23 years since I founded H. MIYAO CORP. in New York.

Over those years, the work has moved in both directions: helping Japanese companies develop opportunities in the United States and selected global markets, and helping international companies navigate Japan market entry and build relationships on the ground.

Twenty-three is not a milestone number. There was no anniversary campaign or particular reason to celebrate it. But it did make me look back—not so much at the number of years, but at what has changed, what has remained surprisingly constant, and what experience has taught me about working between markets.

Technology has transformed the work. Information is easier to find, communication is faster, and companies can identify buyers, partners, distributors and decision-makers across borders in minutes. AI can accelerate research and help make sense of unfamiliar markets.

All of that helps. None of it replaces judgment, context, trust and timing—the things that still determine whether a new market actually opens up.

Market entry is not a translation exercise

Language matters in cross-border business, but the more difficult translation usually happens somewhere else: business context, expectations, intent, value and commercial reality.

A proposition that works in Japan may need to be framed differently in the United States. Something that makes immediate sense in New York may require a different context in Tokyo. A strong product can still struggle if a company approaches the wrong partner, enters at the wrong time, or presents the opportunity in a way that does not fit the market.

The challenge is rarely just finding the right words. It is understanding what the proposition needs to become in a different environment.

My role has therefore never fit neatly into one category. I may be translating what one side actually means to the other, bringing together the people and information required to move a project forward, or doing the hands-on work—developing outreach, coordinating meetings, following up and helping determine what happens next.

Translation, orchestration and execution are often part of the same job.

Experience changes what you notice

The value of experience is not simply having seen more markets or accumulated more contacts. It is learning what deserves attention.

After enough projects, patterns begin to appear. A promising conversation may have no realistic path to business. A market-access problem may actually be a positioning problem. A partnership can look ideal on paper while the incentives, timing or expectations make it unlikely to work in practice.

You also become more comfortable with the possibility that moving faster is not always the right answer. Sometimes the better decision is to test something smaller, narrow the target, wait, or change direction.

I would not call that certainty. If anything, experience teaches you to be careful with certainty. But it does sharpen judgment.

In one U.S. market-entry engagement, what began as early market development grew over time into a broader operating role. There was no single breakthrough moment. Progress came through a series of decisions—how to position the business locally, what needed to change, which relationships mattered, what customers were responding to, and where further investment made sense.

Across other projects, the industries and circumstances have varied widely. The underlying questions are often remarkably similar:

Where does the opportunity really exist?

How should the value be positioned?

Who needs to be involved?

What should be tested before committing more time and capital?

And what is the next practical step?

Pattern recognition does not eliminate uncertainty. It helps you ask better questions before uncertainty becomes expensive.

The connection is only the beginning

Cross-border business development is often described in terms of access—to buyers, distributors, partners, media, investors or local networks. Access matters, but making an introduction is rarely the difficult part.

The real work is knowing which connection is worth making, creating the right context around it, and staying close enough to the process to help something develop. Two companies may be interested in one another but have different expectations of what a partnership should look like. A meeting may go well and still lead nowhere unless somebody follows through and defines the next step.

The value is not in the connection itself. It is in what the connection makes possible.

For HMC, the objective has never been simply to introduce one side to the other. The work is about moving from an introduction to a conversation, from a conversation to an opportunity, and—when the conditions are right—from an opportunity to something tangible.

That result may be a commercial relationship or sale, but it can also be a productive market test, a qualified partner conversation or a clear decision not to invest further. Knowing what result matters at a particular stage is part of the work too.

Cultural fit and commercial reality

A good cross-border idea has to make sense twice: culturally and commercially.

Cultural understanding without commercial discipline can create conversations that never become a business. Commercial ambition without cultural context can lead to the wrong positioning, the wrong partner or a relationship that never develops enough trust to move forward.

This is particularly visible between Japan and the United States. Decision-making may move at a different pace. Value may need to be communicated differently. Relationships may develop through different signals. Attitudes toward risk, commitment and meaningful progress can vary considerably.

The goal is not to make one market behave like the other. It is to understand both well enough to build something workable between them.

For international companies considering Japan market entry, that may mean slowing down before accelerating. For Japanese companies pursuing U.S. market entry, it may mean becoming more explicit, more focused or more willing to test assumptions.

From judgment to action

One reason HMC has evolved the way it has is that I have seen good ideas stall in the space between strategy and execution.

A market assessment can be correct and still produce no next step. A strong presentation can create interest without momentum. A good introduction can disappear without disciplined follow-through.

In practice, the work tends to move through the same basic sequence: understand the situation, position the opportunity, connect the right people, execute the next step—and stay with it until there is a meaningful outcome or clear evidence that the direction should change.

The difficult part is often what happens between strategy and execution, where judgment, translation, relationships and practical follow-through have to work together.

Why write about it now?

After 23 years, it seemed like a good time to begin putting some of these observations into writing.

There is no single formula for cross-border growth, and every market-entry project follows a different path. But certain patterns repeat often enough to be useful.

This Insights section will look more closely at Japan market entry, U.S. market entry, cross-border business development, partner development, buyer outreach, trade shows, positioning and the practical work that turns strategy into action.

Some pieces will be about what works. Others will look at where companies get stuck, what is often misunderstood, or why an apparently attractive opportunity may not yet be ready to pursue.

If a company is considering a new market, evaluating a potential partner or trying to decide what the next move should be, those are the kinds of questions I hope to explore here.

The tools will continue to change. AI will make research faster. Data will make companies and people easier to identify. Communication across borders will become more efficient.

The fundamental questions will remain much the same:

What matters?

What fits?

Who should be connected?

And what should happen next?

Twenty-three years in, I am still learning.

That may be the most consistent lesson of all.