When technology companies begin planning their expansion into Asia-Pacific, the conversation often starts with geography.
Should the regional headquarters be in Singapore? Or Australia?
For years, Singapore has been the default answer. Its business-friendly environment, competitive corporate tax rate, strategic location, and reputation as Southeast Asia’s commercial hub have made it the preferred base for multinational companies entering the region.
But according to Adam Furness, an international expansion specialist who has spent more than two decades helping technology companies scale across APAC, founders may be asking the wrong question.
The real decision, he argues, isn’t about where to establish a regional office. It’s about where to build commercial momentum first.
After years of helping companies expand internationally—including playing a key role in growing impact.com from a four-person Sydney operation into an eight-office regional business serving more than 1,000 customers—Furness has noticed a recurring pattern.
“The operators who have actually built out APAC tend to land somewhere else,” he says. “Their rule is simpler than any tax table. Go where the demand is strongest, where you can get traction quickest, and where the talent pool can actually support your ambition.”
It’s a perspective shaped less by theory than by execution.
Highlights
The Biggest APAC Expansion Question Might Be the Wrong One
Recently, Furness found himself having remarkably similar conversations on opposite sides of the world.
In New York, he met with venture capital firms, founders, and CEOs preparing for international expansion. Back in Australia, he compared notes with operators who had already built businesses across Asia-Pacific.
Despite the different audiences, the same question surfaced repeatedly:
“We’re setting up our first headquarters for APAC. Should we choose Singapore or Australia?”
On paper, Singapore presents a compelling case. It offers a globally recognised business environment, attractive tax policies, access to international talent, and proximity to many of Asia’s fastest-growing economies.
None of those advantages is in dispute.
The problem, Furness argues, is assuming those benefits automatically translate into commercial success.
“Singapore buys you a regional office,” he says. “It does not buy you traction.”
It’s a distinction that many first-time international founders overlook.
A headquarters may provide an operational base, but customers still need to be won market by market.
The Costly Mistake: Treating Southeast Asia as One Market
One of Furness’ strongest observations is that many Western companies approach Southeast Asia as though it’s a single commercial opportunity.
In reality, it is anything but.
Each country operates under its own regulatory framework, tax requirements, procurement processes, cultural expectations, and buying behaviours. Sales cycles differ, local relationships matter, and what works in one country often doesn’t translate directly into another.
“Winning APAC is about winning each market in its own right,” Furness explains.
For founders hoping to generate meaningful revenue within their first year of expansion, this complexity matters.
While Singapore provides an excellent regional base, it doesn’t simplify the work of selling into Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam, or the Philippines. Each market still demands its own strategy.
For many businesses, trying to tackle multiple countries simultaneously can slow commercial progress rather than accelerate it.
Why Australia May Be the Smarter First Move
Instead of asking where to place a headquarters, Furness encourages founders to ask a more practical question:
Where are we most likely to build revenue quickly?
For many B2B technology companies, his answer is Australia.
Unlike Southeast Asia’s fragmented landscape, Australia offers one consolidated English-speaking market with mature enterprise buyers, established governance, and a deep pool of experienced commercial talent.
That makes it an attractive environment for proving product-market fit, refining a go-to-market strategy, and building predictable revenue before expanding further across the region.
Australia isn’t necessarily the biggest market in APAC, nor does Furness pretend it is.
In fact, he readily acknowledges its limitations. The addressable market is smaller than Southeast Asia, and its geographic distance from many Asian economies creates operational challenges.
But early expansion isn’t always about addressing the largest market first.
It’s about building confidence—both internally and with investors and boards.
Successfully validating unit economics, securing reference customers and demonstrating repeatable sales can provide the momentum needed to support broader regional growth.
That’s why Furness doesn’t frame the decision as Australia versus Singapore.
“It’s not Singapore or Australia,” he says. “It’s Australia first, then Singapore.”
The sequencing matters.
Singapore becomes significantly more valuable once a company already has traction, revenue, and a clear strategy for expanding into Southeast Asia’s diverse markets.
Don’t Build the Infrastructure Before You’ve Built the Business
The same philosophy extends beyond headquarters decisions.
Furness sees similar thinking when companies debate whether to hire through an Employer of Record (EOR) or establish their own local entity immediately.
For companies testing a new market, he believes an EOR is often the right starting point.
It enables businesses to hire quickly, remain compliant, and begin building an in-market presence without waiting months for incorporation.
But he also sees founders making the mistake of treating an EOR as a long-term operating model.
As businesses grow, enterprise procurement becomes more demanding, customer contracts become more complex, and invoicing through overseas entities can introduce unnecessary foreign exchange exposure and administrative friction.
Again, Furness resists presenting the decision as an either-or choice.
“It is not an EOR or entity,” he explains. “It is EOR to hire fast, entity to invoice and build a proper business.”
The broader principle remains the same.
Move quickly when testing the market.
Build permanent infrastructure once commercial momentum justifies it.
Final Thoughts: The APAC Playbook Needs a Different Starting Point
For Adam Furness, both debates—the headquarters question and the EOR discussion—reflect the same underlying instinct.
Companies often optimise for looking like an established regional business before they’ve proven they have one.
The better approach, he argues, is surprisingly simple.
Win the market that says yes first.
Build repeatable revenue.
Earn the confidence of customers, leadership teams, and boards.
Then invest in the regional structures that help scale what already works.
A headquarters isn’t permanent. It can move as the business evolves. In many successful expansions, Adam Furness has seen the centre of gravity naturally shift into Asia once regional revenue justifies it.
That makes the first decision less about choosing where the business will live forever and more about choosing where it can build momentum fastest.
It’s a subtle but important shift in thinking.
For companies entering one of the world’s most diverse economic regions, success rarely comes from following a universal playbook. Every market across APAC has its own commercial realities, customer expectations, and regulatory landscape.
“The Western playbook is not wrong,” Furness says. “It is just incomplete for APAC.”
For founders planning their first expansion into the region, that insight may be the most valuable starting point of all.
Editor’s note:
This article was inspired by a LinkedIn post and a Substack essay by Adam Furness, founder of Black T Global and an international expansion specialist. Drawing on his experience scaling technology businesses across Asia-Pacific, this feature explores why commercial traction — not geography — should guide a company’s first APAC expansion strategy.
Highlights
Read the Chinese article here.
