I'm Runbo Li, Co-founder & CEO at Magic Hour.
The decision is simple: if the audience in that region has a fundamentally different relationship to the problem you solve, you localize. If the core insight translates cleanly, you keep one story. Most people over-localize out of fear and under-localize out of laziness. The sweet spot is knowing which layer to change.
Here's what I mean. Early on, we were pitching Magic Hour's story to media in Southeast Asia, specifically creators in the Philippines and Indonesia. Our default narrative was "AI video tools that save time for social media marketers." That framing crushed it in the US, where time equals money and efficiency is the hook. But in SEA, the real story wasn't efficiency. It was access. Creators there weren't trying to save time on a workflow they already had. They were trying to access a workflow that previously required thousands of dollars in software and equipment they'd never own.
So we shifted the angle entirely. Instead of "do it faster," we pitched "do it at all." We highlighted creators using Magic Hour to produce content that looked like it came from a funded studio, with zero budget. That reframe led to organic coverage in regional tech outlets and creator communities that our global pitch never would have touched. Engagement on those pieces was 3-4x what we saw from generic English-language coverage in the same markets.
The misstep we avoided was assuming "democratization" means the same thing everywhere. In the US, democratization means removing middlemen. In emerging markets, it means removing the entry fee entirely. Same word, completely different emotional weight.
My rule: localize the *tension*, not just the language. If the pain point shifts, the story has to shift with it. If only the language changes, a translation is enough. The story that lands is always the one that names the specific wall your audience has been hitting, not the generic one you assume they share with everyone else.