B

MWC Exhibition Lead Follow-up Automation

3.50

Derivation Chain

Step 1 Increase in companies participating in global telecom and AI exhibitions like MWC26
→
Step 2 Exhibition booth lead collection and management
→
Step 3 Automation of post-exhibition lead follow-up and conversion tracking

Problem

Korean SME ICT companies (10-50 employees) participating in global exhibitions like MWC and CES collect 200-500 leads over 3 days via business cards and QR scans at their booths. However, after the exhibition, manually organizing these leads in Excel takes one person 3-5 days, and follow-up emails are delayed, resulting in a contact rate of less than 30% within one week after the exhibition. 70% of leads are effectively discarded due to poor follow-up, wasting the per-lead booth cost (approx. 50K-100K KRW, approx. $37.50-$75).

Solution

A mobile-web integrated SaaS that structures leads immediately from business card photos and QR scans at the venue, and automatically sends follow-up email sequences right after the exhibition. (1) Business card OCR + memo tagging for immediate CRM registration, (2) automatic sending of tailored follow-up email templates (3-step sequence) based on lead grade (Hot/Warm/Cold), (3) dashboard for open rates, response rates, and meeting conversion rates. The differentiator is exhibition-specific workflows and Korean language support compared to large CRMs (e.g., Salesforce).

Target: Overseas sales teams and B2B marketing managers at ICT and manufacturing SMEs with 10-50 employees that attend 2-4 overseas exhibitions per year.
Revenue Model: Per-exhibition event plan: 390,000 KRW (approx. $292.50) per exhibition (includes 500 leads and 3-step email sequence). Annual subscription: 59,000 KRW/month (approx. $44.25) (ongoing lead management + unlimited exhibition events). Additional leads at 200 KRW (approx. $0.15) each.
Ecosystem Role: Supplier
MVP Estimate: 2_weeks

NUMR-V Scores

N Novelty
2.0/5
U Urgency
4.0/5
M Market
4.0/5
R Realizability
4.0/5
V Validation
3.0/5
NUMR-V Scoring System
N Novelty1-5How uncommon the service is in market context.
U Urgency1-5How urgently users need this problem solved now.
M Market1-5Market size and growth potential from proxy indicators.
R Realizability1-5Buildability for a small team with realistic constraints.
V Validation1-5Validation signal quality from competition and demand data.
Each dimension is scored 1-5 and weighted into grade S/A/B/C/D.
N=.15 U=.20 M=.15 R=.30 V=.20

Feasibility (70%)

Tech Complexity
29.3/40
Data Availability
20.8/25
MVP Timeline
20.0/20
API Bonus
0.0/15
Feasibility Breakdown
Tech Complexity/ 40Difficulty of core implementation stack.
Data Availability/ 25Practical availability and cost of required data.
MVP Timeline/ 20Expected time to ship a usable MVP.
API Bonus/ 15Bonus for viable public API leverage.
Total 100 points; below 50% is filtered out.

Market Validation (56/100)

Competition
8.0/20
Market Demand
6.2/20
Timing
14.0/20
Revenue Signals
10.5/15
Pick-Axe Fit
10.5/15
Solo Buildability
7.0/10
Validation Breakdown
Competition/ 20Signal quality from competitor landscape.
Market Demand/ 20Demand proxies from search and mention patterns.
Timing/ 20Fit with current shifts in tech, behavior, and regulation.
Revenue Signals/ 15Reference evidence for monetization viability.
Pick-Axe Fit/ 15How well the concept serves participants in a trend.
Solo Buildability/ 10Practicality for lean-team implementation.
Total 100 points; below 50 is filtered out.

Technical Requirements

Backend [medium] AI/ML [low] Frontend [medium]
Dashboard