Context vs. Localisation
Why translating your product isn’t enough and what separates those who get adopted from those who get ignored.
Context vs. Localisation
Let’s start with something uncomfortable:
A product can be translated into every local language, priced in the right currency, and still fail completely.
Why? Because localisation isn’t the same as context.
And in many markets especially across Africa, context is the real barrier to adoption. This isn’t just a personal observation. It’s backed by decades of research in marketing, development, and behavioural economics.
Let’s define the difference
Localisation means:
Translating the UI
Using local currency
Swapping images or colours to reflect culture
This is cosmetic adaptation, and while important, it’s often superficial.
It’s been called the “lipstick effect” by anthropologist Genevieve Bell, who warned that too many tech companies confuse translation with understanding.
Contextualisation, on the other hand, means:
Matching existing behavioural patterns
Designing for real infrastructure (or the lack of it)
Adapting to trust dynamics and usage rhythms
In other words: designing for the lived experience, not the idealised one.
This aligns with what Everett Rogers described in his Diffusion of Innovations theory:
Compatibility with user values, habits, and norms is a core driver of adoption — not technical merit.
The danger of stopping at localisation
A 2019 report by the World Bank Group on digital platforms in Africa found that:
“Many startups fail not because of a poor product, but because they underestimate how infrastructure, trust, and behaviour differ from the West.”
This is echoed in GSMA Mobile for Development studies, which show that adoption rates in rural areas often stall even with translated apps, due to issues like data cost, digital literacy, and offline alternatives (e.g., informal agents). Localisation opens the door. But context decides whether people walk through it.
An example that prove the point
M-Pesa (Kenya)
M-Pesa didn’t just translate banking terms into Swahili. It removed the bank entirely using SMS.
A study in Science (Suri & Jack, 2016) found that M-Pesa:
Lifted 194,000+ households out of poverty
Empowered women to manage finances independently
Was adopted faster in areas with high airtime agent density, proving that distribution context matters more than UX
Source: Science, Vol. 354, Issue 6317
What the Data Tells Us
In a 2017 Nielsen study on emerging market consumer behaviour:
59% of respondents said they prefer brands that “understand their life realities,” while only 21% said that translated messaging alone builds trust.
Meanwhile, UNCTAD’s Frontier Technologies report (2021) highlights that:
Most tech adoption gaps in the Global South stem from low contextual fit, not lack of awareness.
Key Insight
Localisation is how you show up. Context is how you stay.
It’s the difference between looking familiar and feeling native.
If your app, message, or solution isn’t tuned to how people live, choose, trust, and adapt you may still be an outsider, just one speaking the local language.
Take this with you
If you’re building for underserved markets or any market that doesn’t operate like Silicon Valley ask:
Does this run where people actually operate (e.g. WhatsApp, not email)?
Does it work without perfect signal, battery, or ID?
Does it assume a trust that hasn’t been earned?
Does it show up in the rhythms of people’s daily lives?
If the answer is no, you may be localised, but not contextualised.
🛠 Coming soon
I’m working on a practical framework called The Context Spectrum, a tool that helps builders assess and deepen their product’s contextual fit across 4 levels.
If you’re building for real people in real conditions — you’ll want this.
Subscribe to get it first.