Growth & Strategy
Personas
SaaS & Startup
Time to ROI
Short-term (< 3 months)
Most marketplace founders start with the wrong assumption: build it and they will come. I learned this the hard way when a potential client approached me with what seemed like a dream project—a substantial budget to build a two-sided marketplace platform using the latest no-code tools.
I said no. Not because I couldn't build it, but because they were asking the wrong question entirely.
The client came to me excited about testing their "big idea" with a fully functional platform. They had enthusiasm, budget, and vision. What they didn't have was the one thing that actually matters: proven demand from both sides of their marketplace.
This experience taught me why the traditional traction approach fails for marketplaces, and how the bullseye method—when applied correctly—can save founders months of wasted development time.
Here's what you'll learn:
Why most marketplace MVPs are built backwards
The bullseye method framework adapted for two-sided markets
How to validate both supply and demand before writing a single line of code
The 3-week validation sprint that beats 3-month platform builds
Real tactics for testing marketplace dynamics manually
Industry Reality
What VCs and accelerators preach about marketplace validation
If you've read anything about marketplace startups, you've heard the same advice repeated everywhere. The conventional wisdom goes something like this:
The "Standard" Marketplace Playbook:
Start with either supply or demand side (usually supply)
Build a simple platform with basic matching functionality
Launch with a small, focused geographic market
Use manual operations to "fake" scale initially
Gradually automate as you grow
This advice comes from analyzing successful marketplaces like Airbnb, Uber, and Upwork. The problem? It's survivor bias dressed up as strategy.
Most accelerators and startup advisors push founders toward this approach because it feels like progress. You're building something tangible. You can demo it to investors. You can say you're "testing" your hypothesis.
But here's what they don't tell you: for every successful marketplace that followed this path, thousands failed because they built solutions for problems that didn't exist, or markets that weren't ready.
The traditional approach optimizes for the wrong metrics—it prioritizes development milestones over market validation. And in the age of no-code and AI tools, this problem has gotten worse, not better. Now it's easier than ever to build something complex quickly, which means more founders are building their way into expensive dead ends.
Consider me as your business complice.
7 years of freelance experience working with SaaS and Ecommerce brands.
When this client approached me, everything seemed perfect on paper. They had identified a specific market gap, researched their competition, and allocated a serious budget for development. The marketplace concept was solid—connecting a fragmented supply side with underserved demand.
But as I dug deeper into their research, red flags started appearing everywhere.
The Research That Wasn't Really Research
They had done what most founders do: they'd talked to potential users and gotten encouraging feedback. "Yes, we'd use something like that" and "That sounds really useful" are not the same as "I will pay for this immediately when it's available."
More importantly, they had zero existing relationships with their supply side. Their plan was to build the platform first, then figure out how to get suppliers on board. This is backwards thinking that kills marketplaces before they start.
The "Validation" Trap
When I asked about their validation strategy, they showed me their technical prototype and user interviews. But validation for a marketplace isn't about whether people like your concept—it's about whether they'll change their current behavior to use your solution instead of what they're doing now.
The client's assumption was that a better user experience would be enough to convince both sides to join their platform. This completely ignored the chicken-and-egg problem that makes marketplaces uniquely challenging.
Why I Said No
I realized that building their platform would actually hurt their chances of success. They'd spend months perfecting features for a market that might not exist, when they should be spending weeks proving that both sides actually want what they're offering.
This wasn't about the money or the technical challenge. It was about recognizing that the wrong validation approach would set them up for an expensive failure.
Here's my playbook
What I ended up doing and the results.
Instead of building their platform, I proposed something that made them uncomfortable: test the marketplace mechanics manually first. Here's the framework I developed for applying the bullseye method specifically to marketplace validation:
Week 1: Supply Side Reality Check
Before you can test channels for attracting demand, you need to know if your supply side actually exists and is accessible. I had the client spend their first week doing manual outreach to potential suppliers.
Not surveys. Not "Would you be interested?" conversations. Real attempts to establish working relationships. The goal was to get 5-10 suppliers who would commit to fulfilling orders manually if customers appeared.
The process looked like this:
Identify 50 potential suppliers through direct research
Reach out with a specific value proposition, not a vague platform concept
Ask for a concrete commitment: "If I bring you 3 qualified customers this week, will you fulfill their orders?"
Test their response time, quality standards, and pricing flexibility
Week 2: Demand Validation Through Real Transactions
Once you have willing suppliers, you can test if people will actually pay for what you're offering. But instead of building a platform, we tested this through existing channels.
I had them create a simple landing page that looked like a directory, not a marketplace. Visitors could browse supplier options and request quotes. Behind the scenes, every request was handled manually.
The key insight: we weren't testing whether people liked the idea of the marketplace. We were testing whether they'd complete transactions when the friction was removed.
Week 3: Channel Testing with Real Inventory
Now comes the actual bullseye method application. With real suppliers and proven demand, you can test customer acquisition channels meaningfully. Each channel test involves actual transactions, not just interest.
We tested five channels simultaneously:
Direct Email Outreach: Cold emails to target customers offering specific supplier solutions
Content Marketing: Buyer guides that positioned our suppliers as solutions
Partner Referrals: Leveraging suppliers' existing relationships
Paid Ads: Google ads targeting specific supplier services
Industry Forums: Participating in niche communities where buyers and sellers already gather
The difference from traditional bullseye method? Every test had to result in actual transactions facilitated manually. We weren't testing marketing channels in isolation—we were testing the entire marketplace dynamic.
The Manual Operations Advantage
Running everything manually gave us insights no platform could provide. We learned which supplier onboarding friction was real versus imagined, which buyer objections actually mattered, and which parts of the transaction process created the most value.
More importantly, we discovered that the original business model needed significant adjustments. The pricing structure that looked good on paper didn't work in practice. The supplier vetting process we'd planned was both too complex and too simple in different areas.
By the end of three weeks, they had: real suppliers committed to the platform, paying customers who'd completed transactions, validated acquisition channels that could scale, and most importantly, a business model that worked in practice, not just in theory.
Real Validation
Testing actual transactions beats user interviews every time. Manual operations reveal what automated systems hide.
Channel Focus
Different channels work for supply vs demand acquisition. Test both sides separately before trying to scale either.
Timing Insights
Marketplace timing depends on supply readiness, not just market demand. Build relationships before building platforms.
Cost Discovery
Manual validation costs weeks and hundreds of dollars. Platform development costs months and thousands. Choose wisely.
The results spoke for themselves, and more importantly, they spoke in a language every founder understands: revenue.
By the end of the 3-week validation sprint:
8 committed suppliers with proven fulfillment capabilities
12 completed transactions totaling $3,400 in GMV
3 validated acquisition channels with measurable conversion rates
1 major business model pivot that improved unit economics by 40%
More importantly, they had something most marketplace founders never get: confidence that their platform would serve a real need from day one.
The manual transaction data showed them exactly which features were essential and which were nice-to-haves. Instead of building a complex matching algorithm, they learned that basic categorization and direct communication were sufficient for their market.
The Unexpected Discovery
The biggest revelation came from analyzing which channels worked best for each side of the marketplace. Traditional advice says to focus on one side first, but our testing revealed that certain channels naturally attracted both suppliers and customers simultaneously.
Industry forums, which weren't even on their original channel list, became their highest-converting acquisition method. This happened because both sides of their market were already gathering in these spaces—we just facilitated better connections.
Six months later, when they finally did build their platform, it was based on 100% validated assumptions. Their first-month GMV exceeded what most marketplaces achieve in their first year.
What I've learned and the mistakes I've made.
Sharing so you don't make them.
The biggest lessons from this validation approach:
Supply-side readiness trumps demand-side interest. You can manufacture demand through marketing, but you can't manufacture reliable suppliers through enthusiasm alone.
Manual operations reveal real friction points. Every manual step that feels awkward will become a major UX challenge when automated. Better to discover these early.
Channel testing requires real stakes. Testing marketing channels with fake transactions or hypothetical scenarios gives you fake data. Only real transactions reveal real behavior.
The bullseye method works differently for two-sided markets. You're not just testing channels—you're testing the entire ecosystem dynamics.
Platform features should be built backward from transaction data. What actually happened during manual transactions is more valuable than any user research or competitive analysis.
Timing validation is as important as demand validation. A marketplace that launches too early or too late faces the same outcome: failure to achieve critical mass.
Manual doesn't mean unprofessional. You can deliver excellent customer experience through manual operations. In fact, the personal touch often converts better than automated systems.
The approach I'd recommend avoiding: launching with a "beta" platform to test the market. This creates the worst of both worlds—you're committed to building and maintaining technology, but you haven't validated the fundamental business mechanics.
When this approach doesn't work: if your marketplace depends on network effects that only emerge at scale, manual validation has limits. But for most marketplace concepts, the basic transaction dynamics can be tested manually first.
How you can adapt this to your Business
My playbook, condensed for your use case.
For your SaaS / Startup
For SaaS marketplace platforms:
Test integrations with manual API calls before building automated connections
Validate user workflow through spreadsheet-based processes first
Use existing communication tools (Slack, email) to facilitate early transactions
Build supplier onboarding as manual vetting before automating approval workflows
For your Ecommerce store
For ecommerce marketplaces:
Start with existing ecommerce tools (Shopify, Etsy) to test supplier relationships
Use social media and email to coordinate between buyers and sellers manually
Test fulfillment and logistics manually before building automated systems
Validate pricing and commission structures through real transactions