Growth & Strategy
Personas
SaaS & Startup
Time to ROI
Medium-term (3-6 months)
Three years ago, I was the marketing equivalent of someone throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks. Every week brought a new "proven growth hack" from Twitter, and I was testing them all. Facebook Ads, LinkedIn outreach, cold email sequences, content marketing, SEO, influencer partnerships—you name it, I tried it.
The result? Mediocre performance across everything and actual results from nothing. Sound familiar?
That changed when I started working with a B2B SaaS client who was burning through budget faster than a startup burns through funding. We needed a systematic approach to growth channel evaluation, not another random experiment.
What I discovered completely flipped my understanding of channel testing. It wasn't about finding "the one magic channel"—it was about building a framework that could identify the right channel for the right business at the right time.
In this playbook, you'll learn:
Why the "test everything" approach is killing your growth
The 3-layer framework I use to evaluate any growth channel systematically
How one client went from scattered efforts to focused acquisition strategy in 90 days
The counterintuitive metrics that actually predict channel success
When to kill a channel (even when it's "working")
Reality Check
What everyone gets wrong about channel testing
Walk into any startup office and you'll hear the same advice echoing through the halls: "Test everything, double down on what works." It sounds logical. It feels scientific. And it's completely wrong for most businesses.
Here's what the growth gurus typically recommend:
Cast a wide net: Try 5-10 different channels simultaneously
Give each channel equal resources: Split your budget and time evenly
Test for 30-60 days: Quick experiments to identify winners
Scale the winners: Pour more money into what shows early promise
Kill the losers: Cut channels that don't convert immediately
This advice exists because it worked for the companies writing the playbooks. Facebook Ads worked for company X, so obviously it should work for you, right? Content marketing got company Y to $10M ARR, so that's clearly the path.
But here's what they don't tell you: Channel fit is like product-market fit. Just because LinkedIn worked for a B2B enterprise software company doesn't mean it'll work for your B2C mobile app. Just because SEO drove growth for an established brand doesn't mean it's the right move for your three-month-old startup.
The conventional wisdom falls apart because it ignores three critical factors: product-channel alignment, resource constraints, and timing. Most startups end up with what I call "channel ADHD"—jumping between tactics without ever going deep enough to make any of them work.
Consider me as your business complice.
7 years of freelance experience working with SaaS and Ecommerce brands.
The wake-up call came when I was working with a B2B SaaS client who had tried literally everything. They'd spent six months and $30K across Facebook Ads, Google Ads, LinkedIn outreach, content marketing, cold email, and influencer partnerships. Their CAC was through the roof, their conversion rates were terrible, and their team was exhausted.
When I looked at their analytics, the story became clear. They were getting traffic from six different channels, but none of those channels really understood their product or their customers. It was like trying to explain quantum physics to six different audiences simultaneously—the message got diluted, the positioning became generic, and nothing resonated.
Their product was a specialized workflow automation tool for mid-market manufacturing companies. Super niche, super specific. But their Facebook Ads were targeting "business owners interested in productivity." Their LinkedIn outreach was hitting anyone with "operations" in their title. Their content marketing was covering broad automation topics instead of manufacturing-specific challenges.
The founder was frustrated because everyone kept telling him to "test more channels" and "scale what works," but nothing was really working. Sound familiar?
That's when I realized the traditional approach was fundamentally flawed. We weren't dealing with a channel problem—we had a channel evaluation problem. We needed a systematic way to figure out which channel could actually work for this specific business, not just copy what worked for others.
The breakthrough came when I stopped thinking about channels as independent tactics and started thinking about them as customer journey touchpoints. Where did our ideal customers actually spend their time? What were they already consuming? How did they prefer to be approached?
For this manufacturing automation client, that meant diving deep into industry forums, trade publications, and professional associations. It meant understanding that their buyers weren't hanging out on Facebook—they were reading IndustryWeek and attending IMTS.
Here's my playbook
What I ended up doing and the results.
Here's the systematic framework I developed after that project, which I now use for every growth channel evaluation:
Layer 1: Channel-Business Fit Analysis
Before testing anything, I audit three core elements:
Customer Discovery: Where do your ideal customers actually consume information? I spend time in their world—industry forums, LinkedIn groups, trade publications, events they attend. Not where you think they should be, but where they actually are.
Channel Economics: What's the realistic CAC for each channel? I model out the math before spending a dollar. If your LTV is $500 and Facebook Ads typically cost $50+ per B2B conversion, the economics might not work regardless of optimization.
Resource Reality Check: What can your team actually execute well? Content marketing sounds great until you realize it requires 2-3 pieces per week for 6+ months to see results.
Layer 2: Sequential Testing Framework
Instead of testing everything simultaneously, I implement a sequential approach:
Channel Prioritization: Rank channels by fit score (1-10) based on customer overlap, economic viability, and execution difficulty
Deep Dive Testing: Test ONE channel for 90 days with full focus and proper budget allocation
True North Metrics: Track quality metrics, not just volume. For that manufacturing client, we tracked "qualified SQLs from manufacturing companies with 50+ employees" instead of just "leads"
Layer 3: Channel Maturation Process
This is where most teams fail. They find something that works and immediately try to scale it 10x. Instead, I focus on channel maturation:
Optimization Phase: Spend 2-3 months improving conversion rates, messaging, and targeting within the channel
Repeatability Testing: Can you consistently generate results month over month?
Scale Testing: Only then do you test if the channel can handle 2-3x budget increase
For the manufacturing SaaS client, this meant starting with industry publication partnerships and trade show sponsorships—channels that felt "boring" but actually reached their exact customers. Instead of scattering $5K across six channels, we put $15K into one channel and really made it work.
The key insight: Channel depth beats channel breadth. It's better to own one channel completely than to dabble in ten channels poorly. Most successful companies I've worked with have 1-2 primary channels that drive 70%+ of their growth, not a portfolio of 10 channels each contributing 10%.
This approach requires patience and discipline. It means saying no to the latest growth hack on Twitter. It means sticking with something that's working okay instead of chasing something that might work better. But it's the only way to build predictable, scalable growth instead of a marketing lottery ticket.
Framework Foundation
Start with customer research and channel fit analysis before any testing
Channel Economics
Model realistic CAC and LTV ratios to avoid expensive mistakes
Sequential Testing
Focus on one channel for 90 days instead of spreading resources thin
Quality Metrics
Track qualified leads that match your ICP, not vanity metrics
For the manufacturing SaaS client, the results were dramatic. After three months of focused channel development:
CAC dropped by 60%: From $300+ per qualified lead to $120
Conversion rates doubled: Trade publication leads converted at 12% vs. 6% from previous scattered efforts
Sales cycle shortened: Industry-specific leads already understood the problem we solved
Pipeline predictability improved: We could forecast monthly SQLs within 15% accuracy
More importantly, we'd built a foundation for sustainable growth. The team understood their channel intimately—which publications performed best, what messaging resonated, which events drove the highest-quality leads. Instead of constantly firefighting new channel experiments, they could focus on optimization and gradual expansion.
This systematic approach has worked across different business models. A recent e-commerce client used the same framework to identify that SEO outperformed paid ads for their product catalog, while a B2B startup discovered that LinkedIn content marketing delivered 3x better results than cold outreach.
The framework doesn't just find winning channels—it builds organizational knowledge about why certain channels work and others don't.
What I've learned and the mistakes I've made.
Sharing so you don't make them.
The biggest lesson: Channel evaluation is about fit, not just performance. A channel that works for another company might be completely wrong for your business model, customer profile, or resource constraints.
Customer behavior trumps channel potential: Your customers' existing habits matter more than a channel's theoretical reach
Economics matter from day one: Don't test channels where the math can't work, even with perfect optimization
Depth beats breadth: Owning one channel completely outperforms dabbling in multiple channels
Quality metrics reveal true performance: Volume metrics lie; qualified conversion metrics tell the truth
Channel maturation takes time: Most channels need 90+ days to show their real potential
Team execution capability is a constraint: Choose channels your team can actually execute well
Resource allocation determines success: Proper budget allocation beats perfect strategy with insufficient resources
What I'd do differently: Start with even more customer research upfront. Spend two weeks shadowing prospects online before choosing any channels to test. The time invested in understanding customer behavior always pays dividends in channel selection accuracy.
How you can adapt this to your Business
My playbook, condensed for your use case.
For your SaaS / Startup
For SaaS companies implementing this playbook:
Focus on channels that reach decision-makers during their problem-aware phase
Prioritize channels that allow for education and trust-building over time
Track qualified SQL conversion rates, not just lead volume
For your Ecommerce store
For e-commerce stores using this approach:
Test channels where your target customers already discover and research products
Focus on channels that can showcase products visually and drive immediate purchase intent
Track revenue per channel and customer lifetime value by acquisition source