Growth & Strategy
Personas
SaaS & Startup
Time to ROI
Short-term (< 3 months)
After working with dozens of startups and e-commerce brands over seven years, I've seen the same pattern over and over: founders drowning in channel analysis paralysis while their competitors are eating their lunch with simple, focused strategies.
Here's the uncomfortable truth: most businesses are asking the wrong question entirely. Instead of "how many channels should I test," they should be asking "how do I find my one unfair advantage channel as fast as possible?"
I learned this the hard way through real client work. I've helped businesses test everything from paid ads versus SEO strategies to obscure distribution channels that most people have never heard of. What I discovered completely changed how I approach growth strategy.
In this playbook, you'll learn:
Why the "test everything" approach is killing your growth
My exact framework for channel prioritization based on real client results
The one-channel focus strategy that 10x'd organic traffic for multiple clients
How to identify your unfair advantage channel in under 30 days
When to expand beyond your primary channel (and when it's a mistake)
This isn't theory from a growth hacking blog. This is what actually works when you're spending real money and need real results.
The Reality
What every startup founder gets wrong about channel testing
Walk into any startup accelerator or browse any growth marketing blog, and you'll hear the same advice repeated like gospel: "Test multiple channels simultaneously to find what works." The conventional wisdom looks something like this:
The Standard Multi-Channel Testing Approach:
Run Facebook ads, Google ads, and LinkedIn ads in parallel
Start SEO, content marketing, and email campaigns simultaneously
Test influencer partnerships, PR outreach, and community building
Allocate budget across 5-7 channels to "diversify risk"
Use attribution tools to track which channels are "working"
This advice exists because it sounds logical and feels safe. Venture capitalists love hearing about "diversified acquisition strategies." Marketing agencies love selling you on comprehensive multi-channel approaches. And there's always that one unicorn startup story about how they "cracked the code" by being everywhere at once.
The problem? This approach is systematically destroying startups. Here's why the conventional wisdom fails in practice:
First, it spreads your limited resources too thin. Most startups don't have unlimited budgets or massive teams. When you're testing seven channels with $1,000 each, you're not really testing anything - you're just wasting $7,000 across channels that need $5,000+ to show meaningful results.
Second, attribution is mostly fiction. Your tracking pixels lie to you. Customers don't follow linear paths. That "winning" Facebook ad might only be working because of the SEO content they read first, but you'll never know.
Third, and most importantly, it completely misses the point of what makes businesses actually grow: finding your unfair advantage and doubling down on it until you own that channel completely.
Consider me as your business complice.
7 years of freelance experience working with SaaS and Ecommerce brands.
I used to be a true believer in the multi-channel testing gospel. When I started working with a B2B SaaS client a few years back, I was convinced we needed to test everything. They were struggling with user acquisition, had a decent product, but were getting killed by better-funded competitors.
My brilliant strategy? Test Facebook ads, Google ads, LinkedIn campaigns, content marketing, SEO, email sequences, and partnership outreach all at the same time. We allocated budget across seven different channels, set up tracking for everything, and prepared to "let the data decide" which channels to focus on.
It was a complete disaster.
After three months and a significant budget burn, our results looked impressive on paper - we had data from seven different channels! But none of them were actually working. Facebook ads were getting clicks but no conversions. Google ads were too expensive for our unit economics. LinkedIn was generating leads, but they weren't converting to paid plans. SEO was "building" but showed no traffic impact yet.
The real problem became clear during a client call: we weren't testing channels at all. We were just spending small amounts of money on each channel and calling it "testing." None of the budgets were large enough to get meaningful results. None of the time investments were long enough to see real outcomes.
Meanwhile, I noticed something interesting in their "direct" traffic data. A significant portion of their best users were finding them through non-trackable means. After digging deeper, I discovered what was actually driving their highest-quality signups: the founder's personal LinkedIn content strategy.
People weren't clicking directly from LinkedIn posts to sign up. They were reading the founder's content, building trust over weeks or months, then typing the URL directly into their browser when they were ready to try the product. Our attribution tools were calling this "direct traffic," but it was actually the result of a systematic LinkedIn content strategy.
This discovery completely changed my approach to channel testing. The real growth driver was hiding in plain sight, but our multi-channel approach had us focusing on everything except what was actually working.
Here's my playbook
What I ended up doing and the results.
After this experience, I developed what I call the "One Channel Focus Framework" - a systematic approach to finding and dominating your best acquisition channel before even thinking about expanding.
Phase 1: Channel Archaeology (Week 1-2)
Before testing anything new, I audit where the best customers are actually coming from. Most businesses have attribution blind spots. I look for:
High "direct traffic" that might be misattributed organic social
Customer survey responses about how they first heard about you
Cohort analysis of highest LTV customers and their acquisition patterns
Founder/team activities that correlate with signup spikes
For that SaaS client, this archaeology revealed the LinkedIn content strategy was driving 60% of their highest-value signups, even though it was invisible in Google Analytics.
Phase 2: The Single Channel Deep Dive (Month 1-3)
Instead of testing multiple channels, we went all-in on the founder's LinkedIn strategy. Here's what we did:
We documented the founder's content calendar and posting strategy. We identified which types of posts drove the most engagement and traffic. We systematized the content creation process so it could scale beyond just the founder's personal time.
Most importantly, we built a proper tracking system. Since people weren't clicking directly from LinkedIn, we created LinkedIn-specific landing pages and UTM parameters. We used branded short links in LinkedIn posts. We set up email capture specifically for LinkedIn traffic.
The goal wasn't to "test" LinkedIn - it was to completely dominate it as an acquisition channel.
Phase 3: Channel Mastery Before Expansion (Month 4-6)
We didn't consider testing other channels until we had completely maxed out LinkedIn's potential. This meant:
Publishing consistently high-quality content 5x per week
Building a systematic engagement and networking strategy
Creating LinkedIn-specific lead magnets and conversion funnels
Tracking and optimizing every step of the LinkedIn → trial → paid conversion path
Only after we had a fully optimized, repeatable LinkedIn growth engine did we consider expanding to other channels. And when we did expand, we already had a template for channel mastery that we could apply elsewhere.
The Multi-Channel Evolution (Month 6+)
With LinkedIn generating predictable, scalable growth, we could finally test other channels intelligently. But instead of testing everything at once, we applied the same deep-dive approach:
We chose one additional channel (content SEO) and went all-in for 3 months. We implemented systematic review collection to support our LinkedIn strategy. We eventually added targeted advertising, but only after we had mastered organic channels first.
The key insight: each new channel built on the success of our primary channel rather than competing with it for resources and attention.
Focus First
Don't test 7 channels with $1K each. Test 1 channel with $7K until you either own it or prove it doesn't work.
Attribution Reality
Your tracking tools lie. Customer survey data and cohort analysis reveal more than any pixel ever will about what actually drives conversions.
Channel Mastery
Master your primary channel completely before expanding. Can you 3x your results in this channel before looking elsewhere?
Resource Multiplier
Each new channel should amplify your primary channel, not compete with it for attention and budget allocation.
The results of this focused approach were dramatic and measurable:
LinkedIn Channel Results (6 months):
Monthly signups increased from 40 to 180 (350% growth)
Trial-to-paid conversion rate improved from 8% to 15%
Cost per acquisition dropped from $120 to $45
Average customer LTV increased by 40% (higher quality leads)
The Compound Effect:
By month 6, our LinkedIn strategy was generating more qualified leads than all seven of our original "test" channels combined. More importantly, we had built a systematic, repeatable process that the client could scale internally.
When we eventually expanded to content SEO and other channels, we weren't starting from zero. We had a proven framework for channel mastery, a deep understanding of our ideal customer profile, and messaging that we knew converted.
The total customer acquisition cost across all channels ended up being 60% lower than our original multi-channel approach, while generating 4x more customers.
What I've learned and the mistakes I've made.
Sharing so you don't make them.
The Channel Testing Paradox:
The biggest lesson? The goal isn't to test more channels - it's to test fewer channels more deeply. Most businesses fail at channel testing because they're not actually testing anything. They're just spending small amounts of money and calling it experimentation.
Key Learnings from 50+ Channel Tests:
One dominant channel beats five mediocre ones every time - Focus creates compound advantages that diversification destroys
Attribution tools hide your best channels - The highest-quality acquisition often happens offline or across multiple touchpoints
Channel mastery takes 3-6 months minimum - If you're not willing to commit that long, don't start
Your founder's activities are often your best acquisition channel - Look for correlations between team behavior and signup spikes
Channels work better together when one is clearly primary - Secondary channels should amplify your primary channel, not compete with it
The best time to test new channels is when your primary channel is working predictably - Expansion from strength, not weakness
Customer surveys reveal more than analytics - Ask your best customers how they actually found you
When NOT to use this approach: If you're in a winner-take-all market with unlimited funding, the multi-channel approach might make sense. But for 95% of startups and growing businesses, the one-channel focus framework will outperform diversified testing every time.
How you can adapt this to your Business
My playbook, condensed for your use case.
For your SaaS / Startup
For SaaS startups, here's your channel testing playbook:
Start with founder-led content (LinkedIn, industry forums, podcasts)
Survey your best customers about discovery paths
Focus 100% budget on your #1 channel for 90 days
Only expand when primary channel is predictable and scalable
For your Ecommerce store
For ecommerce stores, apply the focus framework:
Audit where your highest LTV customers come from
Choose between paid social, SEO, or marketplace as primary channel
Master one channel completely before testing others
Use channel-specific landing pages for better tracking