Growth & Strategy
Personas
SaaS & Startup
Time to ROI
Medium-term (3-6 months)
OK, so here's the thing about the Bullseye Method that nobody talks about: it's not actually about finding the perfect marketing channel. It's about admitting you have no idea which channel will work and then systematically proving yourself wrong.
Most founders I work with come to me convinced they know exactly how to reach their customers. "We just need to nail our Facebook ads" or "SEO is obviously the answer." The problem? They're usually wrong. And by the time they figure that out, they've burned through months of runway and lost their competitive edge.
The Bullseye Method is basically the antidote to this founder delusion. Instead of betting everything on your best guess, you run cheap, fast experiments across multiple channels to find what actually moves the needle. Sounds simple, right? It's not. Most people completely mess up the execution.
I learned this the hard way working with a B2B SaaS client who was convinced LinkedIn was their golden ticket. Spoiler alert: their actual growth channel was something we almost didn't test. Here's what I learned about actually implementing the Bullseye Method in the real world:
Why the "obvious" channel choice is usually wrong
The 3-step process I use to prioritize which channels to test first
How to run cheap experiments that give you real data
Why most founders skip the most important step (the one that actually finds your growth channel)
The framework that helped my client go from guessing to actually knowing their best acquisition channel
Industry Reality
What Most Growth Advisors Tell You
If you've read any startup growth content, you've probably heard the same advice a thousand times. "Test everything." "Growth is just about finding your channel." "The Bullseye Method is simple - just try all 19 traction channels." Right.
Here's what the traditional advice looks like:
List all possible channels - Usually someone hands you a list of 19 channels from the Traction book
Score each channel - Rate them on some made-up criteria like "ease" and "potential"
Pick the top 3-5 - Test these simultaneously
Double down on what works - Pour resources into the "winning" channel
Scale until it stops working - Then repeat the process
This sounds logical. It's also completely wrong in practice. Why? Because it treats channel selection like a math problem when it's actually more like detective work. You're not just looking for any channel that works - you're looking for the channel where your specific audience actually hangs out and is ready to listen.
Most growth consultants treat the Bullseye Method like a checklist. Test Facebook ads for two weeks, try some cold outreach, maybe throw up a blog post, then declare that "content marketing doesn't work for our business." They're basically playing marketing roulette and wondering why they keep losing.
The real issue? They're optimizing for process instead of insight. They want to feel productive by testing lots of channels rather than actually understanding their customers deeply enough to predict where those customers might be found.
Consider me as your business complice.
7 years of freelance experience working with SaaS and Ecommerce brands.
So I had this B2B SaaS client - let's call them a project management tool for construction teams. Small company, maybe 50 paying customers, burning through runway trying to figure out growth. The founder was absolutely convinced that LinkedIn was going to be their breakthrough channel.
His logic seemed solid: construction project managers are on LinkedIn, they're business-focused, and there are tons of industry groups where he could share insights. He'd been posting content for months, running LinkedIn ads, trying to get featured in industry newsletters. The results? Basically nothing. A few trial signups here and there, but nobody was converting to paid.
When I started working with them, we had maybe 3-4 months of runway left. Not exactly the time for drawn-out distribution experiments. The founder wanted to double down on LinkedIn - "we just need to optimize our approach," he kept saying. Classic founder syndrome: when something isn't working, try harder instead of trying differently.
But here's what I learned from my previous experience with acquisition channels: the most obvious choice is usually wrong. Not because the logic is bad, but because if it's obvious to you, it's obvious to every other company trying to reach the same audience. You're competing in a red ocean.
The first thing I did was actually talk to their existing customers. Simple, right? Apparently, nobody had asked them where they typically discover new business tools. The answers were... surprising. Most had found the tool through very specific industry forums and communities that weren't on anyone's radar. Small, niche places where actual project managers were solving real problems.
This was my first hint that we were looking in completely the wrong places. LinkedIn felt "professional" and "business-y," but their actual customers were hanging out in much more focused, problem-specific communities.
Here's my playbook
What I ended up doing and the results.
OK, so here's the real Bullseye Method based on what actually worked, not what the textbooks say. This isn't about testing 19 channels systematically - it's about finding the handful of places where your customers actually are when they're ready to buy.
Step 1: Customer Channel Archaeology
Before you test anything, you need to understand where your best customers came from originally. Not where you think they should come from - where they actually came from. I spent two weeks interviewing their 20 most engaged customers. The questions weren't about the product - they were about information discovery:
"When you need to solve a work problem, where do you typically look first?"
"What industry resources do you check regularly?"
"Where do you go when LinkedIn doesn't have the answer?"
"How did you first hear about [specific tool] that you use at work?"
The pattern that emerged was fascinating. These project managers weren't discovering tools through traditional business channels. They were finding solutions in very specific industry forums, specialized Facebook groups, and even Reddit communities focused on construction technology.
Step 2: The Reality-Check Ranking
Instead of ranking channels based on "potential," I rank them based on three things: Customer Density (are our actual customers already there?), Competition Level (how crowded is it?), and Message-Market Fit (can we deliver value before asking for anything?).
For this client, LinkedIn scored high on "professional feel" but low on everything that actually mattered. The construction tech forums scored high on customer density (tons of project managers asking tool questions daily) and low on competition (almost no SaaS companies were participating meaningfully).
Step 3: The 48-Hour Minimum Viable Test
Here's where most people screw up the Bullseye Method: they design elaborate month-long experiments for each channel. That's expensive and slow. Instead, I design 48-hour tests that answer one simple question: "Is there any signal here at all?"
For the construction forums, our 48-hour test was simple: I had the founder spend 2 days genuinely helping people solve problems in these communities. No pitching, no product mentions - just useful advice. We tracked three things: engagement with his responses, private messages asking for more help, and whether people clicked through to his profile.
The results were immediate. Within 48 hours, he'd gotten more meaningful engagement than months on LinkedIn. People were DMing him for advice, asking follow-up questions, and naturally discovering the tool through his profile.
Step 4: The Scaling Experiment
Once we found signal, we designed a 2-week scaling experiment. Instead of jumping straight to "Let's build a huge content strategy for forums," we tested whether we could systematically generate the same results. The founder committed to spending 30 minutes daily in these communities, documenting what types of posts got engagement, which problems came up repeatedly, and how people responded to different types of help.
This wasn't about immediate sales - it was about understanding whether this channel could become a predictable source of qualified leads. Within two weeks, we had a playbook for generating consistent engagement and a pipeline of warm prospects who already trusted the founder's expertise.
Pattern Recognition
Look for where customers naturally gather to solve problems, not where business theory says they should be.
Competition Gaps
The best channels often feel "too small" or "unprofessional" compared to obvious choices like LinkedIn.
Signal Detection
A 48-hour engagement test tells you more than a month-long ad campaign about channel viability.
Scaling Evidence
Don't scale tactics - scale your understanding of what makes those tactics work in that specific environment.
The results from this approach were pretty dramatic. Within 6 weeks of focusing on these niche communities, they went from 2-3 trial signups per month to 15-20. More importantly, the trial-to-paid conversion rate doubled because these leads already understood the founder's expertise before trying the product.
But here's the part that really validated the approach: three months later, when we tested LinkedIn again with the same amount of effort, it still barely moved the needle. The difference wasn't the execution - it was that we'd found the channel where their actual customers were already looking for solutions.
The founder went from burning runway on "growth experiments" to having a predictable source of qualified leads. Not because we found some secret hack, but because we finally stopped guessing and started listening to where their customers actually were.
Six months later, 60% of their new customers were coming through this channel. They'd gone from desperately trying everything to having one really effective channel they understood deeply. That's what the Bullseye Method actually accomplishes when you do it right.
What I've learned and the mistakes I've made.
Sharing so you don't make them.
Here's what I learned about the Bullseye Method from actually implementing it, not just reading about it:
Customer interviews beat channel theory every time - Your customers are already solving the problem of finding solutions. Just ask them how.
The "best" channel feels wrong initially - If it felt obvious, everyone would already be there. Look for places that feel too small or niche.
Signal beats scale in early tests - You're not optimizing for immediate sales, you're looking for any indication that people care about what you're saying.
Engagement quality matters more than quantity - Ten people asking follow-up questions beats 100 people liking your post.
Most founders quit one step before breakthrough - The Bullseye Method isn't about finding channels that work immediately - it's about finding channels where you can build momentum.
Documentation is everything - If you can't explain why something worked, you can't scale it systematically.
One great channel beats three mediocre ones - Focus is more valuable than diversification in early-stage growth.
The biggest mistake I see founders make? They want the Bullseye Method to be a shortcut to growth. It's not. It's a shortcut to understanding - which then makes growth possible. But you have to be willing to go where the evidence leads, not where you want it to lead.
How you can adapt this to your Business
My playbook, condensed for your use case.
For your SaaS / Startup
SaaS Implementation Keys:
Interview your 10-20 most active users about information discovery habits
Test niche communities before broad platforms
Focus on providing value before promoting features
Track engagement quality over volume metrics
For your Ecommerce store
Ecommerce Implementation Keys:
Research where customers discover similar products naturally
Test visual-first platforms and community spaces
Lead with helpful content rather than product features
Measure conversation quality and return engagement