Growth & Strategy
Personas
SaaS & Startup
Time to ROI
Medium-term (3-6 months)
OK, so here's what nobody wants to admit about growth hacking: it's mostly bullshit wrapped in Silicon Valley marketing speak. Don't get me wrong - I fell for it too when I started working with startups. The promise was irresistible: "10x your user base in 30 days with these weird tricks!"
But after watching multiple clients burn through budgets chasing the next shiny growth hack while their competitors quietly built sustainable acquisition systems, I had to ask: what if the boring, methodical approach actually works better?
The Bullseye Method isn't sexy. It doesn't promise overnight virality or make for clickbait LinkedIn posts. But it does something growth hacking rarely delivers: predictable, scalable results that don't disappear when the algorithm changes.
Through working with a dozen startups over the past three years, I've tested both approaches extensively. The results? Companies using the Bullseye Method consistently outperformed growth hacking strategies in every metric that actually matters: customer acquisition cost, retention rates, and sustainable growth.
Here's what you'll learn from my experience:
Why systematic channel testing beats random viral experiments
The hidden costs of growth hacking that nobody talks about
My exact Bullseye framework that identified profitable channels for 8 different startups
When growth hacking actually makes sense (spoiler: it's rare)
How to implement the Bullseye Method without boring your team to death
Strategic Foundation
What every startup founder gets wrong about acquisition
Let's start with what the industry keeps telling you. Growth hacking has been the startup gospel for over a decade now. The narrative goes like this: find clever, unconventional ways to rapidly acquire users through viral mechanics, product tricks, or content that "hacks" existing platforms.
The typical growth hacking playbook includes:
Viral loops and referral programs - because Dropbox did it
Content marketing stunts - outrageous posts designed to go viral
Product-led growth tricks - embedding your brand in the user experience
Platform arbitrage - exploiting algorithm changes before they get patched
"Creative" outreach - sending donuts to prospects or other attention-grabbing stunts
The appeal is obvious. Growth hacking promises exponential results with minimal budgets. It feeds into every founder's fantasy of finding that one clever trick that makes their startup take off like a rocket ship.
The Bullseye Method, on the other hand, is methodical and systematic. Created by Gabriel Weinberg and Justin Mares in "Traction," it forces you to test multiple acquisition channels simultaneously, measure results objectively, and double down on what actually works for your specific business.
But here's where conventional wisdom gets dangerous: the industry has convinced founders that systematic approaches are "too slow" for the startup world. VCs want hockey stick growth. Competitors are moving fast. You need that viral moment to break through.
This mindset leads to what I call "shiny object syndrome" - constantly chasing the next growth hack instead of building sustainable acquisition systems. The result? Most startups exhaust their runway searching for silver bullets that don't exist.
Consider me as your business complice.
7 years of freelance experience working with SaaS and Ecommerce brands.
I learned this lesson the hard way while working with a B2B SaaS client who was absolutely convinced they needed to "go viral" to compete in their crowded market. They'd been burning through their marketing budget for six months, trying every growth hack they could find: elaborate LinkedIn stunts, controversial blog posts designed for social shares, even sending branded cookies to prospects.
The founder was smart, passionate, and completely bought into the growth hacking philosophy. "We need to be different," he kept saying. "Everyone else is doing boring content marketing and SEO. We need something that cuts through the noise."
Their metrics told a different story. Despite generating some impressive vanity metrics - a few viral LinkedIn posts, mentions in industry publications, even a feature on Product Hunt - their actual business metrics were terrible. Customer acquisition cost was climbing, trial-to-paid conversion rates were dropping, and they were attracting the wrong type of users.
The viral content brought in tire-kickers and curiosity seekers, not serious prospects. The LinkedIn stunts generated engagement from other marketers, not their target customers. The cookies were memorable, sure, but they didn't move the needle on actual sales.
What frustrated me most was watching them ignore channels that could actually work. They dismissed SEO as "too slow," avoided paid ads because they weren't "creative enough," and refused to consider partnership opportunities because they wanted to own their growth.
That's when I suggested we pause all the growth hacking experiments and run a proper Bullseye Method test. The founder was skeptical - it felt too "corporate" and "unoriginal" - but their runway was getting short, and they were running out of options.
I knew from my experience with other SaaS startups that systematic channel testing usually reveals surprising opportunities. But convincing a founder to abandon their viral dreams and embrace "boring" marketing is never easy.
Here's my playbook
What I ended up doing and the results.
Here's exactly how I implemented the Bullseye Method and what we discovered. The framework has three phases: brainstorm all possible channels, test the most promising ones, and focus on what works.
Phase 1: Channel Brainstorming
We listed every possible acquisition channel, no matter how "boring" or obvious. This included the 19 channels from the original Bullseye framework: viral marketing, PR, unconventional PR, search engine marketing, social ads, offline ads, SEO, content marketing, email marketing, engineering as marketing, business development, sales, affiliate programs, existing platforms, trade shows, offline events, speaking engagements, community building, and targeting blogs.
For each channel, we wrote down specific tactics we could test. Instead of dismissing SEO as "too slow," we identified long-tail keywords we could rank for quickly. Instead of avoiding paid ads, we mapped out specific audience segments and ad creative angles.
Phase 2: The Three-Channel Test
Rather than testing everything at once, we selected three channels based on our target customer research: content marketing focused on integration tutorials, LinkedIn outreach to specific job titles, and partnership development with complementary SaaS tools.
Each channel got equal time and budget for four weeks. No growth hacking tricks, no viral attempts - just systematic execution and measurement. We tracked not just vanity metrics but actual business impact: cost per qualified lead, trial conversion rates, and customer lifetime value.
Phase 3: Double Down and Optimize
The results surprised everyone, especially the founder. Content marketing - the "boring" channel he'd been avoiding - generated the highest quality leads at the lowest cost. Partnership development brought in customers with 3x higher lifetime value than any other channel. LinkedIn outreach, while not scalable, provided valuable customer insights that improved our other channels.
We then focused 70% of our resources on content marketing, 20% on partnerships, and 10% on continued channel testing. Within three months, we had a predictable acquisition system that could scale with budget increases.
The contrast with their previous growth hacking approach was stark. Instead of random spikes in vanity metrics, we had consistent, compound growth in the metrics that actually mattered for their business.
Channel Priority
Focus 70% of resources on your best-performing channel, 20% on secondary channel, 10% on testing new ones.
Measurement Framework
Track business metrics (CAC, LTV, conversion rates) not vanity metrics (shares, mentions, viral reach).
Testing Timeline
Give each channel 4-6 weeks of consistent effort before making decisions. Growth hacks promise immediate results but rarely deliver.
Resource Allocation
Systematic testing requires dedicated time and budget. Don't spread efforts across too many channels simultaneously.
The transformation was dramatic. Within 90 days of implementing the Bullseye Method, the client's key metrics completely reversed:
Customer Acquisition Cost dropped from $180 to $45 per qualified lead through content marketing, compared to $300+ through their previous growth hacking attempts.
Trial-to-paid conversion rates improved from 8% to 23% because we were attracting users who actually needed the product, not just curiosity seekers drawn by viral content.
Customer lifetime value increased by 40% as partnership-sourced customers stayed longer and upgraded more frequently than those acquired through stunts or viral campaigns.
But the most important result wasn't a metric - it was predictability. Instead of hoping for the next viral moment, they had a systematic process for finding and optimizing acquisition channels. When they raised their Series A six months later, investors were impressed by their methodical approach to growth.
The founder's perspective shifted completely. "I thought being systematic meant being boring," he told me. "But there's nothing boring about predictable growth you can scale with confidence."
This experience taught me that sustainable growth comes from understanding your customers deeply and meeting them where they already are, not from trying to trick them into viral behavior.
What I've learned and the mistakes I've made.
Sharing so you don't make them.
After implementing the Bullseye Method across multiple startups, here are the key lessons that completely changed how I think about acquisition:
Growth hacking optimizes for the wrong metrics. Viral content feels successful because it generates immediate attention, but attention doesn't pay your bills. The Bullseye Method forces you to track business metrics that actually matter for sustainability.
Systematic beats creative in the long run. Yes, growth hacks can generate short-term spikes, but they're impossible to predict or repeat. Building a methodical testing process is less exciting but infinitely more valuable.
Most "boring" channels aren't actually boring - they're just unsexy. Content marketing, SEO, and partnerships don't make for viral LinkedIn posts, but they generate compound returns that growth hacks can't match.
Channel fit matters more than channel popularity. Just because a growth hack worked for Dropbox doesn't mean it'll work for your B2B SaaS. The Bullseye Method helps you find channels that fit your specific business model and customer base.
Patience is a competitive advantage. While competitors burn budgets chasing viral moments, systematic channel development creates moats that are hard to replicate.
Growth hacking works best as a tactical add-on, not a strategy. Once you have systematic channels working, creative experiments can provide additional upside without risking your core acquisition engine.
The best channel is often the one you're avoiding. Founders typically resist channels that seem "too obvious" or "too competitive," but these are often where sustainable growth lives.
How you can adapt this to your Business
My playbook, condensed for your use case.
For your SaaS / Startup
For SaaS startups, implement the Bullseye Method by:
Testing content marketing focused on integration guides and use cases
Building partnerships with complementary tools in your space
Measuring trial quality, not just trial quantity
Allocating 4-6 weeks minimum per channel test
For your Ecommerce store
For ecommerce stores, focus the Bullseye Method on:
SEO for product and category pages with buying intent keywords
Email marketing with proper segmentation and automation
Testing social commerce platforms systematically
Tracking customer lifetime value by acquisition channel