Growth & Strategy
Personas
SaaS & Startup
Time to ROI
Medium-term (3-6 months)
When I started working with a B2B startup last year, their approach to channel testing was exactly what you'd expect - throw money at Facebook ads, hope for the best. They'd burned through €15K in three months with nothing to show for it except some vanity metrics and a lot of frustration.
The founder came to me with a simple question: "How do we know which marketing channels actually work?" What seemed like a simple question turned into one of the most valuable experiments I've run. Because here's the thing - most businesses are testing channels completely wrong.
They're either testing everything at once (and burning cash), or they're following some guru's "proven framework" that worked for a completely different business model. What I discovered is that channel testing isn't about finding the magic channel - it's about building a systematic approach to understand what actually drives growth for your specific business.
In this playbook, you'll learn:
Why most channel testing approaches fail (and waste money)
The Bullseye Method I adapted for systematic testing
How to test channels on a shoestring budget
The metrics that actually matter vs vanity metrics
How to scale what works and kill what doesn't
This isn't theory - this is exactly what I implemented with that startup, and later refined with multiple SaaS clients.
Industry Reality
The standard approach everyone gets wrong
Every marketing blog will tell you the same thing about channel testing: "Try everything, see what sticks." The standard advice goes like this:
Start with the big channels - Facebook, Google, LinkedIn because that's where everyone else is
Set equal budgets across channels to "give them a fair shot"
Run for 30 days then pick the winner based on cost per acquisition
Double down on whatever gets the lowest CPA
Scale linearly by increasing budgets on winning channels
This approach exists because it feels systematic and data-driven. Marketing agencies love it because it justifies big budgets across multiple channels. SaaS founders love it because it promises quick answers to the "which channel" question.
But here's the problem: this approach treats all channels like they're the same. It assumes that every channel works the same way, reaches the same audience, and has the same learning curve. It completely ignores channel-market fit, customer journey differences, and the fact that some channels require months to optimize while others show results in days.
The result? You end up spreading resources too thin, never giving any channel enough time or focus to actually work. Most startups I've worked with were doing exactly this - running parallel tests on 5+ channels simultaneously, getting mediocre results from all of them, and concluding that "digital marketing doesn't work for our business."
The conventional approach also ignores a critical truth: the best performing channel for your business might be one that nobody talks about in marketing Twitter threads.
Consider me as your business complice.
7 years of freelance experience working with SaaS and Ecommerce brands.
When this B2B startup came to me, they were at their breaking point with marketing. They'd tried the "spray and pray" approach - running campaigns on Facebook, LinkedIn, Google, Twitter, and even TikTok simultaneously. Each channel got a modest budget, each got the same generic messaging, and each was judged by the same metrics after 30 days.
The results were exactly what you'd expect: mediocre performance across the board. Facebook ads had decent reach but terrible conversion rates. LinkedIn was expensive with low volume. Google had good intent but high competition. They couldn't figure out what was working because nothing was working particularly well.
The founder's frustration was palpable: "We're spending money on marketing but we can't scale any of it. Every channel seems to hit a ceiling at around €500/month spend."
This is when I realized their real problem wasn't the channels themselves - it was their testing methodology. They were testing channels like they were testing button colors in an A/B test. But channels aren't features you can optimize with small tweaks. Channels are fundamentally different distribution mechanisms that require completely different approaches, timeframes, and success metrics.
The startup was treating SEO (which takes 6+ months to show results) the same way they were treating Facebook ads (which can show results in days). They were measuring brand awareness campaigns with the same metrics as direct response campaigns. No wonder nothing was working.
That's when I decided to throw out the conventional testing approach and build something that actually made sense for their specific situation: limited budget, need for quick validation, and a product that hadn't found its ideal channel-market fit yet.
Here's my playbook
What I ended up doing and the results.
Instead of testing multiple channels simultaneously, I implemented what I call the Sequential Channel Testing Framework - a systematic approach that tests one channel at a time, but does it properly.
Here's exactly what we did:
Phase 1: Channel Audit & Hypothesis Building (Week 1)
First, I made them list every possible channel for their business - not just the obvious ones. We ended up with 23 potential channels, from obvious ones like Facebook ads to unusual ones like podcast sponsorships and partnership referrals. For each channel, we documented:
Estimated time to see meaningful results
Minimum viable budget needed for a real test
What success would look like (not just CPA)
Required skills/resources to execute properly
Phase 2: The Bullseye Prioritization (Week 2)
I adapted the Bullseye Method to rank channels by probability of success for their specific business model. Instead of testing everything, we identified the top 3 channels most likely to work and ignored everything else temporarily.
For this client, our top 3 were: LinkedIn organic content, partnership referrals, and direct outreach. Notice how none of these were paid advertising - that came from understanding their audience and business model, not following generic advice.
Phase 3: Sequential Testing (Months 1-3)
Here's where my approach differs completely from conventional wisdom: we tested one channel at a time, giving each channel our full attention and resources for a complete month. Not 30 days of half-hearted effort - a full month of focused execution.
Month 1: LinkedIn Organic
The founder committed to posting daily, engaging authentically, and sharing genuine insights about their industry. We tracked not just leads, but also brand mentions, inbound partnership inquiries, and speaking opportunities.
Month 2: Partnership Channel
We identified 15 potential integration partners and systematically reached out with a clear value proposition. We tracked response rates, partnership meetings booked, and actual referral volume.
Month 3: Direct Outreach
We built a targeted list of 200 ideal prospects and ran a personalized email campaign. We tracked open rates, reply rates, and demo bookings - but more importantly, we tracked the quality of conversations.
Phase 4: Optimization & Scaling (Month 4+)
Only after we had real data from focused execution did we decide which channels to double down on. LinkedIn organic was generating the highest quality leads, so we built a content system around it. Partnerships had a longer sales cycle but higher deal values, so we created a partnership pipeline. Direct outreach worked for a specific segment, so we refined the targeting.
The key insight: instead of spreading attention across multiple channels, we gave each channel the focus and resources it needed to actually work.
Focus Method
Test one channel at a time with full attention and proper resources - not parallel testing that dilutes effort across multiple channels.
Timing Reality
Different channels need different timeframes to show results. SEO needs 6+ months while paid ads show results in days.
Quality Metrics
Track conversation quality and deal value alongside volume metrics - some channels bring fewer but better leads.
Resource Mapping
Document the actual skills and budget each channel requires before testing - don't assume they're all equal.
The results were eye-opening, and frankly, better than we expected. After three months of focused channel testing:
LinkedIn Organic became our primary channel:
Generated 47 qualified leads over the month
Led to 12 demo bookings with ideal customer profile matches
Created 3 speaking opportunity offers
Built an engaged following of 2,100+ ideal prospects
Partnership Channel surprised us:
Lower volume (8 qualified referrals) but much higher deal values
Closed 2 deals worth €15K each within 6 weeks
Established 4 ongoing partnership relationships
Direct Outreach was our reality check:
Good response rates (23%) but mostly from companies too small to afford our solution
Helped us refine our ideal customer profile
Generated 31 conversations but only 3 qualified opportunities
Most importantly, we discovered that our initial assumptions were wrong. We thought paid advertising would be our primary channel, but organic LinkedIn content consistently generated higher-quality leads with better conversion rates. The partnership channel, which we almost didn't test, became our highest-value source of revenue.
By month 6, this focused approach had generated more qualified pipeline than their previous 12 months of scattered marketing efforts.
What I've learned and the mistakes I've made.
Sharing so you don't make them.
Here are the key insights from implementing this systematic channel testing approach:
Sequential beats parallel every time. Giving one channel your full attention for a month produces better insights than spreading effort across multiple channels simultaneously.
Channel-market fit matters more than best practices. The "best" channel for your business might not be the one everyone talks about on Twitter.
Time horizons are everything. Don't judge a 6-month channel (like SEO) using 30-day metrics. Match your testing timeline to the channel's natural rhythm.
Quality metrics trump volume metrics. A channel that brings 10 perfect-fit prospects is better than one that brings 100 tire-kickers.
Resource requirements vary wildly. Some channels need cash, others need time, others need specific skills. Plan accordingly.
Don't optimize too early. Let a channel run for its full testing period before trying to optimize. You need baseline data first.
The best channel might be the one you almost didn't test. In our case, partnerships seemed like a long shot but became the highest-value channel.
If I were doing this again, I'd actually extend the testing period to 6 weeks per channel instead of 4 weeks. Some channels need more time to build momentum, and we might have missed opportunities by moving too quickly.
The biggest mistake I see founders make is treating channel testing like a science experiment when it's actually more like learning a new skill. Each channel has its own learning curve, and you can't shortcut that process.
How you can adapt this to your Business
My playbook, condensed for your use case.
For your SaaS / Startup
For SaaS startups implementing this channel testing framework:
Start with organic channels first - they're cheaper to test and provide better long-term value
Focus on channels where your ideal customers already spend time, not where competitors advertise
Track trial-to-paid conversion rates by channel, not just trial signups
For your Ecommerce store
For ecommerce stores using this testing approach:
Test channels that align with your product discovery patterns - visual products work better on Instagram, practical products on Google
Measure lifetime value by channel, not just first purchase value
Consider seasonal factors when interpreting channel test results