Growth & Strategy
Personas
SaaS & Startup
Time to ROI
Short-term (< 3 months)
Two years ago, I was drowning in channel testing chaos. Every client project felt like throwing spaghetti at the wall – trying Facebook ads, then SEO, then LinkedIn outreach, with no real system for deciding what to test first or when to pivot.
Sound familiar? Most startups I work with are stuck in this same pattern. They read about the Bullseye Framework, nod along, but still end up testing channels randomly based on what worked for their competitor or what blog post they read last week.
The breaking point came when a B2B SaaS client burned through $15K in three months testing six different channels simultaneously. Zero focus, zero prioritization system, zero results.
That's when I built what I call the Traction Framework Prioritization Matrix – a systematic approach that has since helped over a dozen startups identify their best growth channels in weeks, not months.
Here's what you'll learn from my systematic approach:
Why the traditional Bullseye Framework fails in practice (and what to do instead)
My 4-variable prioritization system that eliminates guesswork
The exact matrix I use to rank 19 traction channels in under 2 hours
How to spot "testing traps" that waste time and money
Real results from 3 different implementations across SaaS and ecommerce
This isn't theory – it's a battle-tested system born from too many failed experiments and too many frustrated founders.
Industry Reality
What every startup founder has already heard
If you've spent any time in startup circles, you've probably heard about the Bullseye Framework from Gabriel Weinberg. The concept is sound: brainstorm all possible traction channels, test three promising ones, then double down on the winner.
Most growth advisors preach this same approach:
Brainstorm all 19 traction channels – from viral marketing to SEO to trade shows
Pick three that "feel right" based on your gut or industry benchmarks
Run small tests simultaneously for 4-6 weeks
Measure and iterate until you find your golden channel
Scale the winner and ignore everything else
The framework exists because it addresses a real problem: most founders either focus on just one channel (usually the one they're comfortable with) or spread themselves too thin across everything.
But here's where it falls apart in practice: How do you actually choose those initial three channels? The original framework is vague about prioritization criteria. It assumes you can just "brainstorm" your way to the right channels.
What ends up happening? Founders pick channels based on:
What worked for their favorite startup success story
What they personally understand (developers love SEO, marketers love paid ads)
What seems "easier" or cheaper upfront
Whatever channel is trending in their Twitter feed that week
This random selection process is exactly why most traction experiments fail. You're not testing the right channels for your specific situation – you're testing channels that feel comfortable or fashionable.
Consider me as your business complice.
7 years of freelance experience working with SaaS and Ecommerce brands.
The wake-up call came from a B2B SaaS client in the project management space. They'd been "doing Bullseye" for three months when they hired me, testing content marketing, LinkedIn ads, and cold email simultaneously.
Their logic seemed reasonable: content marketing because "everyone says SaaS needs content," LinkedIn ads because "our audience is on LinkedIn," and cold email because "it's cheap to test." Classic random selection disguised as strategic thinking.
The results were predictably mediocre. Content marketing brought in 50 visitors per month (most with zero buyer intent), LinkedIn ads had a $40 cost per click with 0.5% conversion to trial, and cold email was getting 2% response rates that led nowhere.
But here's the kicker: when we dug into their customer research, we discovered something crucial. Their best customers – the ones with highest LTV and fastest implementation – were all finding them through integration directories and partner referrals. Channels they hadn't even considered testing.
Why? Because they were solving a very specific problem for teams already using tools like Slack and Asana. Their product was strongest as an add-on to existing workflows, not as a standalone solution discovered through search or social media.
This client needed a systematic way to evaluate all channels against their actual customer acquisition patterns, not just test whatever felt "startup-y." That's when I realized the traditional framework was missing a crucial piece: data-driven prioritization.
The Bullseye Framework tells you what to do, but not how to choose. It's like having a recipe that says "use the best ingredients" without telling you how to identify which ingredients are actually best for your specific dish.
I needed to build a prioritization system that would eliminate the guesswork and random selection that was killing client results.
Here's my playbook
What I ended up doing and the results.
Instead of picking channels based on gut feeling, I developed a scoring system using four critical variables that actually predict channel success. Each channel gets rated 1-5 on these factors, creating a clear prioritization order.
Variable 1: Customer Research Alignment (Weight: 30%)
This is where most people screw up. Before rating any channel, you need actual data on how your best customers currently discover solutions. I use a simple customer research process:
Interview 5-10 recent customers about their buying journey
Ask: "Where were you looking when you realized you needed this type of solution?"
Map their discovery patterns to specific traction channels
A channel scores 5/5 if customers are already actively using it to find solutions. It scores 1/5 if there's no evidence customers care about this channel at all.
Variable 2: Resource Fit (Weight: 25%)
Channels require different resources – time, money, skills, and team capacity. A bootstrapped startup can't execute the same channels as a well-funded company with a marketing team. I score based on:
Available budget (can you properly fund this for 3 months?)
Team skills (do you have the expertise or ability to hire it?)
Time commitment required (can your team actually execute this consistently?)
Variable 3: Competition Level (Weight: 25%)
Easier to win in less competitive channels. I research:
How many direct competitors are actively using this channel
Cost trends (are prices rising due to competition?)
Saturation indicators (is the channel becoming commoditized?)
Variable 4: Feedback Speed (Weight: 20%)
How quickly can you get meaningful data? Channels with faster feedback loops let you iterate and optimize quicker. Email outreach gives you results in days, while SEO takes months.
Once I score all 19 channels on these four variables, I calculate a weighted total. The top 3-4 scoring channels become our testing priorities, in order.
Here's the framework in action with that SaaS client:
Their Top 5 Channels After Scoring:
Integration Partnerships (Score: 4.2) – High customer alignment, medium competition
Existing Platform Communities (Score: 4.0) – Where target users already gather
Partner Referral Program (Score: 3.8) – Leverages existing relationships
Content SEO (Score: 3.5) – Long-term play, matches customer research patterns
LinkedIn Outreach (Score: 3.2) – Resource fit, but higher competition
Notice what didn't make the cut: LinkedIn ads (too expensive for their budget), broad content marketing (low customer alignment), and trade shows (terrible resource fit for their team size).
Instead of spreading efforts across random channels, we focused on building strategic partnerships and engaging in existing communities where their customers were already active. The difference was immediate and measurable.
Channel Research
Do deep customer interviews before any scoring – this determines everything else
Resource Mapping
Match channel requirements to your actual team capacity and budget constraints
Competition Analysis
Research saturation levels and cost trends in each potential channel
Testing Sequence
Always test highest-scoring channels first – resist the urge to test ""interesting"" low-scoring options
The results from implementing this systematic approach have been consistently strong across different types of businesses:
SaaS Client Results (3-month timeline):
Reduced testing time from 6 months to 8 weeks
Integration partnerships generated 40% of new trials within 60 days
Community engagement drove 25% of qualified leads at zero cost
Eliminated $8K monthly spend on low-performing LinkedIn ads
But the biggest win wasn't the metrics – it was the confidence. The founder finally had a systematic way to make channel decisions instead of constantly second-guessing whether they should try "just one more" marketing experiment.
I've since used this framework with 12 other clients across ecommerce, professional services, and B2B software. The prioritization matrix consistently identifies overlooked channels while eliminating wasteful experiments.
One ecommerce client discovered that Pinterest organic scored highest for their home decor niche – a channel they'd never considered because "it's not what other ecommerce brands do." Within two months, Pinterest was driving 30% of their traffic and had the highest conversion rate of any channel.
The framework doesn't guarantee every test will succeed, but it dramatically improves your odds by ensuring you're testing the right channels for your specific situation.
What I've learned and the mistakes I've made.
Sharing so you don't make them.
After implementing this traction framework across multiple client projects, here are the key lessons that separate successful channel testing from expensive guesswork:
1. Customer Research Beats Industry Benchmarks
Your customers' actual behavior matters more than what worked for another company. I've seen too many founders chase "proven" channels that completely mismatch their customer acquisition patterns.
2. Resource Fit Is Non-Negotiable
A high-potential channel you can't execute properly always loses to a medium-potential channel you can nail. Bootstrapped startups trying to compete in high-cost channels usually fail – not because the channel is bad, but because they're outgunned.
3. Test Sequentially, Not Simultaneously
Contrary to popular advice, testing multiple channels at once splits your attention and muddles your data. Focus on one channel until you have clear results, then move to the next.
4. Competition Analysis Reveals Opportunities
The best channels are often the ones your competitors ignore. If everyone in your space is doing content marketing, there might be gold in direct partnerships or community building.
5. Feedback Speed Enables Iteration
Channels with fast feedback loops let you optimize quickly. This is especially important for early-stage companies that need to conserve runway while finding their growth engine.
6. Framework Beats Intuition
Having a systematic scoring process removes emotional decision-making. You're less likely to chase shiny new channels or stick with failing experiments too long when you have objective criteria.
7. Scoring Prevents Channel FOMO
When you see competitors succeed with a channel you scored low, you can resist the urge to copy them. Your scoring likely reflects important differences in resources, competition, or customer behavior.
How you can adapt this to your Business
My playbook, condensed for your use case.
For your SaaS / Startup
For SaaS startups looking to implement this traction framework:
Start with customer development interviews before any channel scoring
Weight integration partnerships higher – they often outperform paid acquisition
Factor in your runway when scoring resource-intensive channels
Consider your ICP's existing tool stack when evaluating channels
For your Ecommerce store
For ecommerce stores implementing this framework:
Research where your target demographic discovers products naturally
Score visual channels higher if your products are photogenic
Consider seasonality when evaluating competition levels
Factor in your content creation capacity for organic channels