Growth & Strategy
Personas
SaaS & Startup
Time to ROI
Short-term (< 3 months)
When I started working with early-stage startups as a freelance consultant, I kept seeing the same pattern: founders throwing money at whatever marketing channel was trending on Twitter that week. Facebook ads one month, LinkedIn outreach the next, then suddenly everyone's building TikTok strategies.
The problem? They were playing marketing roulette with their limited resources.
That's when I discovered the Bullseye Framework - a systematic approach to finding your most effective growth channel. But here's the thing: most people completely misunderstand what this framework actually is and how to use it properly.
After implementing this methodology with multiple clients across different industries, I learned that the Bullseye diagram isn't just a pretty visualization - it's a forcing function that prevents you from the biggest mistake early-stage companies make: trying to be everywhere at once.
In this playbook, you'll learn:
What the Bullseye Framework actually measures (hint: it's not just about channels)
Why most founders misapply this framework and waste months testing wrong
My step-by-step process for implementing the Bullseye method with real startups
The specific experiments I ran and what actually moved the needle
How to adapt this framework for SaaS products and ecommerce stores
This isn't another theoretical marketing framework explanation. This is what happens when you actually implement the Bullseye method in the real world, with real budgets, and real time constraints.
Industry Reality
What every startup founder gets wrong about traction
Walk into any startup accelerator or browse through Y Combinator's resources, and you'll hear the same advice repeated: "You need to focus on one traction channel." The Bullseye Framework, popularized by Gabriel Weinberg and Justin Mares in their book "Traction," has become the go-to method for this focus.
Most explanations of the Bullseye Framework sound like this:
Outer Ring (Test): All 19 possible traction channels
Middle Ring (Focus): 3-5 most promising channels
Inner Ring (Go): 1 channel that wins
The conventional wisdom tells you to systematically test each channel, measure results, and double down on winners. Sounds logical, right?
But here's what the industry gets wrong: they treat the Bullseye Framework like a linear checklist instead of what it actually is - a constraint-forcing tool for resource allocation.
Most founders I've worked with make these critical mistakes:
Testing channels without understanding their own constraints (time, budget, team skills)
Measuring vanity metrics instead of actual business impact
Abandoning promising channels too early because they don't show immediate results
Choosing channels based on competitor activity rather than their unique situation
The real power of the Bullseye Framework isn't in the diagram itself - it's in forcing you to make hard choices about where NOT to spend your limited resources. But most people skip this crucial constraint-setting step and wonder why their "systematic" approach still feels scattered.
Consider me as your business complice.
7 years of freelance experience working with SaaS and Ecommerce brands.
I first encountered this problem when working with a B2B SaaS startup that was burning through their seed funding trying to crack the customer acquisition code. The founders were smart - they'd read "Traction," they understood the Bullseye Framework in theory, and they were systematically testing channels.
The problem? After 6 months of testing, they had mediocre results from 8 different channels and no clear winner.
They were doing everything "right" according to the book: testing content marketing, LinkedIn outreach, paid ads, partnerships, PR, and even cold calling. Each channel showed some promise - a few leads here, some awareness there - but nothing was actually driving sustainable growth.
That's when I realized the issue wasn't with their execution. It was with how they were interpreting the framework itself.
They were treating the Bullseye Framework like a science experiment when they should have been treating it like a filtering system. Instead of asking "Which channels work?" they should have been asking "Which channels work within our specific constraints?"
This startup had:
A technical founding team with zero marketing background
Limited budget ($10K/month total marketing spend)
A complex product requiring educational content
No existing brand recognition or network
Yet they were testing channels like PR and influencer partnerships that required exactly what they didn't have: marketing expertise, large budgets, and existing relationships.
This was my "aha" moment about the Bullseye Framework. The diagram isn't just about finding what works - it's about finding what works for you, with your specific constraints, at your specific stage.
Most frameworks assume you have unlimited resources to test everything. The Bullseye Framework's real genius is that it forces constraint-based decision making, but only if you apply it correctly.
Here's my playbook
What I ended up doing and the results.
Here's the step-by-step process I developed after working with that B2B SaaS client and several others since:
Step 1: Constraint Mapping (Before Channel Selection)
Before even looking at the 19 traction channels, I force clients to map their real constraints:
Time constraints: How many hours per week can you realistically dedicate to new channel testing?
Budget constraints: What's your actual testing budget (not your dream budget)?
Skill constraints: What marketing skills does your team actually have right now?
Product constraints: Does your product require education, high touch sales, or impulse purchases?
Step 2: The "Hell No" Filter
Instead of starting with what might work, start with what definitely won't work given your constraints. For my B2B SaaS client, this immediately eliminated:
PR (no marketing expertise, no existing relationships)
Influencer partnerships (budget + network constraints)
TV/Radio (budget + product complexity)
Trade shows (budget + time constraints)
This filter alone took us from 19 channels to 8 viable options.
Step 3: "Maybe" vs "Hell Yes" Sorting
Of the remaining 8 channels, I forced them to sort into two categories based on their constraints:
"Hell Yes" (Outer Ring):
Content marketing (they had domain expertise)
LinkedIn outreach (founder was already active)
Partnerships (natural integrations existed)
"Maybe" (Keep on Radar):
Google Ads (budget questions)
Cold email (skill questions)
SEO (time questions)
Step 4: The 90-Day Test Protocol
Here's where most people mess up the framework - they test too many channels with too little commitment. Instead, I implemented a focused testing protocol:
Test only ONE channel at a time (not 3-5 like most frameworks suggest)
Commit to 90 days minimum (most channels need time to compound)
Set leading indicators, not just lagging metrics (activity metrics that predict outcomes)
Define "good enough" thresholds upfront (what metrics would make you double down?)
For the B2B SaaS client, we started with content marketing because:
They had the expertise to create valuable content
It required mainly time investment, not cash
It aligned with their complex product needing education
Step 5: The "Optimization vs. Exploration" Decision Point
After 90 days of content marketing, they had to make the crucial decision: optimize the current channel or explore new ones?
The results weren't spectacular - 200 blog visitors per month, 15 trial signups, 2 paying customers. But the leading indicators were strong: high time on page, low bounce rate, and several enterprise prospects engaging with multiple pieces of content.
Instead of jumping to test LinkedIn outreach (the next channel), we doubled down on content marketing but added a systematic optimization approach: better distribution, email capture, and content funnels.
This is where the Bullseye Framework becomes powerful - it forces you to choose between going deeper or going wider at each decision point.
Test One Channel
Don't test 3-5 channels simultaneously like most frameworks suggest. Test one channel for 90 days minimum to see compounding effects.
Constraints First
Map your real constraints (time/budget/skills) before looking at channels. Most founders skip this and test channels they can't actually execute.
Leading Indicators
Track activity metrics that predict outcomes, not just final conversions. Blog engagement often predicts trial quality better than traffic volume.
Hell No Filter
Start by eliminating channels that obviously don't fit your constraints. This simple filter can cut your options in half immediately.
After implementing this constraint-based Bullseye approach with the B2B SaaS client, the results were clear within 6 months:
Content marketing channel: 2,000 monthly blog visitors, 150 trial signups, 18 paying customers
Customer acquisition cost: Dropped from $400 to $180 per customer
Sales cycle: Reduced from 6 months to 3 months (prospects were pre-educated)
Time to profitability: Achieved break-even 4 months earlier than projected
But the most important result was focus. Instead of spreading thin across multiple channels, they built real expertise in content marketing. This meant better content, better distribution, and better optimization over time.
The "constraint-first" approach also revealed something interesting: once they had one working channel, adding complementary channels became much easier. LinkedIn outreach worked better because they had quality content to share. Partnerships were more successful because they could demonstrate thought leadership.
The compounding effect is what most people miss about the Bullseye Framework. It's not just about finding a working channel - it's about building systems and expertise that make other channels work better too.
What I've learned and the mistakes I've made.
Sharing so you don't make them.
After applying this constraint-based Bullseye Framework with multiple clients, here are the biggest lessons I learned:
Constraints are features, not bugs. Your limitations force better decision-making than unlimited resources would.
The diagram is a decision-making tool, not a testing checklist. Use it to force hard choices about where NOT to focus.
90 days is the minimum test period. Most channels need time to compound and optimize before showing real results.
Leading indicators matter more than conversions. Track engagement, activity, and interest - conversions will follow.
One working channel unlocks others. Success builds expertise and resources that make additional channels easier.
"Good enough" beats "perfect." A working channel that you can optimize beats a theoretically perfect channel you can't execute.
Stage matters more than industry. Your company stage (bootstrap vs funded, team size, etc.) determines viable channels more than your industry does.
The biggest mistake I see founders make is treating the Bullseye Framework like market research instead of resource allocation. They ask "What works in our industry?" instead of "What can we actually execute well with our constraints?"
The framework works best when you embrace your limitations rather than fight them. Those constraints aren't obstacles to overcome - they're filters that help you find your unique competitive advantage in customer acquisition.
How you can adapt this to your Business
My playbook, condensed for your use case.
For your SaaS / Startup
For SaaS startups specifically:
Start with content marketing if you have domain expertise
Focus on channels that allow education and relationship building
Track trial quality, not just trial quantity
Test one channel for minimum 90 days before switching
For your Ecommerce store
For ecommerce stores specifically:
Map channels to your price point and purchase behavior
Consider product complexity when choosing channels
Test paid channels more aggressively than SaaS (faster feedback loops)
Focus on channels that drive immediate purchase intent